"The Same Old Song," by Alpha Unit

Since I’ve been here I’ve seen several instances of a White person telling the story of how he used to be liberal or egalitarian when it comes to race – and then he saw the light.
He came to realize that there are, in fact, serious differences among races. That a lot of the politically unpalatable stuff said about Blacks is…true.
The way they describe this new-found recognition of innate Black deviance, you can almost hear the sigh of relief. “Now I can criticize Black people out loud. And there’s a whole community of people just like me out there with whom I can share stories and vent all my frustration.”
A “race realist” has just emerged from the Liberal Womb.
Only it’s not really that impressive.
The most hardcore post-slavery racists saw themselves as “realists” when it came to race. Some of them mocked people – especially well-intentioned Northerners – who were trying to assist in the advancement of Blacks. In belittling such efforts, their amused attitude regarding “the Negro” was, “God save him from his friends!”
They had the entirely “realistic” view that there was only so much that could be done for “the Negro,” and that White people had their hands full just trying to deal with the very real likelihood that “the Negro” among them would revert to his natural savagery, inflicting ruin on decent White society.
These latter-day race realists are heirs to a really old tradition. Blacks who lived through the worst of Jim Crow would instantly recognize “race realism.” And so would Whites who lived through it, I’m assuming. Is there anything about this new mindset that’s different from what others have believed since the founding of the republic?

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

0 thoughts on “"The Same Old Song," by Alpha Unit”

  1. Interesting. I believe that such a phenomenon is a classic case of confirmation bias. All people, myself included, who harbor bias, then seek out people from certain groups who fit that bias.
    When we do find a person who fits that stereotype (ie. an aggressive black person, a wealthy Jew, a studious Asian, etc, etc), we then say “Aha! I knew they were like that!”
    In many ways, however, the impulse you described is a resentful and reactionary one. Many whites are annoyed with the way certain blacks behave, and only become more resentful when they’re told that such resentments make them “ignorant bigots.”
    They are also reacting negatively to what they see as the notion that contact fosters racial harmony, and that people are only bigoted because they’ve never had contact with such groups. When they espouse bigotry after they have contact with blacks, they come across as having greater credibility than whites who live in places like Oregon or Iowa.
    Such attitudes are also a reaction to PC cultural Marxism, in addition to old school racism.

    1. It’s perfectly understandable that people would be annoyed by bad behavior.
      For some reason, people see a lot of bad behavior on the part of Blacks as “Black behavior.”

    2. For some reason, people see a lot of bad behavior on the part of Blacks as “Black behavior.”
      In many ways, that’s true. But what you have to understand is that all different groups of humans are biased. We’re more likely to view our own groups as diverse while we see other groups as a monolith.
      While I don’t believe that race is a biological reality, we are a very tribal species by nature. Once the categories have been determined, we’re more likely to favor our group.
      As a white advocate, I find nothing wrong with that.
      At the same time, I believe many stereotypes are taken way too far.

    3. Sure, people tend to be tribal. I know firsthand that if you go against the dictates of the “tribe,” you pay a certain price.
      But the whole notion of “tribal loyalty” is exaggerated, and some of its biggest advocates demonstrate by their personal conduct that it is readily set aside when “necessary.”

    4. But the whole notion of “tribal loyalty” is exaggerated, and some of its biggest advocates demonstrate by their personal conduct that it is readily set aside when “necessary.”
      Absolutely. I never said that tribal loyalty is the only inborn quality in humans. In my opinion, self-interest trumps tribal loyalty.
      That’s why you see blacks such as Clarence Thomas and Larry Elder, whites such as Tim Wise and Robert Jensen, Hispanics such as Linda Chavez, and Asians such as Michelle Malkin.
      Many people are quite willing to sell out their tribe if it means gaining something.

    5. The thing is, I think of tribal thinking as anti-progressive. And by “progressive” I don’t mean in the political sense of the word, but in the sense of our evolution as a species. While I do acknowledge the tribal nature of people, I don’t view it as a good thing or something to be embraced. I think humans that can throw off tribal instincts are more evolved.
      I remember living in an east coast city when you had all these ethic enclave neighborhoods. The Polish had their own area, the Italians there own streets, the blacks their own area, the Puerto Ricans, the Jews, the Irish. I really hate that kind of stuff. I really don’t understand people who only want to associate with their own group.
      Moving beyond tribalism is how we develop empathy for other people, and the ability to put ourselves in the shoes of others and work for mutually satisfactory goals. Take the classic tribal clash of culture, the perennial Arab-Israeli conflict. Neither seems to have the ability to empathize with the problems of the other, nor the ability to work together for common aims. Now contrast that to what MLK did during the Civil Rights movement(as opposed to the Black Panthers and Nation of Islam of the time that promoted racial tribalism). Appealing to universal themes such as the brotherhood of mankind was far more effective and progressive.

    6. We’re not talking about the same thing. Many people who publicly espouse tribal loyalty do not actually practice it. I don’t think the people you named fit into that category, do they?

    7. We’re not talking about the same thing. Many people who publicly espouse tribal loyalty do not actually practice it. I don’t think the people you named fit into that category, do they?
      I guess I should have clarified. What I meant was that sometimes tribal loyalty is trumped or even totally suspended in favor of self-interest.
      Personally, I do not know what goes on in those peoples’ minds. Could they secretly be loyal to their group? Who knows? However, the fact remains that their actions betray their tribe.

    8. OK. You seem to be saying that it is preferable to practice tribal loyalty, and that people who don’t practice it deserve to be criticized for it.

    9. OK. You seem to be saying that it is preferable to practice tribal loyalty, and that people who don’t practice it deserve to be criticized for it.
      Basically.

    10. Ideally, then, should races remain separate?
      Yes, in many ways they should. I don’t say this because I’m some old school segregationist that wants blacks to sit in the back of the bus. While I believe that race, ethnicity, religion, language, and culture are all social constructs, once the boundaries have been established, then mixing people from different groups often results in great conflict.
      Yes, I do realize that various groups are already here, and that they aren’t leaving anytime soon. I also say all of this with the understanding that cross cultural contact has resulted in great innovations in music, food, and speech.
      I’m simply impatient with the current state of racial affairs. Since we already more or less live segregated lives, we might as well stop forcing people to live with those they don’t like or trust, and allow them to enjoy self-determination. Other attempts to promote an egalitarian, multiracial society will not succeed.
      I know that I sound cynical and perhaps unreasonable. I just wish there were better solutions out there.

    11. Other than school busing in certain places, where is there forced integration, as in shoving a bunch of people together that don’t want to be together?

    12. Other than school busing in certain places, where is there forced integration, as in shoving a bunch of people together that don’t want to be together?
      I guess I’m mainly referring to busing and school integration. However, I don’t believe that anyone should be forced to mingle with those they don’t wish to mingle with (to the extent that they are forced)

  2. Only it’s not really that impressive.

    Well, I beg to differ. I went through a public school system full of “niggas” and unionized teachers preaching their left wing tripe. I even believed some of it because I knew of no other alternative viewpoints. You’re not going to get them in the mainstream media or the school system. Only through the internet was I able to learn about these forbidden topics (ie, race and IQ and Holocaust revisionism).
    It’s feels pretty good to know about things that the majority of people are completely unaware of. But you also feel isolated because you can’t utter a word of it in public.

    1. From your perspective, it’s impressive. I can see that.
      But a lot of the views espoused by converts to “race realism” are very familiar to people who study history. That’s what I mean when I say it’s not impressive.

    2. Looking at your last name, I’m surprised at your views on the holocaust.
      Lol! I was thinking the very same thing. Still, just as there are self-hating whites like Robert Jensen, I’m sure there are many self-hating Jews.
      Although I guess the term “self-hating Jew” is primarily what neo-cons call anti-Israel Jews who object to pro-Israel policies.
      Who knows? Maybe he genuinely believes in holocaust revisionism without any Jewish self-hatred.

    3. Emanuel Goldstein is a character in George Orwell’s 1984, the “bad guy” on whom the totalitarian state blames all the ills of the society. By taking that name, our own EG is trying to suggest that he’s a Heroic Teller of Unpopular Truths, and that society unfairly blames and victimizes Nazis. He probably also enjoys the mindf**k of a Nazi w/ a Jewish nick as well…

  3. Oh yeah, and he also really wants us to know that he’s not iggerant white trash coz he reads Great Literature, see? At least the first 20 pages of it. Have I nailed it?

