Main Page - Latest News

Submit a news story.

The Atlantic: Anti-Racism Debate


By Hunter Wallace

The Atlantic is having a big debate on anti-racism.

Conor Friedersdorf, the cuckservative, argues in favor of an anti-racism based on colorblindness and individualism and warns that spurring White racial consciousness could backfire and lead to White identity politics:

“But I worry that the overall effect of encouraging white people to put whiteness rather than color-blindness or individualism at the center of their identity will be to swell and empower a faction in U.S. politics that Trump’s rise has helped to highlight. As the billionaire candidate climbed in the polls, Evan Osnos happened to be reporting on white nationalists, a tiny but nevertheless alarming portion of Trump’s base. …”

Adia Harvey Wingfield, a progressive sociologist at Washington University, takes the opposite view and argues in favor of a color conscious anti-racism that embues Whites with a purely negative sense of White identity:

“Many sociologists, though, are extremely critical of colorblindness as an ideology. They argue that as the mechanisms that reproduce racial inequality have become more covert and obscure than they were during the era of open, legal segregation, the language of explicit racism has given way to a discourse of colorblindness. But they fear that the refusal to take public note of race actually allows people to ignore manifestations of persistent discrimination. …”

As someone who has no sympathy for “anti-racism,” I can see merit in both sides of this argument. When it comes to “whiteness studies,” there are some college students who will be inclined to believe what they are taught when they are exposed to it. These are the types who become SJWs. At the same time, there are college students who will take offense to it and react against it. These are the types who become WNs.

Years ago, I was exposed to “whiteness studies” while in college, not directly through my coursework, but through checking out the latest books arriving in the library. It left quite an impression on me. I became aware for the first time that there were people out there who had a major axe to grind against White people. In hindsight, that was definitely a major factor that pushed me into the WN camp.

If I had to choose between fighting “colorblindness” or “color conscious” anti-racism though, I would much rather fight the SJWs. In my experience, “colorblindness” anti-racism has far greater appeal to ordinary White people. It is far more insidious and harder to root out because it is based on a utopian outlook, not extreme self hatred. Just look at the way it has infected the Southern heritage movement.

SJWs are far more extreme in their “anti-racism.” They are more abrasive and their version of “anti-racism” is much more polarizing. It will repel far more people and send them running in the opposite direction. As Friedersdorf points out, I think we are starting to see that in the people who are gravitating toward Trump. Both versions of anti-racism are destructive to White identity, but the mushy, muddleheaded middle which we have had since the 1960 is more dangerous to our survival than two hostile camps.