- Position‹2 of 2
- Yes, white people can be victims of racism
The term "anti-racism" has been co-opted by racists intent on obliterating whites. It is used to undermine white communities, and a veiled attempt to couch the coming black supremacy in the language of social justice. This perspective sees the lopsided immigration from Asia and Africa into the West as evidence that these nations intend to wipe out white people. They argue that people should stay within their own home nations - e.g. "Africa for Africans" - and have no place in white countries. When they do move to the West therefore, the so-called "anti-racism" campaigns are part of a much more underhand plan to seize control of white territories. Proponents include Bob Whitaker, Neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
The argument
To be anti-racist is to be anti-white. This argument suggests that, since the United States was founded by white people on white values, diversifying the culture is a targeted effort to eliminate the white population. The preamble to the United States Constitution states: “for ourselves and for Posterity”. With the founding fathers being white, the country is not obligated to open their borders to any other race or ethnicity. Advocates for immigration are doing so with the intent to assimilate the white culture. The United States Census Bureau has predicted that non-Hispanic whites [in the United States] will lose their majority by 2043, and if no measures are taken to prevent diversity, white people won’t have control of the country they founded. Deliberately inflicting on a group's conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part falls under the definition of genocide adopted by the United Nations in 1948. No other nation faces the same external pressure to integrate immigrants into their society than the United States, the country which has the largest white population. With evidence proving whites becoming a minority, anti-racists use ‘solving the race problem’ to diminish the presence of whites.
Premises
Counter-arguments
There is no conclusive evidence to prove that a "white genocide" has been committed in any white-dominated country, let alone the United States. Similar claims have been made in South Africa, where white farmers were victims of large-scale killings based on race, however, South Africa’s government has declared these claims as "based on false evidence." Whitaker’s mantra, anti-racist is code for anti-white, is considered to be a major proponent of the white genocide conspiracy theory, with nothing substantive to link diversity and the genocide of whites.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The premise misreads the text it cites. The Preamble's 'ourselves and our Posterity' follows from 'We the People of the United States' — a civic designation, and the Constitution attaches no racial qualification to membership in the polity. The framers did restrict naturalisation by race in 1790, but that restriction was dismantled by amendment and statute over the following century and a half, which is a change in the law rather than evidence of an ownership that persists. [Rejecting P2] The census projection does not describe what the premise claims. It projects that non-Hispanic whites will fall below half of a growing total population — a change in share, not a decline in number — driven by differing birth rates, immigration and, substantially, by how people of mixed ancestry are counted and how they identify themselves. A group can become a plurality rather than a majority while remaining as numerous as before. [Rejecting P3] The legal claim is inaccurate. The 1948 Convention requires intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, and lists the acts that qualify: killing, serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, preventing births, and forcibly transferring children. Voluntary migration and advocacy against discrimination meet none of these; the 'conditions of life' clause was drafted with deliberate starvation, expulsion and denial of medical care in view. Nor is the United States unusual in this respect, since several countries have higher foreign-born population shares. [Rejecting C] The counter-argument on record identifies the claim's origin in a slogan devised by Bob Whitaker and its circulation as the white genocide conspiracy theory, and notes that the parallel allegation about South Africa was examined and found to rest on false evidence. The conclusion also does not follow even on its own terms: an argument that anti-racism is directed against one group would have to show discriminatory treatment, and demographic projections are not that.