How “Civil Rights” Happened:
Morris van de Camp
A First-Draft Overview
Historians puzzle over how the French Revolution happened. How did a powerful monarchy in a powerful nation fall apart and succumb to a radical government that drenched Paris in blood and turned the world’s most economically valuable colony, San Domingo, into the jungle that is today’s Haiti? There are many reasons, of course: Louis XVI was a bumbling monarch, there was a volcanic eruption in Iceland that caused a crop failure in Europe, the middle class was rising in prosperity but more slowly than they expected, and a body of philosophy arose engendering what we call today “Leftist thought.” Had things happened a bit differently, though, there might not have been a revolution at all – or the revolution might have taken a different form.
In the twentieth century, the United States suffered a revolution that was nearly as bad – namely, the “civil rights” movement. However, “civil rights” is a misnomer. “Civil rights” should be called a Jewish-led and -supported sub-Saharan rebellion. It turned cities into Africanized wastelands, warped the political parties, facilitated a massive crime wave, rendered American citizenship meaningless, and created taboos in America that still cause well-meaning people to misread data and lie to themselves.
The basic problem with the “civil rights” movement was that it attempted to equalize two populations that cannot successfully merge, even by interbreeding. This is confirmed in a poem by Gil Scott-Heron that describes the Moon landing. In the poem, Scott-Heron resentfully talks about his inability to keep his sister from being bitten by a rat while whites master space flight in the sixty-six years after developing heavier-than-air flight in a segregated society. The poem is the biggest admission to the truth of white supremacy ever put to rhyme and meter. The “civil rights” movement also created a series of copycat revolutions that have likewise been a disaster. The AIDS crisis, the 9/11 attacks, the divorce revolution, and even Korean mediocrities berating whites in the pages of The New York Times all have their roots in the “civil rights” movement.
This essay might be the first of its kind to discuss “civil rights” from a holistic viewpoint. Thus, this essay is certainly not the final say on the matter. At best, it is a first-draft overview. But it is meant to be a search for truth. My purpose here is to shine the light of truth upon the mythical historical narrative of the “civil rights” movement that is prevalent today. In this myth, “civil rights” is a natural progression; something like the famous quote that the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. plagiarized about the arch of the universe bending towards justice or whatever. This narrative likewise misidentifies the place and time where the movement started and ended, and further distorts reality by claiming that it was a great success; this essay will rectify that.
Society doesn’t make changes based on “facts” or “science.” Instead, it works on narratives. These are often simplistic narratives which paper over a great deal of truth, but once a narrative takes hold of a society, those seeking to change it face a daunting task. Between the 1930s and the 1990s, America’s social narrative was effectively written by Jewish ethnonationalists through their control of the wire services, the three TV channels, and other media bottlenecks. The narrative was continuously adjusted to suit their goals at the time, and one of their goals was “civil rights.”
It was only when this narrative control broke down with the rise of the Web in the early 1990s that the general public began to realize that there was a narrative at all, and that there could be more than one narrative at one time. Regarding this, General (Retired) Martin Dempsey and Berkley Professor Ori Brafman have written:
[Narratives are] the first major element of the new environment shaping our world. Narratives, as we’ll see, are having greater and greater impact on industries and on the world political stage alike. More specifically, the world is moving from debates about facts to battles of narratives.The Three Courses of Action for Race Relations (1865–1933)
The biggest “what if?” in all of this is what would have happened if President Lincoln had not been assassinated. We know from evidence that he was considering the possibility of removing blacks from America after the Civil War, although we will never know if he actually would have gone ahead with this. After Lincoln, the Radical Republicans started down the path of “civil rights.” This concept, in the proper sense of the term, meant the “rights of Englishmen” or the “liberties of citizens,” and had existed in the English language for several centuries prior to it assuming the meaning it has today. The sense in which we know it now began to develop in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War and became almost exclusively associated with blacks and their problems by the 1880s.
