“In my view, white people around the world have precisely ZERO interest in reigning supreme over anyone but themselves. Rather than white supremacy, racially motivated trump voters were voting for the ethnic and cultural survival of those of European descent, which is to say, pursuing nothing more than what everyone else has. This is a HUMAN reaction, not an exclusively white one.”
The gross mischaracterization (or maybe genuine ignorance) displayed in the article headline posted above regarding why people voted trump is, ironically, mostly why they did vote Trump. There were many elements to the Trump success, and the demographics of his voters suggest race was indeed one of them, but certainly not the only one. Not by a long shot. I do admit that among many (though not all) white voters, race was the central aspect to this election. Though to call it “white supremacy” is precisely the sort of tunnel visioned detachment from reality that makes anti-conspiracy theorists like myself start wondering whether these elites are being this obtuse to further some actual agenda, but I digress.
Among those white voters who were motivated by issues of race, it was certainly not a superiority complex. Its possible that there was not a single race/ethnic motivated voter who cast their ballet for trump to pursue an agenda of “white supremacy”. In my view, white people around the world have precisely ZERO interest in reigning supreme over anyone but themselves. Rather than white supremacy, racially motivated trump voters were voting for the ethnic and cultural survival of those of European descent, which is to say, pursuing nothing more than what everyone else has. This is a HUMAN reaction, not an exclusively white one. By the American left’s own categories of “white” and “people of colour”, which of these two groups is a tiny global minority that may actually cease to be a majority in their ethnic homelands? The vast majority of the world is occupied exclusively by “people of colour”, whereas the small slivers still primarily retained by people of European descent, are likely to cease being white majorities within one or two generations. This would permanently break tens of thousands of years of the ethnic and cultural history, which define the characters of those countries.
Now, unlike the left, I grant that “people of colour” is an overly simplistic term that means nothing, since the histories of people of East Asian, Middle Eastern, and black African descent are so fundamentally different, that to put them in the same category could only make sense when defining them as a collective “other” in relation to white people, which is to say, being extremely ethno-centric. To break the categories up into more realistic (though I grant still very simplistic terms) those of East Asian descent have many highly populated countries with ethnic majorities, as do middle easterners. Black Africans may be the most successful demographic group in human history, as not only are most countries they inhabit basically 100 percent homogenous (in terms of black African descent) but their population growth may make Africa the most populous continent on Earth.
To be clear, I am not against permeable boarders, in which people of all backgrounds, ethnicities and races should be able to live comfortably together. An open world in which people of all backgrounds can understand each other and recognize common humanity FIRST is a wonderfully desirable objective. The red carpet should be provided to those willing and able to move to other countries, as ethnic minorities, and contribute to their new societies. However, I do not believe that hounding a specific ethnic group into defensive posturing, by flooding them with members of different ethnicities and cultures, and then calling them “supremacists” for wanting nothing more than what their would-be replacers have everywhere else, even approaches a logically consistent effort at achieving a world in which all people focus on common humanity.
No feedback yet
Form is loading...