  4. I came to HBD from liberalism when I became active in my workplace’s labor union, whose leadership was primarily blacks from the generation that few went to college. They were the ones who almost certainly would have gone to college had they been a generation younger. It was pretty obvious that they couldn’t run a 5-person office to medium expectations of functionality and many of our meetings just degenerated into shouting among the blacks.
    Unlike a lot of HBD/race realist types, I fully support the 1960’s anti-discrimination laws as a necessary part of insuring that our country is a republic with basic rights assured to everyone, and not an unfettered democracy in which the majority can vote to makes lesser citizens of the minority. My current view of how race realism should be implemented, I try to put into terms that a lot of people might find acceptable: affirmative action did what it could and should — removed race as a barrier for the people to whom race per se was their barrier — but neither AA nor anything else whites can do will substantially eliminate fatherlessness, rampant crime, low priority on education, and a general view that living well is not the best revenge. We need to redirect any societal effort to help blacks into areas that will improve pathological behaviors and away from those based on assumptions that unequal results are prima facie evidence of unequal opportunities.
    The implication of the one standard deviation difference in IQ is that the top half of blacks should line up reasonably well with the middle half of whites; the 25-50th percentile of blacks should about equal the bottom quarter of whites. But there would be almost no whites except the congenitally retarded that line up with the bottom quarter of blacks and almost no blacks equal to the top 25% of whites. I’d say this is about right — trailer parks are not as bad as ghettos and there are almost no Barrack Obama’s and Neil deGrasse Tysons in intellectually elite positions purely on merit.

    1. “It was pretty obvious that they couldn’t run a 5-person office to medium expectations of functionality and many of our meetings just degenerated into shouting among the blacks.”
      And that’s because of genes??
      “and there are almost no Barrack Obama’s and Neil deGrasse Tysons in intellectually elite positions purely on merit.”
      I doubt that.

  5. That connection, (and the possible added tinge of guilt by association 😉 ) are not “new” either.
    You could say that what’s “new” about race realism, in its Twen First Cen form is that it exists based on carefully gathered data, rather than anecdote and in contradistinction to the currently prevailing paradigm (no innate or even cultural differences of any substance in personality or mental capacity which drive anything to any degree of importance whatsoever). That that prevailing paradigm is also one that makes claims about the ethnic group from which “race realists” come from which are not flattering and are to an extent specifically designed to be unfalsifiable, unlike the climate in which their antecedents thrived. You could also say that it is distinct in that it comes with no specific bundled policies that explicitly include laws which take into account racial information and that it is unconnected with any specifically exploitative policies generally, that it is instead, in its political form, largely motivated by a desire to be left alone by people who would otherwise demand guilt tribute for things that never actually have happened or will ever happen.
    But I don’t really understand why anything needs to be “new”. “Race realism” is not under any obligation to be “new”.
    We don’t need to strive for “new” – we need to strive for “true”. Our laws and paradigm are obliged to be as true as we can make them. They’re not obliged to be as novel as we can make them even if this takes them away from truth.
    I mean, read your argument. “Group Y claims that being realistic about X and basing your world view as relates to X on data is a good idea. But Group Z in the past have also claimed that you should base your ideas about X on reality also! So what is new about this? What is impressive about basing your ideas about X on reality rather than fiction?”. I just don’t get what you are trying to say. Basing your ideas about how the world works on reality is objectively good. “Race realism” is surely objectively better than “Race fantasy” simply by definition? Surely any sort of attempt to have a “reality based worldview” is impressive by definition when contrasted against one which is not?

    1. Yes, being realistic about race is preferable to being unrealistic about it. Also, your summary of my argument is not quite my argument.
      I agree with you that basing your ideas about how the world works on reality is objectively good. I don’t know that the race realists of either yesterday or today are doing that.
      You say that the current type of race realism was largely motivated by a desire to be left alone by people demanding “guilt tribute.” Are you referring to Whites and Blacks? Do Whites wish to demonstrate that they have nothing to feel guilty about in their dealings with Blacks?

  6. Yeah, sorry about that. I’m not intending to go against a straw man here. As I say I’m still not really quite sure what your argument is. Where do my presentation of your argument and your argument diverge?
    When I say basing your ideas of the world on reality, I really only mean basing your ideas of what the world “Is” on what is “Is”. But what the world is doesn’t strongly tell you what you ought to do, even if it limits your options. I think “race realists” certainly try, harder than most at least, to do the former. They often don’t really seem to do the latter much, even though that seems to be a strongly recurring theme to your posts here, and which I imagine is the sense in which you are critiquing them.
    I think Whites may wish to demonstrate that they have nothing to feel guilty about in their dealings with Blacks, but I’m skeptical that their behavior is driven primarily by any kind of signaling, if you’re implying that. I think that’s driven by the fact that they genuinely do not wish to feel any guilt about their dealings with Blacks and that they regard it as wrong and emotionally destructive for people to be seen as/held responsible for things that they have not even had any role in. Perhaps this is a overly rosy view?
    I maybe should not have said “guilt tribute”. That you call that out specifically actually makes me think that perhaps it is more about social dominance and shaming than economic drain. Most people are affluent and make stupid economic choices anyway, so is it really plausible that they care about this little bit of productivity?Economics is the way that race realists often tend to explain their arguments, as ultimately being about economics and restrictions of economic competitiveness that ultimately hurt everyone in society.