Abolitionist whites in the North became disillusioned with black uplift schemes by the end of the 1870s. In fact, by the end of the Grant administration, every abolitionist still in Congress had become something of a white racial advocate, and they blocked Grant’s attempt to buy the Dominican Republic because of its non-white population. By the 1890s, especially in the South, a body of laws were enacted to keep blacks and whites separate. There was no real resistance to segregation as the Jim Crow institutions developed; indeed, it was seen as progress, no different from building public hospitals or cracking down on police corruption.
In terms of a permanent solution to the problems of black/white race relations, from 1880 until 1933 three courses of action were proposed regarding what to do besides segregation. These courses of action are described below and named for the black man who respectively advocated for each:
- Marcus Garvey: His idea was to remove blacks from the United States and set up a colony for them in Africa.
- Booker T. Washington: He called for blacks to imitate whites in terms of thrift and hard work, and to remain separate until blacks truly became the equals of whites.
- W. E. B. Du Bois: He wanted whites to change their ways to accommodate blacks as they are. This was “civil rights” as we understand it today.
We all know that W. E. B. Du Bois’ vision won out – at least up until now. From the black perspective, this option was the best they could achieve in the short term. It demands nothing from blacks and has allowed them access to a civilization which they could never build or maintain on their own. The trick was that Du Bois’ strategy required whites to change their minds.
The Jewish Question (1909–1913)
It is hardly a secret that Jews have long been heavily involved in promoting “civil rights.” What is not as well-known is just how early they became involved. Jewish influence on American society started to become the force that it is today at least by the Taft administration (1909–1913). In 1911, the organized Jewish community pressured the Taft administration into cancelling a commerce treaty with Russia that had been in place since 1832. During the same period, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was formed in 1909, and it was funded and organized by Jews. At the time, blacks in the organization were nothing more than window dressing; the organization was entirely led by Jews.
The NAACP recognized that one important method for advancing non-white interests was through the courts. An early example of Jewish power influencing the judiciary was when they caused President Taft to withdraw his nomination of William Cather Hook to the Supreme Court. Judge Hook was a victim of Jewish pressure, “woke” capital, and “civil rights” because he had affirmed a lower court’s ruling on a segregation case and had ruled against large corporations.
America might have been partially immunized to the “civil rights” revolution that came later had Theodore Roosevelt won a third term. One wonders if Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party, which ran against Taft in the 1912 election, came about in part due to Roosevelt’s frustration with Taft giving in to Jewish pressure groups. After all, Theodore Roosevelt was friends with Madison Grant. But we’ll never know for sure.
It is probable that Jews supported “civil rights” in order to ensure that American society was divided and weakened, making Jews feel more secure. They also likely wanted to raise social barriers between Southern whites and Jews to prevent Jewish assimilation through intermarriage. Southern whites were then – and remain today – the most philo-Semitic whites anywhere. This is besides the fact that many Jews are hostile to gentile culture society to begin with. Just as it was in Spain during the Moorish occupation, so can it be said of America in relation to “civil rights.”
The Unchecked Advance of “Civil Rights” During Jim Crow (1918–1957)
When an institution is at its height of power and prestige, it is usually the case that the sands upon which that institution was built have already shifted. The “civil rights” movement started to gain momentum even as segregation laws were passed. Until the 1940s, though, what blacks thought or did is immaterial. All early “civil rights” progress was carried out by whites (or Jews claiming, or claimed, to be white). It was only later that blacks began to agitate with legal tactics independently.
The most important event which furthered the “civil rights” revolution was the First World War. By 1918, whites in Europe were thoroughly demoralized, and a generation of white men was missing – many of them dead on the many battlefields across the world. To make matters worse, all the belligerents armed and trained non-white troops. There were now many veterans in the non-white world – and a little military experience goes a long way. After this, there was the rise of the Soviet Union, itself a product of the First World War. A far more ruthless Jacobin government than France’s had exploded onto the scene and soon held the reins of a vast empire, and it propagandized the colored world far more effectively and on a much larger scale than revolutionary France had done when it enabled the Haitian slave rebellion.
