David Aaronovitch: Defending ‘white interests’ can never be right

March 27, 2017 at 7:27 pm (Anti-Racism, Europe, Human rights, identity politics, immigration, populism, posted by JD, Racism, reaction)

This article by David Aaronovitch first appeared in The Times on 15 March 2017. It’s so good that I thought – at risk of incurring the wrath of his lawyers – it aught to be released from behind Murdoch’s paywall; it’s a superb reposte to the”intellectual” relativist apologists for racism, David Goodhart and Eric Kaufmann. The Socialist Party and CPGB/ Morning Star “left” Brexiteers should also read , learn and weep:

Trying to draw a distinction between ethnic self-interest and racism is a highly topical but fatally flawed argument

Let’s talk about whites. Readers of other colours are welcome to listen in, but this is really about us and our legitimate white self-interests, which are not at all the same thing as racism.

We owe this formulation to David Goodhart, head of the demography, immigration and integration unit at Policy Exchange, a think tank. An article by Mr Goodhart entitled “White self-interest is not the same thing as racism” was published on its website a fortnight ago as a curtain-raiser for a report by Eric Kaufmann of Birbeck College London called “Racial self-interest is not racism.”

Goodhart says the main aim of the report was “to distinguish between white racism and white identity politics”. Or as Professor Kaufmann put it, to create “space for ideas around ethnic interests to be more openly aired without accusations of racism”.

The contention here is an important one: that what might be called The Great Upheaval (Trump, Brexit, Wilders, Le Pen — add or subtract as you please) is partly explained by the resentment of majority white populations at the way their legitimate interests have been overlooked. The implied remedy is that their interests should now be factored into public policy, in areas such as immigration. As you might imagine, it has provoked something of an argument.

Broadly speaking, Kaufmann takes the view that liberals have got it all wrong. Wanting your neighbourhood to reflect your ethnic character, he says, is not racist. Feeling “discomfort” when your group “no longer sets the tone in a neighbourhood” may be inward-looking, Goodhard adds, but “labelling that feeling racist risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy, driving white resentment”. Both men cite the work of an American Muslim academic, Shadi Hamid, who has also written about supposedly non-racist “racial self-interest.”

Kaufmann cites some revealing responses when American voters were asked whether it was racist or just “racial self-interest, which is not racist” to want an immigration policy that “maintain his or her group’s share of the population”. Nearly 73 per cent of Clinton supporters and 11 per cent of Trump supporters opted for “racist”. You may have already have spotted the flaws in this argument. The first is, how do we define “white”? To an extent, Kaufmann and Goodhard are guided by people’s own description. But if “white” is the classification, does that mean that “setting the tone” is literally the skin tone? Which, for many whites, could be expressed more honestly as “too many blacks”. Or by “white” do we mean “English-speaking”? Or “Christian”? Or “non-Muslim”?

A clue comes when, in Goodhart’s new book he talks of “white British people, especially those from lower income and educational backgrounds, [who] do still wish to retain a non-supremacist ethnic identity”. He assumes that this conveniently benign identity is threatened by the presence of others who are not regarded as sharing it. And since the top signifier is colour of skin it follows that the main threat to this group comes from non-white people.

As it happens I agree with Goodhart and Kaufmann and plenty of others that the soubriquet “racist” has been horribly overused. When a mild-mannered don is accused of racism for feeling that, on the whole, a statue of Cecil Rhodes is no great threat to humanity, then that’s an abuse of language. And it is also true that fear of being labelled racist has inhibited weak-minded public officials from doing their jobs, from the Victoria Climbié case to the British-Asian grooming gangs. Furthermore, as over the Satanic Verses, I support a robust defence of democratic values and rights — rights that have been hard won.

But when they talk about legitimate white “racial self-interest” in a society where 86 per cent of the population is white, I struggle with their argument. Kaufmann, for example, is indignant in claiming that “whites” must have their own interests if other racial groups have theirs. He cites a Zoroastrian (an ancient Persian religious group) as arguing against “marrying out” to preserve the existence of the ancient religion.

But this is an absurdity, There are nearly no Zoroastrians left. There are quite a few white people. And a similar read-across doesn’t work for minorities. Take my black nephew and my white nephew. My black nephew inhabits a society where he can witness us having an argument about whether there are too many of him. My white nephew has never encountered such a thing. My black nephew has an interest in dealing with prejudice. My white nephew doesn’t. Of course, if he were poor he would be disadvantaged and still white, but it would be the poorness that marked him out.

It is a feature of the times, of course, that a multi-millionaire aristocratic think-tanker, daughter of a 15th earl, can write to the Financial Times (as one did last week) complaining about a “liberal animus against whites” and not be thought eccentric.

White males were declared an “endangered species” in the same week that University Challenge managed a programme on which every person appearing was white and male. We are living through a moment of cultural reaction that has little to do with reality.

So let me spell it out. I find it very hard to imagine any “racial self-interest” that whites might have (in a country where they are, after all, in the majority) which wouldn’t have a negative impact on minorities. If, for example, we fashion an immigration policy that embodies the desire to “maintain” a white share of the population, then that policy will have to be racially discriminatory. Since we are never worried about white people moving into “ethnic” areas, a housing policy reflecting white self-interest could be aimed at keeping others off the list. More of my white nephew, less of my black nephew, just so that some people don’t feel “uncomfortable”.

And when Kaufmann writes, sympathetically, that “cultural conservatives hold elites responsible for enforcing antiracist norms — in the workplace, government and mainstream media — beyond the bounds of what they consider appropriate”, I reply “Didn’t they always?” Didn’t they first tell us that tribalism was natural, as was preferring your own, and that it was better to be educated separately but equally, to want your daughter to marry someone just like daddy, a human right to be able to let that spare room to someone you could identify with rather than a black or an Irish? I’m not racist. I have nothing against them. I’m just acknowledging my racial self-interest. Which is that I’m white. So give me the job.

  • Eric Kaufmann responds in a letter published on 19 March by The Times, here


  1. Mick said,

    It’s not up to whites to prove their ‘innocence’, it’s up to leftists and other maniacs to prove their ‘guilt’. Something they try all the time with all manner of accusations and always frame racial arguments regarding whites as something they have to defend themselves with. Which of course legitimises ridiculous race baiting by the lib-left in their minds because, hey, it’s talked about now.

    It’s not about whites, it’s about manic socialists. Dependent on the race, there’s a whole separate narrative. There are no ‘black guilt’ classes for the ethnic minorities, despite some of their number really filling out the jails. Race quotas to block career advancement for whites in the police, denial of Labour government contracts to towns which had too many whites in, or having PC bosses call their own institutions ‘hideously white’ and the like have been the new race relations. We have even seen magazine articles, local authorities and activists calling babies racist, Thomas The Tank Engine racist or even mathematics racist. It all bounces back to racial politics for the left – ‘rubbing the Right’s nose in Diversity’, as Andrew Neather said – because it’s a way to divide and conquer by exploiting a twisted social history of ruling class because PC luvvies despise the rest of us. Just as they did under communism to divide us.

    The left can’t prove white people are guilty of any special race crime, as it is ironically racist for leftists saying we’re all the same and that they need equality of outcome instead of opportunity. They don’t wail when white kids fail at school. The left are even wrong when they talk about whites being the ethnic majority. Not globally we aren’t, nor will we be in our own home nations within another century, as demographic studies predict.

    On what should be their strongest ground – howling melanin-based separatism – leftists are as much the deranged apartheid-minded narcissists as the Nazis they pretend they are nothing like.

    • Jim Denham said,

      Mick: how does your deranged rant (whites having to “prove their ‘innocence'” etc) relate to what Aaronovitch has written? Or are you using our BTL comments facility for personal therapy again?

      • Mick said,

        Ah, macho man. This guy is doing what I illustrate of the wider PC, framing a tribal argument while trying to pretend another tribal-type argument was bad. Or perhaps in your actual deranged rant, you never noticed.

        It must be therapy for the left, though. They only skill they sharpen is accusing me of being nuts.

  2. Glasgow Working Class said,

    It is from a think tank! The left do think! How do we stay out of power is their best thinking. Must be great being a Tory knowing you can do anythng you want for probably a few decades. All the daft lefties will be pan breid by then unless their superior white gene survives.

    • Mick said,

      And the funniest thing is that leftists are the ones who stick to a clique of the pure more than anyone else. Well, barring religious wackos, who they end up promoting.

      Even super-harridan Germaine Greer isn’t allowed to talk to them any more for not being radical enough. Same with Peter Tatchell, and he wants gay sex with schoolboys to be legal. So they have a nerve to criticise ‘whites’ for tending to hang around each other, same as anyone of any collective can do.

      The more they cocoon themselves in safe spaces, and attack the heretics, the less they can exercise true power. Just call the left out on what they’re like and they’ll have a much harder time persuading ‘whites’ that we’re just a bunch of toxic knob-ends. Hence my little speech above.

  3. Brendan Hall said,

    Just replace ‘whites’ with ‘Jews’ in every instance above and see how the social constructs and superior genes surround us on all sides.

  4. Simon said,

    All ethnic and racial interests, Jewish, Black, Latino, White, and Asian, have a negative effect on outgroups.

    Because all political interests are essentially about resource allocation: land, money, access, etc. And all resources are finite.

    Thus, all politics is a zero sum game in any given geographic region and the nature of politics is that one group’s realization of its interests is almost always another’s reduced realization of such.

    This was the essential subtextual logic behind the formation of the tribal nation state that we fought the Thirty Years War to manifest, and which the internationalists are now trying to revert.

    Unless the author can justify eliminating self-interest pursuit for all groups then he can not make the logical case that it should be limited for the White group or any White group.

    Majority or minority status is irrelevant. In fact, distinct nations in which the majority has self-determination preference are the simplest, most humanist (as they preference the greatest number of humans), and most functional systems.

    Minorities would realize the best outcomes, for their interests, in their own nations. Thus, prioritizing their interests in nations in which they are a minority, over those of a majority, is nonsensical.

    Low and behold, author Aaronovitch’s people just declared themselves an ethnostate in Israel, where the Jews enjoy self determination over others as a majority. Imagine that. It almost makes sense.

  5. Stanley Shannon said,

    I am white. I have as much legitimate right to advance and defend my ‘whiteness’ as any other person on the planet does theirs. If you cannot legitimately tell an African or an Asian that they cannot advance and defend their own ethnic and cultural uniqueness, whatever it might be, than you have no legitimate case to make against me either. If you are going to insist that we have to accept the large scale migration of non-whites into white societies, than I will have to insist that these people be reconciled to accepting that they must submit to the inherent cultural superiority of white native peoples, rather than forcing those native peoples to be reconciled to be culturally and ethnically displaced in their own historic societies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: