Extreme Goal: The End of “Whiteness”

For quite some time I have been puzzled by candidate Obama’s vow to “fundamentally transform the United States”, but I am puzzled no more. Based on my readings of the practitioners and preachers of Progressivism and the purveyors of the “social justice” theme, I have become convinced that the “end-game” is in plain sight. That extreme goal is the total eradication of the cultural construct that has been assigned the pejorative term “whiteness”.

I first encountered this term in James Cone’s writings on Black Liberation Theology and since then in other papers such as “social justice” activist Judy Helfand’s “Constructing Whiteness”.

First, those who are uninitiated in matters of social justice and ethnic studies, you have to understand that “whiteness” and the color of one’s skin are not synonymous, although, in the view of such individuals as Cone, Helfand, and Dr. Jeremiah Wright, that would have been the case in the eighteenth century when our constitution was composed. Ms Helfand’s definition of “whiteness”, which is probably as good as any, is;

a body of knowledge, ideologies, norms, and particular practices that have been constructed over the history of the American colonies and the U.S. with roots in European history as well. The knowledge, ideologies, norms and practices of whiteness affect how we think about race, what we see when we look at certain physical characteristics, how we build our own racial identities, how we operate in the world, and what we “know” about our place in it. Whiteness is shaped and maintained by the full array of social institutions – legal, economic, political, educational, religious, and cultural.

In other words, “whiteness” is a codified world view which has as its central tenet, the subjection of “non-qualifying persons” to exploitation at the hands of those who are deemed white.

Referencing Theodore Allen (“The Invention of the White Race”, vols 1&2), Ms Helfand goes on to say

the knowledge, ideologies, norms, and practices of whiteness and the accompanying ‘white race’ were invented in the U.S. as part of a system of racial oppression designed to solve a particular problem in colonial Virginia. Prior to that time, although Europeans recognized differences in the color of human skin, they did not categorize themselves as white. I will provide more detail later. For now, the important element of his (Theodore Allen) theory is that whiteness serves to preserve the position of a ruling white elite who benefit economically from the labor of other white people and people of color. Whiteness, as knowledge, ideology, norms, and practices, determines who qualifies as ‘white’ and maintains a race and class hierarchy in which the group of people who qualify as white disproportionately control power and resources, and within that group of white people, a small minority of elite control most of the group’s power and resources.

Ms Helfand goes on to say that

most agree that racial oppression is a key element in whiteness and that, as a group, white people do benefit disproportionally (sic) from the race and class hierarchy maintained by whiteness.

It should be pointed out before going any further that “non-qualifying persons” were not always exclusively persons of color, such as Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans. During various periods in the history of the United States, certain ethnic and religious immigrant groups, such as the Irish, Italians, Jews, and Catholics, were categorized as “non-white” by the predominantly white, Anglo/Saxton, Protestant (WASPs) cultural leaders and general population. As a result, these groups of “non-whites” formed a large part of the American common labor underclass and congregated in closed communities and ghettos in metropolitan areas. It was out of their perceived – and often real – sense of discrimination and denial of rights that unions and other organized forms of anti-“whiteness” originated in the U.S.

Eventually, there was a coalescence of all of the manifestations of anti-“whiteness” ideologies, including those who we would today classify as “white”, creating the united forces of organized labor and racial/ethnic/religious identities. A close look at the racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse makeup of the Obama administration, all joined in common cause with the goal of eliminating “whiteness” from the national consciousness, gives clear evidence of this. Furthermore, the forces of anti-“whiteness” can be both confused and conflated with other ideological persuasions such as socialism, communism, and progressivism, but the concept of “whiteness” is a uniquely American version of the ubiquitous class warfare that has existed from time immemorial.

The problem is that “whiteness” – at least in the minds of the aggrieved – is woven so completely throughout the fabric of our Constitution and a system of government built around the core values of Judeo/Christian morality and personal responsibility that it will require nothing less than the complete unraveling of our traditional way of life to remove that thread and re-weave a societal fabric without a trace of the “whiteness” thread. In fact, the eradication of “whiteness” is the purest definition of Obama’s intent when he said that he was going to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

I have no intention of making this a commentary on racism in America. We all know that racism and bigotry are a part of our history, and, as a nation, we’ve repented of those sins and made every effort to excise them from our national culture. What I will not agree to, however, is that such evils have anything to do whatsoever with the color of one’s skin. Those are traits that are common to all ages and to all races as a consequence of the universal and immutable condition of unregenerate human nature.

Oppression will exist as long as mankind exists. If “whiteness” were able to be eliminated, oppression would simply appear in the form of some other host, such as an all-controlling government, but there will always be the “elite” who have the power to determine the fate of other less powerful persons. As it has been said, “Demographics is destiny”, so you know where this is going.

What I want to focus on here is the clarity that this understanding of “whiteness” brings to our present circumstances and the perspective of the Obama administration. A prime example of this perspective is the insulting treatment that President Obama gave England’s Prime Minister and, of course, the cheap gifts and the return of the bust of Winston Churchill which had resided in a place of honor in the White House for decades. This behavior is perfectly in keeping with the fact that the colonies were initially populated by the English, and it was white, Anglo/Saxton, protestant, men who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

In Obama’s mind, it was with these men, acting in the interest of their own kind, that the “knowledge, ideologies, norms, and practices of whiteness” in the form of property rights, religious practices, class distinctions, and slavery, originated. Hence, the British are as culpable as our Founders in the creation and perpetuation of “whiteness”, and therefore, deserve no better treatment.

Of course, there is gross hypocrisy here on the part of the anti-“whiteness” folks, because it was the English, in the persons of William Wilberforce, a member of Parliament, and William Pitt, the Prime Minister, who, by relentlessly pursuing “social justice” for twenty four years, brought an end to the British slave trade. The President’s continual apologizing for America’s past in foreign venues totally ignores the righteous side of our history and is just one more indicator of the anti-“whiteness” mindset which was cultivated through his association with Marxists and Black Liberation theologians, right up until he transitioned into the campaign mode in 2007. Try as he might, he cannot hide his ideological conditioning.

If you view our free-market capitalism from the perspective of the anti-“whiteness” crowd, it makes perfect sense that the administration should first gain control of all of the functions of society and then purge the system of any vestiges of “whiteness”. Politically, this will mean the aggregation and expansion of the aggrieved groups into a block-voting majority by such means as “open-border and amnesty” immigration policies and the reacquisition and redistribution of lands and wealth unfairly gained by individuals operating without restraint within a culture defined by the precepts of “whiteness”. There will be reparations and reverse discrimination until social and economic distinctions are eliminated.

Religion – particularly that which preaches self-reliance and personal responsibility – will be dismissed as bigotry. Scriptural mandates, such as the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman and the condemnation of the practice of homosexual behavior (marriage being intended to illustrate the relationship of Jesus Christ and His bride, the church, and homosexuality being condemned as a perversion of that relationship) will be banned as “hate speech”.

The anti-“whiteness” theologians believe that the Christianity of “whiteness” was designed specifically to keep the non-whites submissive and docile so that they would “turn the other cheek” rather than revolt against their oppressors. And by the way, I believe that this mentality is the reason that Obama has been unable to identify with a church in Washington. If he associated with one such as Dr. Wright’s, which teaches that Jesus Christ was a dark-skinned New Testament version of Che Guevara, that would be politically damaging, and if he joined one of the main stream Christian churches, that would violate his belief system and offend his like-minded constituents.

So, this is what we’re facing under the Obama administration, but even if he were to be defeated in 2012, the push will still continue to eradicate “whiteness” by the members of the coalition of the “aggrieved”. There will be anti-“whiteness” ideology taught in our schools to destroy the concept of American exceptionalism and relegate the Constitution as an outdated document with no present value. There will be ever-stronger attempts to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and allow unrestricted immigration from third-world – mostly Hispanic persons-of-color – to enlarge the population of the aggrieved. All societal restraints on same-sex relationships and abortion will be vacated and the traditional family will be attacked by every means possible so that it becomes the state’s prerogative to determine the values and history taught to our children in public schools.

