« Intellect & religious belief | Gene Expression Front Page | GALTONIANA »
September 09, 2003

Scribblings anyone?

My article for The American Conservative is up & online. I got a print copy for that issue, but have subscribed too, I won't accuse you of being a racist anti-semite for showing them some love! Thanks to Scott McConnell again, he's a real mensch. Speaking of mensch, I'm going to try & pawn another article off to Jamie Glazov in the near future for Frontpage Magazine, so keep your eyes open....

By the way, for the TAC readers that stumbled into this site, check out the site biographies for an idea of the orientation of this blog....

Posted by razib at 01:20 AM

One reason for my qualified optimism about Britain's racial prospects (which seems to surprise you chaps) is that unlike the short-lived and feeble Dutch empire, ours struck deep roots in the hearts and minds of its subject peoples. Most Caribs and Indo-Paks who came to Britain after 1945 were a self-selected minority who wanted to see what the Mother Country of the Empire was like. Few were disillusioned enough to leave, but neither have most gone into consciously separatist enclaves such as Holland's or France's. There's no British city where you can walk for hours without seeing a white, though I suspect David was exaggerating about Rotterdam.

Our early incomers were predisposed to appreciate the Royal Family (whose pix are all over West Indians' walls), Shakespeare (just get an Indian BA Failed (Calcutta) on to the subject of the Bard), parliamentary government, the Welfare State, etc, etc. Moreover, our Empire led the way in liberating slaves and it gave in pretty gracefully after WW2- unlike, say, the Frogs* in Indochina or Algeria. No UK-dwelling descendant of sugar-plantation helots or mahouts is clamouring for reparations or insisting that political candidates campaign in a foreign lingo.

Gandhi wept when midnight struck for Indian independence: "After all," he said, "a great Empire is passing away". There's more love by far than hate in the post-imperial relationship. The British Commonwealth is sufficiently popular that nations such as Mozambique and Cameroon which were never part of the Empire have joined it.

*Oops, sorry- more "hate speech".

Posted by: WJ Phillips at September 9, 2003 09:52 AM

Razib - don't take it personally since I cancelled my TAC subscription before your contribution, but as an TAC ex-subscriber I am wondering what was the point of the 'stumbling' disclaimer in your post?

Posted by: Phil T at September 9, 2003 10:14 AM

uh, godless, i think if you read the piece that i'm using flaxe-haired masses as a fill-in for northwest european....

Posted by: razib at September 9, 2003 11:25 AM

Razib's article hasn't been opening all day - I doubt if others are having trouble.

WJ said :

"Gandhi wept when midnight struck for Indian independence: "After all," he said, "a great Empire is passing away"

Banish the thought that Gandhi had any love for the Empire. After all, some historians have even suggested that Gandhi abandoned the path of non-violence during WW-II resulting in the large scale violence against British emblems and institutions during the "Quit India" movement: a charge that was made by the British establishment too, but denied by Gandhi. What he certainly wanted to do was make use of that opportunity to rid India of its colonial masters, during a time when British resources were stretched. So, I'm extremely skeptical of your claim that Gandhi mourned the passing of the empire.

Also, right-wingers in India routinely smear the good name of Gandhi, and they use all the ammunition they can get to serve this purpose. That they wouldn't choose to mention this is entirely inconceivable.

Posted by: king kong at September 9, 2003 12:33 PM

ah, stupid dispute over this flaxen-haired shit, but the turn-of-the-century migration was well after the peak of the irish migration (depending on which irish you mean-scotch irish were here a LONG time ago, the catholic irish tended to come at around the same time as the germans though their migration obviously lasted longer)-as for eastern europeans, you know that a large number of these are jews, who tend not to be blonde (the stereotype of flaxen-haired jews is ridiculous no matter that some jews are blonde). additionally, the italians coming at this time were mostly from southern italy and more so sicily that an equally weighted regional cross-section, so they were were less likely to be blonde than the typical italian. the only large group i can think of around 1900 that was blonde were the poles-and i am highly skeptical that these are the "huddled masses" that ms. lazarus was meaning. rather, it was jews fleeing pogroms.

btw-you might want to remind yourself that not everyone writes like its math ;) (add some irritation to the smile)

Phil-the traffic to the site is increasing since TAC went on the newstands, the blog is referenced in the article, ergo, stumbling....

Posted by: razib at September 9, 2003 05:21 PM