The Real White Man’s Burden

While perusing an article and its replies on the Right-Wing website D C Clothesline, I became intrigued by a running thread touting the role of the white race in “civilizing our planet”, its responsibility for the spiritual lives of other peoples, and its right to claim not only moral supremacy but also the spoils of “victory”. I suppose we could sum up this type of racism as the “Doctrine of White Supremacy”. Here is one thoroughly typical quote:

All the BS racist scumbags who whine like huge crybabies over “whatever privilege”! Did black people create the US culture, society, civilization? Did the indians? Did anybody but white folks bring the world to the place we are now? Any brain dead person can trace the ease of life to one thing and one thing only THE WHITE RACE! Look to africa and see what the negro race has created for themselves! Look to africa and see how they kill each other and love to live in shanties, then move here and create ghettos! WHITE PRIVILEGE”? YOU BET WHITE PRIVILEGE! IF THE WORLD WERE LEFT TO ANY OTHER RACE THE OUTCOME WOULD HAVE BEEN HUMAN EXTINCTION LONG AGO!

Obviously, this is racism at its worst. But I’ve noticed that bigots, if encouraged, tend to narrow even further their ranges of acceptance or tolerance. I guessed that the replier was white, male, elderly, and Anglo–like myself–so I suggested, in my own reply, that he go a step beyond and say: “If the world were left to any other nationality besides English or American, the outcome would have been human extinction”. The particular replier above was all too happy to take this assertion and run. In his next several responses he praised England’s colonization of much of our earth, but then held up America (he meant the United States) as the pinnacle of justified revolutionary fervor against such imperialism. The white race, of course, led the way, doing the hard work (but not necessarily physical, I suppose) to build our nation.

All races, including black people, have contributed to the life of this nation. Any real historical research will show that. And a search on Wikipedia (pretty reputable) will show it quickly.

The writer also left out the destructive legacy of white Europeans in the colonization of most of Africa. Though warring factions and nations have existed there since the birth of mankind, some native civilizations there were quite “civilized”–just not in terms of the possession and use of firearms to impose their will on other peoples. The “ease of life” the replier refers to is perhaps not as important as living life in peace, for which white Europeans have never shown a penchant. Their motives–brought about by the worship of Mammon–led to horrendous bloodshed, but they got their gold and diamonds and slaves.

The public rationale for such bloodshed, of course, was the “moral necessity” to “convert the savages” to Christianity. For this reason, the Church, both Catholic–for its collusion in the decimation or enslavement of native populations in Brazil, for example–and Protestant–for its collusion in the decimation of Native Americans in this country, for example–bears much responsibility.

It also bears much responsibility for the lasting influence of such rationalizing notions as the “White Man’s Burden”. Remember that old Biblical adage of “The sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons”? I suspect this is the real burden. One’s psyche can resist that assertion only as long as one denies they were sins at all–and that denial is often sanctioned, in practice, by the Church. Repression and suppression are the keys here.

Better to accept the guilt of one’s fathers–ancestors–and move on in the light of that awareness.

Kissinger’s “World Order” Versus Conspiracists’ “New World Order”

I have never been a fan of Henry Kissinger’s international- political theories, especially his own contribution to the Red-Scare policies that led to so much needless death during the Vietnam Era, but lately I’ve had to defend his use of the phrase “world order”. It seems that Right-Wingers have found another conspiracy in his use of those two words: an intellectual plutocratic elite plans to take over our planet by precipitating a series of disasters that will leave a power vacuum they can easily exploit. But any close reading of Kissinger shows that his “world order” and the “New World Order” of conspiracy theorists are two different concepts. Apparently the hacks guessed that most readers would equate the two if they just used a rhetorical setup. They were right.

Kissinger’s “world order” simply means the opposite of “a chaos-filled world”–what we have now. It would be a very gradual, evolutionary process away from the religious, cultural, and property disputes that have engendered bloodletting action and reaction for millennia. Think of “community order” or “classroom order”, but on a much larger scale. By definition, it requires some cooperation among human beings and, yes, some loss of freedom–like the community and the classroom. It has more to do with hope than conspiracy. Think of Rousseau’s “social contract”, in terms of political theory.

“New World Order” refers to a “draconian system of international governance”, as one hack put it, controlled by an oligarchy with corrupt and selfish interests–a “monetary and political manipulation”–that will essentially enslave the survivors of a “great culling” (another conspiracist’s phrase). This concept reeks of both paranoia and naiveté, often distorting the words of statesman and political pundit alike. The paranoia, many of us have surmised, is a subconscious reaction to this chaos- and terror-filled world, and the naiveté lies in the belief that the powerful few could actually cooperate and consolidate their power in such a manner. They haven’t done so, so far, have they?

We’re all looking for answers, but conspiracists and hacks who propagate such concepts as “New World Order” and then falsely equate it with phrases like “world order” do not help.

Self-fulfilling Prophecy and the End of the World

I’d urge readers to consider the phenomenon that social scientists have labeled “self-fulfilling prophecy”.

This term refers to the tendency of those who believe in a certain prophecy to act in such a way that they actually cause that prophecy to come true.

Think of the practice of “creative visualization” used by ambitious persons to help bring their goals into actuality.

This term refers not only to individuals but to entire groups–like Fundamentalist Christians and Islamic Extremists who live and work and behave (and often vote) in such ways that they bring our world that much closer to Armageddon.

The supreme irony is that these people claim that “the devil made me do it” or “I know that God wills it”, while God is waiting to see what mankind will do with the freedom and power He has given to us. Will we do the right things?

Probably not, but, in any case, we ourselves bear the responsibility for our actions and their consequences.

EVEN THE END OF THE WORLD.