The First World War also paved the way for the Great Depression. This crisis catapulted the American patrician Franklin Delano Roosevelt to the presidency. FDR was by no means a “civil rights” advocate, and many historians have described how much of a pro-white advocate he was in many ways. However, his vast political talent, the Depression, and the pressures of the Second World War effectively turned the United States into a one-party state. It was within this powerful Democratic Party that the “civil rights” narrative started to flourish.
Historically, the Democratic Party was the party of the South. Yet in the 1930s, the Democrats had loyal supporters of every possible type – including Jewish ethnic activists, Communists, and fellow travelers. Although the Democratic Party had traditionally been hostile to blacks, Roosevelt’s New Deal programs supported them by default, and thus the black vote became something of a wildcard in every election. From 1933 until 1960, the black vote could go to either party. As a result, the Democratic Party started courting them. During the 1936 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, the party changed the rules to make it more difficult for Southern Democrats to control the proceedings, and they had a black minister deliver the invocation. This was the first indication that things were changing – but apart from a few on the margins of the party, there was no real white resistance to this.
Additionally, the Democratic Party had Eleanor Roosevelt. She was a supporter of “civil rights,” but I don’t know the journey she made to become such. Perhaps she merely wanted black voters to support her party. But she had the four traits of white “civil rights” supporters:
- They often have a reckless sexual life. It is widely rumored that Eleanor carried on a number of sexual trysts with members of both sexes as First Lady.
- Supporters misread data. During her later career as an elder stateswoman in the 1950s, Eleanor was often bamboozled by Communists such as Fidel Castro. This gave rise to criticism that she was both cunning and naïve at the same time.
- Supporters must invent an enemy to keep blacks and whites together. Eleanor lucked out in that America had real enemies when she was First Lady, although throughout the 1930s, the Roosevelt administration did maneuver to make the Third Reich, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan greater enemies than they might have otherwise been.
- Supporters end up creating a plantation, and that is what the Democratic Party has become since the black vote went solidly in that party’s favor.
Eleanor Roosevelt was not the only “civil rights” supporter during the 1930s and ‘40s in the Democratic Party, but she was the most prominent one. She was also a perfect example of such supporters, both then and now: She was upper class, insulated from the threat of black crime, socially competent, and supported by the media.
Eleanor Roosevelt’s media support was quite remarkable in retrospect; after she was criticized by Southerners following the Detroit race riots of 1943, Mrs. Roosevelt said, “I suppose when one is forced to realize that an unwelcome change is coming, one must blame it on someone or something.” This, of course, is meaningless, and was not an accurate analysis of the massive racial problem that was already brewing in Detroit at the time. She was never challenged for this nonsense. Indeed, senior members of the Democratic Party outside the South took the ramifications of the 1943 riots very much to heart.
During the 1940 Democratic National Convention, racial issues were submerged beneath those surrounding the war. Franklin Roosevelt successfully maneuvered the convention into supporting his third term. Once the United States was officially in the war, the Roosevelt administration started to support non-discrimination policies at the defense industry’s jobsites. Little things like these helped create a network of Negro “civil rights” activists. By the early 1940s, the burgeoning “civil rights” movement had black organizations and black leadership working with the older, more established white and Jewish activists. One such action in which blacks played an active role was in 1941, when union leaders in the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters threatened to have thousands of blacks march on Washington, DC. The First Lady interceded with the President to get some non-discrimination laws passed and the march was called off, but one sees the pattern of Negro blackmail and Democratic Party capitulation even then. “Civil rights” had become something of a protection racket already by 1941.