    1. I don’t take for granted that the race realists of either yesterday or today base their world view on “reality.” That’s where your argument diverges from mine.
      You’re telling me that race realists are concerned with protecting their emotional health, and that this concerns issues of guilt and responsibility toward Blacks. I would say that the race realists of the past had similar motivations.
      Economics may be used to explain some of these arguments, but race realism didn’t originate from a desire to enhance economic competitiveness, did it?

      1. I’m not sure they do base their views on “reality”, since noone perceives reality 100% accurately and whatever value of reality/bias/error qualifies as that “reality” for you is probably a moving goalpost (it definitely would be for me if I was making your argument, not that I think you’re dishonest, but just because it would be easy to argue that way), but their views clearly approach reality more clearly than anti-hereditarian wishful thinking. And if anti-hereditarian wishful thinking and not even counting is the standard then that’s impressive. And it’s impressive also because if they are using an argument from data, you can use an argument from data against them when you encounter their own wishful thinking.
        Yes, I think White race realists are concerned with protecting their mental health (and the mental health of the “White race”), but not because they are people who are hiding from reality which is harsh and disturbing, but because living in a reality composed of lies is injurious to your mental health, because they feel it’s right to oppose this and they recognise this. Maybe this is just my bias talking, that I merely don’t want the group of which I am part to feel guilty and be shamed. Or maybe that’s just a bias that I wouldn’t be surprised that you would hold.
        I guess, from my perspective at least, the way an argument originates is fairly irrelevant to the justifications of its present form. I don’t really care what the ideological antecedents of “race realists” thought, just what they presently do think and crucially, whether it is true rather than why they sought it out. I think they may well descend from self serving bias and concerns with injustice rather than purely disinterested contemplation of reality. Who cares if they’re still true? You can’t base your view of the world on the ignoring facts that other people hold ultimately because they became interested in them due to self serving bias even if they are true and you can’t condemn movements that are based on self-serving bias, even if they are clearly just and true, on that basis, or suggest that they should be ignored. Movements based on facts are more impressive than ones which aren’t, and you can’t ever attempt to hide that behind the biases and motivations of the people in that movement.

      2. I think I understand what you mean.
        My world view is quite different from yours. People’s motives can be instructive if you want to know what their intentions are, or what they are trying to accomplish with their use of “the facts.”

    2. I agree AU. Look, we live in a society founded by whites, for whites. Racism is as much a part of this society’s cultural fabric as oxygen is a part of our atmosphere. It was founded on white privilege and it still exists. Whites have always been in denial about it. You can go back generations and find polls during Jim Crow where whites indicated that they felt blacks had it good and complained too much. Even during slavery blacks were stereotyped as happy go lucky, forever singing and grinning in the fields. Whites have always been clueless about their racism and systemic privilege. We tire of hearing how blacks that make it to the top got a free ride. As blacks we know, and we are taught this as kids, that to make it, you have to work twice as hard as a white and be even BETTER to compensates for people’s perceptions and expectations. For example, Obama had to be much smarter and seem much nicer and be much more articulate than McCain to win. McCain and Palin had the freedom to come off as angry and bitter. If Obama showed any anger then he becomes, “the angry black man” and of course nothing scares the shit out of whites more than an angry black man. They even tried to pull that crap on Michelle and stereotype her as an angry black woman with a chip on her shoulder, even though in reality she has seemed nothing but entirely sweet. That’s the type of shit blacks have to deal with day in and day out. Given the clusterfuck that the GOP has become, Obama should’ve won by a landslide, and I have no doubt he would have had the races of the candidate been reversed.
      Blacks have their problems, and a lot of issues we face will be resolved once those internal problems have been addressed. On the other hand, Alpha is right too with regards to these white so called “race realists”. Many of them falsely assume that their biased world view is an objective one. Look at that Portland Bus Driver guy. He just stormed in here calling himself a race realist. Before you know it, that loon is claiming the Egyptians were white, that virtually all blacks hate white people and compared me to Hitler. Me, a man that’s as anti-racist as it gets and who actually likes Jews. Race realism in many cases is just racism re-branded and a denial of the existence of white privilege. In that sense, it’s nothing new.

