Saturday, September 28, 2013

Jared Taylor: The History of Race Relations is the History of Deadly Conflict

 
[See also: “Jared Taylor’s White Identity: A Review.”]
 
By Nicholas Stix

Jared is clearly delusional. Race doesn’t exist; therefore, racial conflict is an impossibility!

If the race-deniers really believed what they say, they would have to argue along the following lines:

• Race does not exist;

• Affirmative action presupposes the reality of race;

• Therefore, affirmative action cannot possibly be practiced.

Oddly enough, the most vehement race-deniers are all adamant supporters of affirmative action/diversity/whatever, i.e., racial spoils for non-white races. (To the degree that non-blacks get affirmative action, it is based on their being considered honorary blacks.)

Some critics would explain that the race-deniers, all of whom that I know of are white, are delusional. I have a simpler explanation: They’re liars. They know damned well that the races are real, and moreover, they are obsessed with that reality. But they deny the reality out of one side of their mouths that they obsessively, if only tacitly, affirm out of the other side, as a political tactic, in order to disarm and destroy other whites.

The race-denial/anti-racist movement is a communist front. Its proponents seek to impose a communist dictatorship on America, and see whites as the chief impediment to their goal. Thus, whites—except for the race-denialists, or so they think—must all either die, or disappear through racial intermarriage.
 

A Brief History of American Race Relations–Conflict is Inherent; Tragedy is Frequent
By Jared Taylor
September 27, 2013 at 7:33 p.m.
VDARE

Humans have an exquisite sensitivity to differences between their group and other groups. Group conflict is as old as our species. Humans are prepared to fight each other for all kinds of reasons: ethnicity, language, nationality, religion, and even for political reasons, but of all the kinds of conflict, racial conflict is the most chronic and difficult to control, and that’s because race is part of biology. It is immediately visible, and is usually an indicator of differences in behavior and culture and not just a difference in appearance.

Wherever you find people of more than one race trying to share the same territory, there is conflict….

The purpose of the colony [of Jamestown] was to find gold, but the intentions of the colonists towards the Indians were entirely benevolent. In fact, the English, aware of the Spanish reputation for brutality in the New World, consciously wanted to be different and better.

The English, moreover, had no preconceived notions of racial superiority, and saw the Indians—or “naturals” as they called them—as essentially no different from themselves. This was in direct contrast to their view of Moors or black Africans whom they did think of as aliens. Some of the Jamestown colonists believed that the “naturals” really were white people whose skin was dark because they painted themselves so often.

In any case, the 100 or so men who started the colony were very careful to find a place for their encampment that was unclaimed and uninhabited. They wished to cause no offense. The leader of the colony, Edward-Maria Wingfield, decreed that since the English came in peace, there would be no fortifications and no training in arms.

There was contact with the Indians, mostly peaceful but sometimes tense, and before the encampment was two weeks old, hundreds of Indians attacked the camp in an attempt to wipe out the colony. There were deaths on both sides, and the English would have been massacred if they had not panicked the Indians with cannon fire. It was only after this narrow escape that the English built the three-sided stockade so familiar to American school children.

The colony went through very hard times, but survived. Despite that bad start before the walls went up, the English genuinely tried to have good relations with the Indians, but to their disappointment, it was the tribes who were closest to them who liked them the least and the ones furthest away who were friendly and willing to trade. This seems to be a general principle of race relations: they are better at a distance....

[Read the whole thing here.]

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Mr. Jared,

As you know, humans have only one distinct race, based on the formal definition of race. I would like to know your rationale for separating humans into distinct groups? What parameters, for example, do you use in making the decision? If it is DNA, for example, what are the DNA threshold levels or genomic indicators, for Asians, Whites, Blacks, etc. I hear you "talk the talk" but if you really "walk the walk" please have your DNA analyzed, ASAP, for your genetic ethnic/racial affiliation and the results presented in this message board. Your response will be appreciated.