The economy of the early 1940s also had a big impact on the “civil rights” movement. Blacks began moving to the North in droves. They were able to capture Congressional districts where they became the majority and then could send black political representatives to the House. They also started to have money – at least more money than they had had as sharecroppers in the South.
At the same time, “civil rights” supporters such as Eleanor Roosevelt attacked white interests at their weakest point: that of community-sponsored lynchings. Executing any criminal without trial or due process is difficult to defend, and I won’t do so here. However, many Southerners supported the practice in that they felt the only way to suppress black criminality was through the threat of public lynching. There might be something to this, given that after lynching ended, black-on-black violence exploded and black criminality in general increased until American society “solved” the problem through the mass incarceration of young black men.
Supporters also used the courts to achieve gains throughout the 1930s and 1940s. There is a long list of precedent-setting cases from that time. The most significant was Shelley v. Kraemer (1948). This made it illegal for property contracts to exclude blacks from a neighborhood. The consequences were disastrous. From 1948 until the Clinton administration’s gentrification policies, much of North America’s finest real estate was transformed into Africanized wastelands. These cases also established precedents for the “civil rights” battles of the 1950s. This came about as a result of the appointment of a number of pro-“civil rights” judges in the early 1900s, which led to a flurry of such decisions in the highest courts by the 1940s and ‘50s. By the 1930s, there were few pro-white judges at the higher courts anywhere in the United States outside the Deep South.
The 1944 Democratic National Convention was like the 1940 convention in that the issues pertaining to the war remained its central focus, along with appointing a new Vice Presidential candidate to replace Henry A. Wallace, who had many enemies within the party. FDR easily secured the nomination for a fourth term. Southern Democrats did stage a half-hearted protest against his racial policies, but to no avail. The 1948 convention, however, was different. Hubert H. Humphrey, then Mayor of Minneapolis, gave a speech supporting “civil rights.” Southerners walked out and formed the Dixiecrat Party, although the Democrats won the White House again regardless.
After 1948, “civil rights” supporters in the Democratic Party realized they could advance their movement even without the South. “Civil rights” idealism now had broad support across the United States except in those areas of the Deep South where blacks vastly outnumbered whites. Thus, the 1948 convention was the tipping point for “civil rights.” The movement had captured the peaks of American political power with little resistance. Additionally, for the next two decades, their most critical supporters were valorous white men born between 1907 and 1918 who had been field grade-level officers in the Second World War such as Robert McNamara (LTC–Army Air Corps), Lyndon Baines Johnson (Lt. Cdr.–US Navy), and James A. Michener (Lt. Cdr.–US Navy).
The military was officially desegregated in 1948, but in reality it only happened after the all-black regiments turned out to be ineffective in the Korean War. White resistance to “civil rights” continued to be light, ineffective, and limited to certain regions until 1957, when the US Army integrated Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas in keeping with the 1954 Brown v. Board SCOTUS decision. (Nevertheless, between 1954 and 1957 some white advocacy efforts began, first in the Deep South, and they later grew as the consequences of “civil rights” increasingly proved to be a violent, destructive failure during the 1960s.)
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Immigration Act of 1965, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 might not have been passed had President Kennedy not been assassinated. We’ll never know. Regardless, after 1964, black violence became an epidemic, and many whites who had supported “civil rights” in the 1950s quietly checked out of the movement by 1968. And as a group, whites fled desegregation as quickly as integration policies were enacted.
The “civil rights” movement’s foundations were laid by ethnonationalist Jews as early as 1909. The biggest gains in “civil rights” were achieved during FDR’s first two terms, when the United States was effectively a one-party state; ironically, when that party – at least on the surface – supported white supremacy. Blacks did not begin to act independently in the movement until the early 1940s. The most important “civil rights” supporters during the post-war era emerged from the military’s middle management during the Second World War. As “civil rights” were codified in the 1950s and ‘60s, white resistance began – first in the South, and then nationally by 1968.
