A "Racist" -- Mark Andrew Dwyer

The opinions expressed in guest columns posted on this site do not necessarily reflect the opinions of AmericanPatrol.com. Visit the Alamance Independent to read Mark Andrew Dwyer's weekly column posted every Sunday. -- Click here for more Mark Andrew Dwyer columns. -- Please, send your comments to readerswrite@yahoo.com

Originally published in the June 19, 2005 issue of the Alamance Independent

A "Racist"

By Mark Andrew Dwyer - June 22, 2005

There is a popular definition of "racist" - a conservative winning an argument with a liberal. To its all sarcasm, it tells us how far the use of the noun "racism" deviated from its proper sense - judging a person based on his race and not on his individual skills, talents, and character, or a lack thereof. In this column, I propose a slightly narrower definition of "racist" that seems to capture the actual use of this ubiquitous assault word in heated political disputes:

A racist is a guy who refuses giving away race-based handouts to disadvantaged population that, by and large, lacks the genetic hereditary background necessary to compete in a success-driven, merit-based society.

(To claim that there are no substantial differences between human races is absurd. One doesn't have to look any further than to NBA championships to notice that almost all top basketball players are black - a phenomenon that is, statistically, extremely unlikely to happen should all races be the same. And, indeed, different races, ethnic groups, and nations exhibit different prevailing characteristics. In particular, some were able to develop successful civilizations and cultures that offered their members high living standards and individual freedoms while others were not. Even the allegations that racism, whatever its meaning, is basically a white thing are nothing less than an implicit acknowledgement, by those who make these allegations, that all races are not equal.)

The above, although just a definition, is quite revealing and provides an interesting insight into the strategy of the American Left in their relentless struggle to implement a global system of redistribution of wealth. It also explains why the "racists" are a target of Left's ferocious attacks: they are perceived as a deadly threat to Left's "equal outcome" dogma, usually expressed as the "All people are equal" axiom (not to be confused with "all Men are created equal" of the Declaration of Independence, which is an acknowledgement of equal chance and not an imposition of equal outcome). Indeed, the very existence of wealthy nations and poor nations, statistically correlated to these nations' average IQs by professors Lynn and Vanhanen in their book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" (Praeger 2002), clearly contradicts Left's theory that given a fair chance, each ethnic group is able to achieve about the same level of socio-economic success, referred to as the "outcome".

From the point of view of that definition, it becomes obvious why the opponents of "affirmative action" (the British term for that is "reverse discrimination") and, more recently, supporters of standardized high school exit exams, are labeled "racists" - they refuse to grant preferential treatment to disadvantaged groups of individuals that, allegedly, suffer from the so-called "disparate impact" (an euphemism for "a lack of the genetic hereditary background necessary to compete), based on membership in a group rather than on the documented extent of individual suffering.

But the most intriguing aspect of our definition of "racist" reveals itself in the area of "migration" (massive and mostly unlawful displacement of population of one country into another) of Latin American peoples (mostly Mexicans), usually referred to as "Latinos" or "Hispanics", into the U.S. The "rationale" employed by the advocates of this "migration" of unprecedented scale reduces to this: all prospective "migrants" should be allowed to "migrate" into the U.S. as they please and claim "their" share of America as long as they can be classified as a disadvantaged population. In particular, Mexicans, just because they are non-white and, therefore, automatically "disadvantaged", should be given free access to America and her wealth, for otherwise it would be racist, in the sense of the above definition, to not let them in.

For some historic reasons and mostly due to the original meaning of that adjective, no one dares to risk being called "racist" so the mass "migration" of Mexicans and other Latinos into the U.S. continues unobstructed despite the fact that the word "migration" is not even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, never mind any legal basis for it. There is an article in the recent issue of U.S. News and World Report, "Under the Sun: A New Wave of Immigrants Is Transforming Communities Nowhere Near the Border", by Liz Halloran (USN&WR, June 20, 2005, pp. 20 - 25), that paints an alarming picture of demographic, but also cultural and political changes that millions of "migrants" inflict to American society. The photo in that article (see below) taken at a labor camp in Sampson County, N.C., says it all: a pregnant Latino woman plays with three little Latino girls. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that all five of them, including the unborn, will add to the swelling "disadvantaged", nevertheless, highly fertile population in the U.S. that only the "racists" refuse giving away the race-based handouts to.

Day-to-day routine at a migrant labor camp
(Scanned from USN&WR)

It should be noted, though, that the way the Mexican "migrants" and their American cheerleaders use epithet "racist" indicates their misunderstanding of this term, or, at least, how the mainstream liberal establishment is using it these days. Their "reasoning" goes like this. Because any meaningful control of America's Southern border will mostly affect Mexicans, as they are the ones who by and large violate it, doing so would have to be categorized as "disparate impact" and, therefore, a case of "racism". The fallacy of this "reasoning" must have been clear for any one except for the Mexicans who perpetuate it. If one accepted it as valid argument then one should also agree that during the last phase of W.W.II (1944-45), the American troops in France, Holland, Belgium, and Germany were involved in large scale racism because they fought exclusively against Germanic soldiers.

Should Hitler cry "Mass racismo!" as many Mexican "migrants" do? He certainly would if he were a Hispanic and not a Germanic leader, who was coached by American leftists and the open-border lobby and not by his Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels. What he would be missing, though, was the fact that Germans were not considered a "disadvantaged population", for one, they were whites, so they were not "entitled" to handouts in a form of territories of their neighbor countries, and certainly not to threatening the U.S. and its commercial and economic interests.

One can multiply examples of this kind of misunderstanding of word "racist" by Mexican "migrants" and their American collaborators. Standardized tests in American schools given in English and not in Spanish are "racist" because a vast majority of all Spanish-speaking students are Mexicans. Apprehensions and prosecution of unlicensed drivers are "racist" because most of those who drive in the U.S. without a valid driver's license are Mexicans. Propositions 187 (in California, derailed by one activist judge) and 200 (in Arizona, currently under judicial scrutiny) that deny certain "rights" and "freebies" to illegal aliens are "racist" because these are mostly Mexicans who are residing illegally in Arizona and California and collecting various handouts there. The list goes on and on and on. If one day, a pro-Mexican organization declared that indiscriminate cracking on fraudulent voters, drunken drivers, gross polluters, identity thieves, street gangsters, and drug traffickers were "racist" then it would be safe to bet a horse and carriage on it that these were predominantly Mexicans that fell into these prohibited categories.

NOTE. The picture in this column was originally published by the source above and is copyrighted by the source above. We offer it here as an educational tool to increase understanding of global economics and social justice issues. We believe this is 'fair use' of copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. AmericanPatrol.com is a web site with the goal of educating and informing.