In any case, once you understand the implications and potency of the” whiteness” issue, and how pervasive and deeply ingrained it is in a large segment of our population, you’ll find it hard to sleep at night. At least I do. It’s going to be impossible to” walk this cat backward” and the path forward cannot continue without a cataclysmic clash of cultures. Justice is one thing, and I’m totally committed to that in my personal and professional life, but the “fundamental transformation” of the Constitutionally-based United States is something that I’ll fight long and hard to prevent taking place. My children, my grandchildren, and my enchanting great-granddaughter, deserve nothing less.

Share

Comments

  1. Gail B. says:

    Randy–very thought-provoking piece! Excellent!

    Things make sense to me now. It went much deeper than I had thought. Neither one of us will do much sleeping now.

  2. Mount Vernon admirer says:

    Last paragraph…. I am with you Randy. My grandson doesn’t deserve this nonsense.

  3. Ian R Thorpe says:

    What Ms Helfand has overlooked is that the “whiteness” she writes of originates in northern India. The evidence though not conclusive strongly suggests what we call the celtic / gothic culture was established in India by the late neolithic age and spread over the next few millennia north and west through the fertile cresent (modern Iraq, Kurdistan and Turkey, around the Black Sea and on westwards through Europe.

    If Martin Luther King had been aware of that he might have thought things through more carefully before dreaming up his black consciousness ideas. But then if he had know what Arabs and people of the Indian sub continent call sub-Saharan Africans he might have had second thoughts even sooner.

    Even in Africa there is no such thing as a common culture. Obama’s adopted tribe, the Luo share territory with the Bantu tribes, the Kikuyu, Meru and Embu. The Luo take a very Arabic line on women, regarding them as the property of men. Among the Luo and some other tribes of East Africa, Somalia in particular, the primitive belief persists that if a woman has been penetrated by a man who is not of her tribe, her womb is tainted and her children can never be full members of the tribal society. This is why rape is used as a weapon of war in tribal conflicts.

    In the Bantu tribes, the Kikuyu especially, in common with the ancient pagan Europeans, property and status are passed through the female line and a woman is much more the mistress of her own destiny. It is quite acceptable for a married Kikuyu woman to have male “friends.”

    So much for common consciousness. Black Americans would do much better to embrace “Americanness” as incomers from our former British colonies have embraced Britishness.” There are still people in Britain who will not accept anybody with darker skin as one of us but then there are people who will not accept anybody who lives on the other side of the street as their equal. That’s human nature and we are stuck with it.

  4. Chicago PD, come on says:

    Nice photo, I wonder if Donald Young was in the congregation that day. Google it people.

  5. Lilly says:

    Thanks Randy but I’m going to have to re-read this when I’m not cooking dinner. I’m sure I may have a few questions.

  6. carter says:

    omg, I get it now.

  7. Randy Wills says:

    For one person to say “I get it now” makes it all worthwhile to me.

    Thanks, Carter.

    I wonder if I really made it clear enough, however, that I beleive that those who are driving the anti-”whiteness” campaign know perfectly well that it can’t be done incrementally. It will take a chaotic collapse (or complete rending of the fabric) to create an environment suitable for “totally transforming” the country. I think that we are being driven to that climax. I hope that I’m wrong, but nothing else makes sense. There are too many lies being told about our economic condition and our ability to recover.

    Randy

  8. TNelson says:

    Interesting take, but why give any critics ammo over nothing? “the return of the bust of Winston Churchill which had resided in a place of honor in the White House for decades.” Decades? Really? Actually no, it was given to Bush by Tony Blair after the 9/11 attacks…this is as far as I’ve gotten and already! Why give dolts like Talking Meat reason to call you the ‘L’ word for somehing that adds nothing but ‘flourish’ to your commentary.

    C’mon guys..we’re better than that!

  9. Linda B. says:

    Randy! What a great piece and how well you explained “Whiteness”. This is so true. I recently worked with a young black woman who came from the admin pool and was given a job far above her level of competency. I tried hard to explain the job, but she gazed out the window. At one point she actually accused the entire office of being racist even though we had several very competent, intelligent black supervisors who could not tolerate her either. She finally left this job and got another (government) job at an even higher level. She was thoroughly indoctrinated in the “Whiteness” school of thought. However, she could not spell nor write and she wanted the big responsibility job without putting out any effort. I think it is most tragic for these people since they are again enslaved by a concept and cannot see the big picture. They then become the pawns of the enemies of this country.