  7. To Tulio:
    Look, we live in a society founded by whites, for whites.
    Which doesn’t stop East and South Asians from out pacing Whites academically nor does it stop South Asians and second generation East Asians from making more money on average, than Whites.
    As blacks we know, and we are taught this as kids, that to make it, you have to work twice as hard as a white and be even BETTER to compensates for people’s perceptions and expectations.
    If that is the case, then wouldn’t it follow that a business that is owned and staffed by Blacks do much better than a business owned and staffed by Whites..?
    Can you give examples (in your opinion..) of White privilege, as opposed to say class privilege..? For various I do not accept your example of McCain/Obama. (The real contest, if there was any privilege, was between Clinton and Obama…)

    1. Here’s a few examples:
      http://jimbuie.blogs.com/journal/2007/11/50-examples-of-.html
      To me, one of the ways that I feel it most is that whites are free to be judged as individuals ALL THE TIME, no matter what their behavior. If a white acts bad, he’s a bad individual and it has no reflection on his race. If a black acts bad, it’s because he’s black. Whites have the privilege of being defined by the best people in their race. Blacks get automatically defined by the worst people in their race. Therefore ghetto blacks are considered “real” blacks, or they are “acting black”, but nobody will say white trash types are authentic whites or that they “act white”. They are just viewed as a subset of white people defined by their class more than their race. Whereas ghetto blacks are defined by race more than class. It gets tiring having to feel like you are a constant racial ambassador. That you always have to be on your best behavior because if you move to slowly, you are a lazy black. If you get stuck in traffic and show up 10 minutes late to work, you are the black that rolls in to work whenever he wants. If you say something not smart, you are a dumb black, if you make a sexual comment, you are a hyper-sexed black, if you get angry, you are now a another angry black with a chip on his shoulder(Obama had to avoid ever showing any anger in the campaign for this reason). If you say something out loud, you are another loud, jiving black. Sometimes you are in a hurry for some reason and need to run through a crowd, but you know the site of a black man running through a crowd of whites will scare people and make someone think you just snatched a purse. Whites can just do what they want and know it will never reflect on their race in any way. That’s a luxury. We don’t have it. Do you see what I’m saying now?

      1. How many times have I heard “Most pedophiles are white.”? Or, “Whiteboys, can’t dance, can’t box.” White people are judged by their race as well. If I said the next Olympic 100m dash champion would be white, what would you say? Referring to us as boys is perfectly acceptable by the way.
        Nobody has the luxury of being an individual anymore because we are all obsessed with race.

  8. To Tulio:
    To me, one of the ways that I feel it most is that whites are free to be judged as individuals ALL THE TIME, no matter what their behavior. If a white acts bad, he’s a bad individual and it has no reflection on his race. If a black acts bad, it’s because he’s black. Whites have the privilege of being defined by the best people in their race. Blacks get automatically defined by the worst people in their race.
    You’re in Southern Cal, aren’t you..? About 30% White..? Do you feel you get this treatment from groups other than Whites..? (Presumably, you don’t get this treatment from other Blacks..)
    Whites have the privilege of being defined by the best people in their race.
    I guarantee you I have been treated like absolute crap by other Whites (I could give you many many examples…) and by other races (Ditto..) so it certainly isn’t like Whites get the benefit all of the time.

    1. Whites have the privilege of being defined by the best people in their race.
      That I don’t agree with. We certainly have that privilege more so than blacks, but I hardly think that whites are defined by the best people in our group.
      Throughout my life, I’ve seen whites defined as racist and genocidal brutes, school shooters, corporate thugs, idiot middle Americans, pedophiles, lousy athletes, etc.
      Sure, I admit that when it comes to stereotypes, whites have it nowhere near as bad as blacks. I also acknowledge that whites enjoy more advantages and can avoid fewer headaches than blacks (well, for now at least).
      Still, I don’t think that “white privilege” is the suffocating and all powerful force that some make it out to be. Does it exist to a certain extent? Sure. However, I didn’t exactly have much fun being white as an adolescent spending time around non-whites at school.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *