PREFACE

Racism can and will be conquered in the United States. It is certainly not permanent. In some future time, the destruction of American racism will seem as inevitable as the destruction of the slave economy of the Southern states, communism in the Soviet Union, and apartheid in South Africa. Racism ultimately destroys itself because it creates inefficient and cruel economic systems that, in the long run, cannot compete with less corrupt economies. With the gradual disappearance of apartheid in South Africa, the United States is the world's most racist nation, but it will not be able to continue this status for long.

What we need is a successful strategy to destroy racism. In the recent past, the primary successful strategy was that of Martin Luther King, Jr. King saw the South as so racist that it could not change by itself. So he sought help from outside the South, primarily from the other regions of the nation. We can apply the philosophy of King to today's racism. Following King's logic, we see the United States as a whole as so racist that it cannot change by itself. So we must seek assistance from outside the country, namely from the world community. We the authors cannot hope to be another Martin Luther King. But we can try to play the role of Vernon Johns to the next generation, preparing the way for the next civil rights movement.

Commentators almost universally see the current civil rights situation as grim. Even the liberal Bill Clinton talks more like a conservative than a liberal on civil rights. It is said that we face a new "sophisticated" racism. This racism is anything but sophisticated. It is only sophisticated in that most white and black Americans believe in what we term equality-of-opportunity racism, instead of an equality-of-results actuality. The liberal version of equality-of-opportunity is that America is a great democracy whose social structure and values are based on an equality-of-opportunity structure, and that although there is room for improvement, the game is basically fair. Conservatives maintain that since the game is fair, the white and black middle class has its relatively privileged position because the middle class earned it. And, by inference, those black and white members of the lower class have failed to earn higher positions. Liberals qualify this belief by stressing such programs as affirmative action, but do not fundamentally disagree with the conservatives. After all, liberals see racism as a dilemma for American society, rather than seeing the talk of equality of opportunity as a cover for racism.

One of the reasons for the continuance of racism in the United States is that Americans, both black and white, do not realize how fully racist is the United States. The United States is racist in its social structure, culture, values, and ideas. The racism of America is justified by an equality-of-opportunity racism that in turn excuses the continuance of a long-outmoded laissez-faire capitalism, white middle-class-dominated democracy and rigid moralism. The main political alternatives in the United States are all inadequate in dealing with racism. The conservatives promote their conservative version of the equality-of-opportunity racism, while the liberals respond with a liberal equality-of-opportunity racism. And the Marxists condemn themselves to ineffectiveness by claiming that racism is primarily derivative of capitalism.

Today's situation is actually more difficult that the one faced by Dr. King. The whole United States has come to act like the South as the number of blacks in the different states has increased. Most Americans are now determined equality-of-opportunity racists, making it more difficult to find allies for the next civil rights movement. In the 1960s there was always the knowledge that there were many blacks, plus many northern liberals as well, who supported the cause of racial justice. Now, however, liberals seem devoted so strongly to equality-of-opportunity racism that there is little prospect of change at the moment. The bankruptcy of equality-of-opportunity liberal racism is no more apparent than its failure to provide any hope for a change in the amount of racism in the United States. If the analyses of the liberals were so accurate, then why have both residential and school segregation along racial lines increased since the late 1960s?

American liberals are not fond of being called racists, even if this racism is an equality-of-opportunity racism. Liberals, however, should remember how they use the same adjective when they talk about conservatives. Indeed, the main justification for the current "politically correct" liberal doctrine is that it is a major weapon used to fight the racism of the opponents of liberalism.

A Personal Note

This book grew out of a desire to learn more about the Mid- Atlantic region, where the authors live. The result of this interest was a book entitled Discovering the Mid-Atlantic: Historical Tours. While doing the research for the book, the one thing that really amazed and puzzled the main author was the similarity between the Puritan religion of the New England states and the culture of the United States today. It occurred to the author that America's value system had not really changed, despite considerable industrialization, and post-industrialization. This naturally led to a search for the reasons for this lack of progress. The search gradually led to a factor, believe it or not, underemphasized by American social thinkers, race. This in turn led to a search for the reasons why Americans deny the role of race, when it is so important to American society and politics. The findings of this study actually shocked the authors. We knew America was racist, but this was more of a cliche than a useful theory. We did not realize how racist America actually was and continues to be.

It was actually an advantage for the authors to have been brought up in the South, for we knew that Southern society was based on lies and violence. Therefore, we were better prepared when we moved north, not to be fooled by a more sophisticated racism. We thought we would find a much less racially conscious society in the North. But, while Northerners are more subtle in their racism, we find that, like Southerners, they are largely racist in nature. As with our conversations in the South, white discussions of race in the North focus on why American society should not or cannot change. It is clear to us that white Americans have yet to make even a nominal commitment to remedy racism. Instead, white Americans concentrate on denying the seriousness of the situation. And currently most black intellectuals are cooperating with racism by endorsing various versions of multicultural separatism. Nevertheless, one thing seems clear. If the United States does not work to end racism, it will continue to fall behind other industrialized nations in all aspects of life.

This book is certainly not "politically correct." The version of political correctness that now dominates the better universities is a straitjacket on the minds and souls of scholars and should be renounced. Worse, this form of thought control is often used as a cover for discrimination against thought that is different, either from the right or the left of liberalism. It certainly hides the fact that "political correctness" is actually a form of racial separatism.

Although it took nearly three years to realize, it finally dawned on us that America will not publish this work. Frankly, they are frightened of the works' theses. Reading and listening to the objections of middle class editors to the work is a classic illustration of how sophisticated racism operates in America. And the objections reflect all the major themes of racism: laissez-faire capitalism, middle class pseudo-democracy and rigid moralism. The argument proceeds in the following manner. They claim that both black and white people will not purchase the book because the message of the thorough and complete racism of Americans will upset them. (Translation: Americans are racists who will not purchase books that blame the middle class itself for the continuance of racism.)

Isn't it curious that in a straightforwardly racist nation, there are no racists? The real estate agents that show black customers to houses only in non-white areas, say they are not racist. It is just that they live in a racist society where whites do not want blacks living in their neighborhoods. The bank officers who turn down black applicants for loans fiercely maintain they are not racist. Everyone knows that blacks have a harder time repaying loans. The bank officers did not create this reality. And editors at university presses who turn down manuscripts critical of racism maintain that they personally are not racist. After all, they did not create racism. It's not their fault. But if the publishing industry refuses to publish works that are critical of the middle class, then that class will never be challenged to end its racism. The end result is to create a circular argument that insures the continuance of racism. (One clear sign of the power of a group is whether or not one can criticize it. Apparently, in America one cannot criticize the middle class.)

Because American liberals are equality-of-opportunity racists, their commentary cannot be taken too seriously, at least as far as non-racist scholarship is concerned. And yet the old, and new multicultural, liberals so dominate our universities and media institutions that they can censor any dissent from the equality-of-opportunity model. This is the situation in which the authors of this book found themselves. We have written the first non-equality-of-opportunity racist book explaining American society, government, and history, and yet precisely because it is not accepting of equality-of-opportunity racism, liberals refuse to publish it.

Of course, liberals will never admit they are motivated by racism. (These days, who will admit they are racist, except a few K.K.K. extremists?) We tried all types of publishers. We tried Marxists, Marxist-Leninist, radical-liberal, both white and black liberal, and middle-of-the-road publishers. Most of them gave us no reason for refusing to publish the book (undoubtedly, the safest policy for censors). Some editors commented on the large amount of history in a sociological book. But if we had not put a great deal of history in the book, the editors would have said that we had not proved our point that American history follows a pattern dictated by the political demands of the racist white middle class.

Our pre-written book was to be published by a radical-liberal publisher. We received great reviews from at least four radical reviewers. But as the book was about to be published, the copy editor became upset with the book's message and called the publisher to complain. The publisher, General Hall, Inc., refused to communicate with us after this, despite the existence of a contract. We learned that to sue a publisher would cost between $20 and $30 thousand. Our only alternative was to take the publisher to the American Arbitration Association. The publisher had to pay us $1,500 for the extra work on the manuscript requested by the radical-liberal editor, and $1,500 to the association for administrative expenses. To make a long story short, we had to publish the work ourselves. We are looking for the brave few who will abandon politically correct equality-of-opportunity racism.

 

Back to Main Page Table of Contents

Return to Home Page