    I do believe you are also correct in your assessment of where we are going – chaotic collapse. This is what Obama is trying to facilitate when he and his cronies say never let a crisis go to waste. I believe if National Health Care is passed, there will be a revolt. I think many states will attempt to break free from federal control and many will quit work or withhold taxes. I believe Health Care will be the final straw. The following is from the National Inflation Associate (NIA)and this is where the real crisis is:

    “The U.S. government this week reported a record monthly budget deficit for February 2010 of $220.9 billion. Total tax receipts for the month were only $107.5 billion compared to outlays of $328.4 billion. The total U.S. deficit for the first five months of fiscal year 2010 was $651.6 billion, with tax receipts of $800.5 billion and outlays of $1.45 trillion. The deficit was up 10.5% for the first five months of fiscal year 2010 over the same period in fiscal year 2009.

    We are now at a point where if the U.S. government taxed Americans 100% of their income, the tax receipts generated would not be enough to balance the budget. Likewise, if the U.S. government cut 100% of its spending including defense, but kept paying Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, we would still have a budget deficit. NIA believes it will be impossible for the U.S. to have a balanced budget ever again.”

  10. Ruth says:

    Randy
    Thanks for the insight. I have been unable to articulate my belief as to why the “endgame” of this mess is the collapse of our nation as we know it and you have now clarified it for me. I put my feeling down to way too many late Saturday night B movies but you have convinced me otherwise. I get it too. Lately I have been prone to buying and hording groceries and cataloging my fine jewelry “just in case”. I believe the collapse they intend may well get here sooner rather than later. I think survival guides and gear are in my future, also. I was not lucky enough to have children but I do have a husband that I adore and pets that depend on me to survive. I have never been more afraid of my future than I am today.

  11. PP says:

    I have no doubt that you are right about their plans. But I also know that God is in control.

  12. Dee says:

    Wonderful article, Randy. I agree that it will take something catastrophic to transform our country. The continuing talk and berating of those who have money and create jobs and buy expensive goods and services by this administration will only incite those who do not care to work and are content to have the government care for them and those who see the rich as evil. I feel that many people who may not be “rich” but have been able to see their lives improve after earning a living will not stand for someone redistributing what they have earned.

  13. Randy Wills says:

    To “T Nelson”:

    Your criticizm is taken with grace. I’ll double check my information and try to be more careful. At my age, my recollections are sometimes just a little off, but the point of the comment (in terms of our long special relationship with England) is still valid.

    Randy

  14. TNelson says:

    Thanks for understanding Randy. It bothers me when an otherwise well written piece could be discounted out of hand for what is admittedly a small mistake. The ‘flourish’ wasn’t the point that was raised; the fact remains the bust of Churchill was indeed removed, timeline is somewhat irrelevant.

    Then again, those who are likely to discount your opinion based on this small error are liable to do so just because your opinion differs from their own… so in that sense, it makes no difference anyway… my bad!

  15. Boston Blackie says:

    Randy-
    Outstanding, you get it and you are making sure others do as well. I have sent this to family and friends since my husband has been preaching this same thought to the choir for many months now.

    “this will mean the aggregation and expansion of the aggrieved groups into a block-voting majority”
    Reminds me of when Kennedy was elected president,an English writer said that the Irish were now ALMOST white. Back then the disenfrancised grouped together as a voting block to give them the power needed to advance economically. Now they group together to give them the power to move to the front of the line for the redistribution of OUR wealth.

  16. Randy Wills says:

    To all those who have commented on this article;

    I really appreciate all of your comments, and I take any criticism in the spirit that it is given – to make AR the best blog available.

    And what great commentary. I think that every one of you are de facto “contributors” to AR, with insights and opinions as valid and incisive as any I might have.

    Thanks to all of you.

    Randy

  17. Rev. the fraud Wright says:
  18. La Crimson Femme says:

    Randy,
    I am finally getting to your article. It was a lovely article and well written. I echo the sentiments of several others. I do see your point and I agree for the most part. I’d like to offer you a glimpse from a slightly different angle to see what you think. I wanted to read your thoughts and analysis because my sister said something to me several years ago that caused me to pause and think.

    She worked for Americorp for a couple of years. Her job was to educate single black women, below the poverty line, the benefits of saving money. I would compare it to a consumer education class. The reward for going through the course and really applying what was learned was $500.

    My sister would share some of the hardships she experienced on the job. For some background, we are of Asian descent and 1st generation in the States. After one of her harder days, I made a comment to her that made her say, “When did you turn into an old white upper middle class man?” After the initial puzzlement and shock wore off, I thought about what she said. Her point was that my perspective to understand the hardships and the disadvantages that these women faced were biased because I never experienced their lives to that depth. She tried to explain that many of these women weren’t the stereotypical “I deserve this and you all are racist and suppressed my people as a slave”. Many of these women were trying to fight for a chance to make a better life. Without the support of family and education, they had a very rough time. And when I mean education, I mean more than just going to a school and learning what the books say and what the teachers force fed students.

    What really made me stop and think was her comment of, “It’s the people who make the ridiculous demands that give those who are truly disadvantaged and trying for a better life, regardless of skin colour, a bad name. Those people should be ashamed. The entitlement people are making it worse for the disadvantaged/poor that truly want to help themselves and need someone to give a little guidence. They don’t want handouts because it embarrassed them.”

    It made me remember when I was the only child and my very poor immigrant parents with the single income had to do without. When I was offered a small gift that I really wanted from someone, my parents refused the gift and forced me to decline. The reason, there is shame in accepting charity because it is a free ride, undeserved. Makes me wonder when did charity become an American right. It made me wonder why so many people believe that this is the way it should be. Once again, my sister corrected my misconceptions. She once again indicated that I was coming from a “white” privileged perspective. That in actuality, many of the women who came through her office didn’t feel that way, it is only how mainstream media presents them. She said the sad part was that these were the people who really need the helping hand and were an invisible group in our society.

    While I agree that Obamanation is doing its best to eradicate whiteness and cause great confusion through doublespeak and slight of hand, I find it sad that those who really do need the little bit of support to help themselves are either:

    1. Infected with the entitlement disease
    2. Shafted and swept under the rug so no one can hear their cries for a chance to prove themselves

    For me, the disappointment in Obama administration is that the ones that they claim to help, the adminstration is making the situation worse. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

  19. Randy Wills says:

    To “La Crimson Femme”.

    It is for comments such as yours that I take the time to write at all. Thanks for your insight into what I realized was a point of weakness in my article.

    First, I made no mention in my article of the discrimination that the early Asian immigrants were subjected to and which continued up through (and after) WWII. Fortunately, I don’t see much of that now (except from those who seem to think that there’s some evil force at work in the flow of jobs to Asia when, in reality, it is the simple forces of a free market system at work. In the course of my work, I made some forty trips to Asia and have the deepest respect for those who respected me (some didn’t by demonstrating an attitude of superiority).

    Secondly – and this will shock you – I have to agree in some respects to the premise that the system was designed to favor white, Gentile, ethnically- northern-European, males. Being one of such, I wish that that weren’t true, but I believe that it is. Where we (I and the anti-”Whiteness” crowd) part company is on how to solve those inequities in view of the undeniable fact of “human nature”. Government is not the answer, although I’m fully in favor of laws that prevent discrimination in practice. The answer lies in personal responsibility to God. Jesus said, on one occassion, that “the poor you will always have with you”, but He also said “Love your neighbor as yourself” and we’re all familiar with His parable of the “Good Samaritan”. So it seems to come down to the fact that we have the poor (and I grew up in that economic condition) in order to provide an opportunity to those with excess to demonstrate that we, in fact, do “love our neighbors” by being lavishly generous. By our very alligience to these precepts, we, as individuals, cannot allow our neigbor to suffer deprivation while we live in luxury, but that should spring from the heart of the individual, not government duress.

    Randy

  20. Gray says:

    The nerve of someone, half-white, trying to rid whiteness.

  21. Anonymous says:

    A runaway daddy, and a communist for a mother.
    Taking it out on OUR country.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] in our society is a lack of cohesiveness caused by the festering animosity that I spoke of in Extreme Goal: The End of Whiteness between the amalgamated forces of what I defined as “anti-whiteness” and those of us who remain [...]

Speak Your Mind

*