Get Whitey
skins
Richard Barrett
A generation after Negroes began to "Get Whitey," Negroes have had
little trepidation in naming their target or getting their way. This
is due to a penchant for Americans to either sidestep the issue or
shirk from a fight. The debilitating strategy was brought home when I
sought out Josh Green, a Sixties segregationist, for what I had hoped
would be an encouraging word for youth. Green responded that "I don't
want to get involved in...." He paused, a long while, and then said,
"That states-rights stuff any more."
I was flabbergasted. But, I quickly recalled that the "war-cry," from
the Americans, during the Sixties, had been "states-rights." Perhaps
it seemed less-threatening, more chivalrous. Maybe a tad more
traditional, less onfrontational. But, it was a sham. A few, such as
Carleton Putnam, debunked the very notion, insisting upon
"segregation." Louis Hollis preferred "racial-integrity." But,
Green, Paul B. Johnson, Herman Glazier and many others had convinced
themselves that "states-rights" was their winning ticket.
Yeomen had hardly faced down bayonets at Little Rock so that
homosexuals in Vermont could, one day, claim to be "married" due to
"states-rights." Yet, as he defended segregation, Orval Faubus was
characterized as waving a Confederate flag and sticking his fist in
the face of "Uncle Sam". Indeed, he fell into the trap by mouthing
"states rights," rather than nationality, Americanism and national
unity, which is what the fight was all about. Keith Bardwell ensnared
himself, likewise, in how he chose his words.
Bardwell intoned that he was "not a racist." He used the left-wing
term, which, in common but skewed parlance, means that he was not for
the white race, not for his own blood. A Negro could be for his own
blood, but that would be termed "brotherhood." If a Negro insisted on
associating only with his own kind that would be called "community,"
harking back to Barack Obama being a "community organizer," meaning
one Negro who would go around securing hand-outs for other Negroes.
If a white man -- I would simply say an "American" -- would insist
upon associating only with Americans, he would be tagged a "racist,"
the way Jimmy Carter labels anyone who rejects his integrationist-
line. The upshot has been to place the defenders of Americanism on
the defensive, because, once they assert what they are not, they find
little time to explain what they are. So, what, then, is Bardwell?
To hear him say it, he is a "child-welfare advocate." But students
did not battle para-troopers over welfare.
The tenor, since "Black is Beautiful" and "Black Power" took hold, has
been for the dispossessed to cast themselves as patriots. When
segregated private-schools materialized from white-flight, they would
invariably call themselves "patriots" and speak of preserving
"heritage," meaning pre-Earl Warren, pre-Little Rock invasion. But, if
they are merely rebels of a lost cause, how dare they call themselves
"patriots"? Doesn't that term apply only to Oceola McCarty and her
Negro-only scholarship-bestowers?
Such terms as "states-rights," "fighting-crime," "child-welfare,"
"freedom-of-choice" and, even, "ethnic-neighborhoods" have been tried,
but have failed. They skirted the issue and were not truly
forthright. Yet, with a Negro in the White House and "race" out in
the open and on the table, Americans have been more prone to "call a
spade a spade," than ever before. Consequently, they are more prone,
than ever, to, finally, call Americans Americans. But, that is not
enough, unless they gear to re-take power.
Denying, defending and retreating does not work. So, many have picked
up on calling themselves "Nationalists." "Nationalist" bursts through
all the hypocrisy, double-talk and code-words of the past. It is not
"sectional," as "states-rights" was, so it is on the right side of
history. It is not parochial, the way "segregation" was, because it
appeals to the greatest good for the greatest number. And, it shears
any vestiges of favoritism for one region, group or element, by
wholeheartedly embracing full, majority-rule democracy.
Be they Judge Bardwell, Justin Barker or Jeremiah Munsen, they need
not quibble, hem and haw or mince words. They may state that they are
"Nationalists." And, when it comes to Americans associating only with
Americans, they may quit fidgeting with "freedom-of-association,"
"free-speech" or "constitutional-rights" and simply affirm themselves
as "patriots." What about Negroes, who associate only with Negroes?
They are exercising their own "self-determination," focusing on their
African "motherland."
Who would have imagined that Negroes, calling themselves "brother,"
would have impelled, nay, shamed, Americans into renewing their own
brotherhood? Since Negro "community" is the divider of the nation,
the more descriptive term of "negritude" applies, referring to Negroes
in solidarity with other Negroes, in a way that does not undercut
American sovereignty, liberty or blood. A new generation of resilient
patriots, truth-tellers, home-lovers and straight-talkers is poised
for the greatest turnabout.
To unsubscribe from Skinlist:
http://www.skinheadz.com/contact/unsubscribe.php
To subscribe to Skinlist:
http://www.skinheadz.com/contact/subscribe.php
To comment on Skinlist:
http://www.skinheadz.com/contact/comment.php
To read this article on the Skinhead website:
http://www.skinheadz.com/docs/cartoons/2009/101901.html
Skinlist
Trademark/service of skinheadz.com
Not necessarily Skinlist views
Copyright 2009 Skinheadz