The strangest thing about the “civil rights” phenomenon is that it became something of a sacred cow in American culture even as the most impeccably liberal whites were fleeing its effects. None of the prominent white “civil rights” supporters ever admitted to rethinking their stance after cities burned in the 1960s. Even those Republican politicians who were elected as a result of the clear debacles caused by the Democratic Party’s support for the “civil rights” agenda never officially declared the movement a failure. And today, white advocates who point out the obvious problems produced by this movement must take care to protect themselves from overwhelmingly hostile responses – from whites, for the most part. Thus, even though it has been a failure, the legacy of the “civil rights” movement is still with us – at least for now.
 Rights and moral absolutes are not derived from Divine Providence; rights are guaranteed by the state. Although they also exist within North America, Mexicans and Canadians don’t have a “God-given” right to “keep and bear arms.” Instead, the whites of the United States wrote their own cherished folkway of owning private arms into their founding documents. None of the “Bill of Rights” we so prize in America apply universally. In fact, keeping and bearing arms doesn’t work at all in America’s black ghettos. Essentially, if the state changes its concept of what rights are, the rights change. Moral absolutes are also a shifting set of ideas. They only exist when the consensus of a society agrees with them; when that consensus shifts, so do the moral absolutes. Nowhere can that concept be demonstrated like in the acceptance of homosexuality. In the early 1960s, homosexuality was the world’s biggest sin; by 2010, it was seen as sacred – with gay relationships valued more highly than relationships between a man, a wife, and their children. In the 1990s, corporations didn’t recognize homosexual relationships and codified that in their policies; today, corporations actively work against even mild criticism of the gay lifestyle.
 Martin Dempsey & Ori Brafman, Radical Inclusion: What the Post-9/11 World Should Have Taught Us About Leadership (Missionday, 2018), p. 22.
 Ibid., p. 24.
 Indeed, Jewish pressure groups could have been working through the judiciary even earlier. The United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision in 1898 allowed non-whites born in the US to be naturalized. The history of this case is vague, though – who pushed it through the courts? Who paid the legal fees? After all, if the US government can’t keep Asians from naturalizing, one supposes that Jews can’t be deprived of citizenship even if they throw open the city gates to an enemy. Admittedly, this is speculative.
 Indeed, the Democrats could be roughly put in the same category as the supporters of King James II in his war with his sister and brother-in-law William and Mary. Irish Catholics and English aristocrats both supported King James II.
 When blacks begin to populate a neighborhood, crime and Africanization eventually overwhelms the place. An example of this is Ferguson, Missouri. In the early 1990s it was mostly white; the civil servant class of East Saint Louis lived there. By 2014, the town was nearly all-black, poverty-stricken, and crime-ridden, and it finally burned in a race riot.
Institutional Racism Explained
John Wayne’s The Alamo & the Politics of the 1960s
The Abolitionists as Virtue-Signalers: Nehemiah Adams & A South-side View of Slavery
The Truth About Irish Victimhood in American History
An Open Letter to Scott Adams
The Kia Boys
An Interview with David Cole Part 1
Nothing disabuses whites of their equality myths as much as having to deal with free-range blacks. The unpleasantness is alarming. The problem is after you’ve been brainwashed into believing in equality and reality doesn’t comport with the myth, you attribute the difference to a short coming in yourself as opposed to a problem with the narrative.
“Free-range blacks,” I like that, it’s original! It gives one the perception that they are dealing with violent chickens.
Reminds me of the “free-range rude” that Hannibal Lecter preferred to dine on.
Blacks don’t have the self-restraint that makes western civilisation possible. Libtards come to grief because they assume that blacks have the same ethos as them and then find out the hard way that they don’t.
“One wonders if Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party, which ran against Taft in the 1912 election, came about in part due to Roosevelt’s frustration with Taft giving in to Jewish pressure groups.”
I have long speculated that it was a ruse on the part of the jews to split the republican vote, so that Wilson could be elected, and all the evil that followed (id est., WWI, The Federal Reserve, the IRS, and the League Of Nations).
The ‘Civil Rights’ charade began with the ‘Civil War’. The 60s of the 20th century concluded the project that began in 60s of the 19th century.
The North aggressed against the Southern way of life. Washington shamelessly abused the federal mandate and encroached upon the State’s rights. Moreover, after devastating the South, an incessant flow of carpetbaggers moved in to revel in the spoils. Naturally, the Whites had to defend their neighborhoods and so the Confederate veterans mobilized in the form of the KKK.
All in all, the Federal government broke the back of these battered States and softened the ground for the integrationist harvest.
Rebuild the nuclear families to resist the Multiracialist bureaucratic behemoth. That remains the only way.
Great Article. Just a quick question. Why do you think the 1964-65 Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts might not have passed if JFK had not been assassinated? Certainly, if he had not been assassinated the 1965 Immigration Act would have passed as Kennedy (rather Ted Sorenson) wrote “A Nation of Immigrants”. I think the 64-65 Civil Rights/Voting Acts would have passed even if JFK had survived.
Several reasons, all speculation:
When Kennedy died in a spectacular way, “civil rights” became a martyr’s cause and there was less resistance to it.
LBJ was better at getting legislation passed.
The 1964 election might have been different, with a different mix in the House and Senate.
Kennedy was not as motivated about “civil rights” as his political allies were.
Among other reasons.
I know that controlling the Narrative is key. I know that Metapolitics is how you get control of the Narrative. I know that Counter-Currents is a Metapolitical enterprise and I buy its books and donate.
Nevertheless, I feel that gaining control of the Narrative is virtually impossible.
I suppose I tilt at windmills and will continue to do so.
I was intrigued, and somewhat alarmed, at the statement that all the European armies of World War I deployed non-White troops. I went to Wikipedia (yeah, I know) for a quick search of German non-White troops during WWI. They state that the Germans had three African colonial detachments but I didn’t see where any fought in Europe. Unlike the French, who enthusiastically used African troops against fellow Europeans.
Wikipedia is full of shit. The Waffen S.S. recruited and tried to use Indian troops in France, but what they had been recruited for was Indian independence, so, they couldn’t see how fighting on an Atlantic shore was of any point, they generally surrendered en masse.
The one geopolitical strategy shared by Germany and Japan was to meet to the north of India, Japan got as far as Burma (where Indians as such were very unpopular), and then were bogged down.
Burma, however, is one of the two polities born of Japan of that time.
German and German-allied forces never approached the other end, so it didn’t work.
Interestingly, both the Indian-nationalist allies of Japan and Germany had the surname ‘Bose’, but two different people, those with an interest may find it of interest.
Both are considered heroes in India of now.
I was commenting on the article’s reference to World War I.
The reference in the articlle to wwI is one, in passing.
Excuse me for not noticing the conection, LOL.
Good article, and I love history. I could throw a few details in, but the title includes ‘First Draft’, and it has several things I didn’t know about.
One question, were the Dixiecrats ever a real separate party? My impression was that they were a faction.
One point to add, though, and one most who have not noticed should note, perhaps parts of Haiti became jungle in the early nineteenth century.
It is now a desert of mud. I first saw a high-altitude photo of the Dominica-Haiti border areas five or so years ago.
Really startling. If you have not seen, look.
The Dominican side is green. The Haitian side is just a sea (or desert) of mud. The border is the sharply defined line between the two.
This is not to praise the people of the Dominican Republic, but one understands why they are keen to keep Haitians out.
On the evidence of the one example I have met, I would not be surprised if the Dominicans are slightly improving their gene pool over time by exporting their biggest morons and psychos to the U.S.A.
I was, serendipitously, reading a timeline that answered my own question this time.
I post the answer because I would guess that particularly many younger Americans never heard of it. I never heard of it before.
The formal name of the split party (I am sure that much of the press would have called it ‘Dixiecrat Party’ at the time) was ‘States’ Rights Democratic Party’. I found the timeline on a site that some here would find unsavoury or counterproductive at times, but I find much of interest there.
Aside from the split in the Democratic Party, I was very surprised at the constant state legislation that to me often makes sense … but was all eliminated in the end.
I always wanted to visit that place some day, but public transport seems too dangerous, even bus depots, and the BCE gatekeepers seem predominantly to be nasty fat black and hispanic women, as not a ViP, it seems an immediate danger. Anyway, I have only ever done right-side driving in video games.
I used to think of practise in Sth. Korea, get a rental car in the U.S.A., drive across the continent and to some interesting places, but that also seems too dangerous now
” What is not as well-known is just how early they became involved. Jewish influence on American society started to become the force that it is today at least by the Taft administration (1909–1913).”
In “The International Jew” by Henry Ford, Mr. Ford states that after the civil war the American jews began to write back home to relatives in Europe that (and I paraphrase) “American culture was unformed, and that they should emigrate as soon as possible.” During the latter half of the nineteenth century, America experienced a massive influx of jews. William L. Pierce pointed out that the jews did not start emigrating in droves until all the wild predators, and aborigines were cleared out.
From the Report of the National Commission on Civil Disorders (1968, Chairman Otto Kerner):
“…if achieving that goal [integration of blacks into American society] is difficult now, what will it be like when the Negro population in the central cities has risen from the present 12.5 million to the 21 million projected for 1985?” (page vii)
The Report goes on to analyze the course of the Long Hot Summer riots which began with Watts (August 1965) and were lighting up the urban nightscapes at the time the report was compiled. It also provides policy recommendations: accelerating racial integration, job creation in the inner city, more public housing, improved education, and reform of law enforcement; i.e., the full Civil Rights agenda.
The Report concludes that if nothing were to be done, America will divide into two separate and presumably unequal countries: one of Whites living in the suburbs and small towns, the other of blacks concentrated in the central cities. (page 407)
The interesting thing is that all of the Commission’s recommendations were in fact implemented, with most of them and more remaining in force today: war on poverty, massive spending on education, affirmative action, forced busing, black studies programs, enterprise zones, the diversity and inclusion mantra, relocation of inner city denizens to the suburbs via HuD, non-stop propaganda about the claimed glories of the Civil Rights Era, near criminalization of any critique of black behaviors, tearing down of “White Supremacist” statues, even an African-American in the White House. Yet:
* Violence continues apace from the inner city, much of it senseless: gangbanging, flashmobs, drivebys.
* Rioting also continues (e.g., Los Angeles 1992, the Ferguson Era).
* Black America is on an ever more separate trajectory from White America as measured in such basic terms as family formation, criminal incarceration and graduation from higher education.
* On top of all this, the reigning ideology of multicultism agitates for blacks to think of themselves as separate and at odds with the historic American nation.
* And oh yes, White Americans are still holding out in the suburbs while blacks are entrenching in the central cities.
Of course, just about no one bothers to stop and draw the obvious conclusion: like maybe the Commission’s agenda was doomed to failure given the realities of race.
Another point to be considered: starting with Watts virtually every major urban riot in the United States has been initiated by blacks. These riots have caused massive amounts of property destruction, resulted in numerous deaths, and forced White people out of their own cities. It would be enlightening to compare the carnage caused by the black uprisings since 1965 with the much ballyhooed race riots of the segregation era (East St Louis 1917, Tulsa 1921, Rosewood 1923, Detroit 1943) and see which inflicted more damage on the country. Detroit after all, was still going strong after 1943. It has yet to recover from its 1967 uprising and ensuing black majority rule.
Also on the table: every last urban riot from Watts to Ferguson occurred during and following the Civil Rights Revolution.
Something to think about in the continuing chaos…
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment