The Myth Of White Privilege

The Myth Of White Privilege

Wanda L.Thacker 7-13-2016

I want to start this by stating emphatically, I am sick to death of being expected to apologize to ANY ethnic minority for ANYTHING.

I read a post by a Facebook friend today. It contained a video of a woman named Jane Elliott attempting to make a point about racism. She says that because nobody would stand up and say that they wanted to be treated like black people in America that they are willing to accept it. Of course not many people would be willing to stand up in front of a group of people and disagree with her, and she knew it. And there is another one of her berating a female student about racism, and then making her apologize to all of the black people in the class. The videos were put on Facebook by Occupy Democrats. She's an old, self-hating bitch and a bully. She wants the rest of us white people to hate ourselves too. I recommend watching them, but they made me angry on several levels. One the liberal self hate that is being perpetrated on white people through educational institutions, and two, the fact that a teacher is being such a bully. It doesn't matter whether she is right or believes something to be true. The role of a teacher is to encourage critical thinking, not to tell you what to think and believe and ridicule you for not doing it.

The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education.-- Martin Luther King, Jr.

White Audience Left Speechless By BRILLIANT Question About Race.

When A White Girl Gets A Taste Of White Racism Feels Like

I am going to encompass some of what I replied to the post here, because it made me think, not because I am angry about the post. It is the situation in the world right now that I am pretty pissed about. And I refuse to empathize with black people more than I do with anyone else. Because to do so would be too much like admitting I had done something wrong in the first place. I'm not admitting to a wrong I'm not guilty of for the sake of political correctness. I empathize with everyone. It's in my nature to sympathize with the underdog. And I was taught morals.

I’m going to use a lot more general terms here than I’m usually in the habit of doing. I’m going to say things like “they” and “black people”. I’m doing it to make a point and because it is so often done when people are speaking about white people. We are spoken of as if we all do, say and believe the same things.

They (black people and the white people and Jews who supported their cause) marched and protested and preached from the pulpit for 150 years to get desegregation and now are being led by a bunch of militant idiots who want to take 4 or 5 states over and form their own country within a country and reinstate segregation.http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/10/exclusive-new-black-panther-leader-country-within/ Basically the New Black Panther leaders are angrier and louder, just like Jane Elliott in these videos. And the regular black people are afraid to stand up to his opinion just like that white girl in the video. White people, like those in the first video, won't stand up either because they have either been taught to be ashamed in school, college or in mainstream media. I would absolutely have stood up in both classes. I'm not ashamed. I've never been racist. And I don't back down from an argument. One thing I know is this: the depth of anger you feel, the volume of your voice, or how certain you are that you are right prove the veracity of your argument.  

 The reason our country is a representative republic is so that the minority and the minority opinion is represented. Democracy is mob rule.

"Democracy is the most vile form of government. ... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as the have been violent in their deaths."— James Madison (1751-1836) Father of the Constitution, 4th President of the U. S.

“We are a Republic. Real Liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy.”— Alexander Hamilton (1755-1804) Lawyer, Secretary of the Treasury & Secretary of State

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine percent."—  Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence, 3rd President of the U. S

Here is a Facebook post by Dr. Mauricelm-Lei Millere he's a Black Panther and he also started the African American Defense League.

Dr. Mauricelm Lei-Millere Calls For Barbecuing Police

Who is Jane Elliot and what makes her the moral authority of white privilege?

She has been teaching "diversity" since the 60's.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott She started out teaching 3^rd grade students about racism, the day after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. Here's a video of her talking about it. How Do You Identify Racism? The Angry Eye with Jane ElliottHow Do You Identify Racism? The Angry Eye with Jane Elliott

But her basis for her theory is faulty.

She segregated her classrooms, then manipulated her students by dividing them into two groups. She gave one group more privileges based on their blue eye color and then manipulated them into mistreating the less privileged group with brown eyes. Now here's where the fault in her theory comes in. She is presupposing that they would have mistreated the other group if left to their own devices. Some might have, but others most likely wouldn't have.

After a few days she had the two groups to change status, much like what is happening in society right now. We are being told that we have to feel so guilty about whatever status we have to the point that we give it up to anyone who is of a real or perceived minority. Supposedly, the mistreated group, with brown eyes, wasn't as mean to the other group when they switched places and were now in the more privileged position, because they knew what it felt like. But we are seeing that not to be what actually happens in practice.

Why is this? It is because people without morals will always bully when they get power over someone else. They don't learn empathy. They learn to envy that position of power and come to the conclusion that they will feel better about their own situation by exerting power over someone else. That's how domestic violence is perpetuated from one generation to the next.

Black people are pretty bad to mistreat each other, which goes to show that, although they should understand what it's like to be mistreated and therefore be more empathetic, it doesn't work that way. African Americans were victimized by intimate partners a significantly higher rates than persons of any other race between 1993 and 1998. Black females experienced intimate partner violence at a rate 35% higher than that of white females, and about 22 times the rate of women of other races. Black males experienced intimate partner violence at a rate about 62% higher than that of white males and about 2.5 times the rate of men of other races.(http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics/Race_Ethnicity_Statisitcs.html)http://www.americanbar.org/groups/domestic_violence/resources/statistics/Race_Ethnicity_Statisitcs.html You can take two things from those statistics. There needs to be a male role model in the home to teach men not to be violent, and many black women, who are held up as the backbone of their society, really suck at being empathetic. For black men to be abused 62% more than white men, it's black women in the form of mothers and wives/girlfriends that are perpetrating it. In short the prisons being full of violent young black men is directly caused by black women. There's a reason that black serial rapists tend to victimize black women. Some of them hate black women who they see as their abusers.

Black people are always wanting white people to apologize for what was done to their ancestors on plantations and talking about the legacy of it. Well, one of the biggest legacies of it is that black women were abused by their masters and in turn were abusive to their children, who in turn carried on that legacy of abuse. They didn't learn empathy, they learned bullying and the exercise of power over others. They learned that it's easier to take power than to earn it. In many instances, we don't have so much a racism problem as a morality problem in America. And you can't teach it by Jane Elliott's methods. They really aren't going to have much luck at getting other people to treat them however they think they are entitled to be treated, until they treat each other like human beings.

In that vein, lets look at the issue of their racism toward each other. Chris Rock is one of the most racist entertainers there is out there.See Dear Chris Rock Your Asian Joke Wasn't Funny http://xtribune.com/2015/chris-rock-just-made-some-racist-comments-that-should-have-every-white-person-furious/

He did a whole documentary on the subject called Good Hair. It's about how black people with straighter, so called “whiter” hair enjoy greater status and the lengths they go to to get straight hair. The same thing is true of lighter skinned black people. I'm not talking about how people of other races treat them, but how they treat each other. (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/GiveMeABreak/story?id=548303&page=1)

Supposedly, this started back on the plantations, where the masters treated the lighter skinned offspring that they had fathered, better. But what did the blacks do when they got off the plantations? Instead of correcting the behavior, they perpetuated it on themselves. Look at Beyonce Knowles. Her skin isn't the darkest and she either straightens her hair or wears wigs, and they are blonde. And yet she's supposed to be some sort of advocate for a whole race of people. It's ironic that when black people try to make themselves look lighter and blonder that is called a personal choice, but if a white person wears corn rows or dread locks or listens to rap music, that's cultural appropriation. All black people aren't the same. When one of them gets held up as speaking for them all, isn't that being prejudiced? I don't claim to speak for all white people. I can only speak for myself and to my own experience. I'm not going to judge all black people by the stupid things some of them do. So, why is it alright for me to be judged guilty of something someone else does? The logic that people like me aren't doing enough to stop the “systemic racism” and are therefore guilty because of it, doesn't hold water when you take into consideration that more black people are killed by other black people than by police. Especially, when you factor in those other forms of black on black racism already noted.

With the issue of racism, people often stray into semantics. Supposedly, bigotry, prejudice and ignorance are different than racism. We are told that black people can be prejudiced toward whites and have ignorant opinions about them. But racism is something that exists not just on an individual level but also on an institutional level, or so we are told. Speaking of appropriation, I think they have appropriated the word racism.

Racism is being defined as a system where white people as the majority is benefiting from oppressing blacks. And they say we all benefit from it whether or not we want to, and therefore are guilty. This is simplified by the term “white privilege”. But Merriam-Webster defines prejudice as: an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc. Ergo, if black people admit to prejudice, they are racist.

If you say, hey wait a minute my ancestors were oppressed and persecuted too, they counter with, yes, but in America white people weren't slaves, or forced to segregate, or at least not at the same level as blacks have been. It becomes an argument of, your misfortunes are not as great as ours, so therefore do not count.

They argue that white people don't have job discrimination, and are not brutalized by police or are not sent to jail or the penitentiary at the same rate as black people do. They say that in our country they don't have equal power, or status or opportunity. If you disagree with any of those points, they say you are in denial about your white privilege. And the very fact that you argue is held up as proof of your racism. You know, if I have privilege, I'm not apologizing for it.

As far as status and opportunity are concerned, this country was built by people who came here as minorities, from places where they were persecuted, only to be discriminated and treated as second class, only to struggle and rise above it. Many of them were indentured servants. In the mid to late 1700's when the German immigrants were coming into Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin wrote that they were inferior to white English people and worried that the English culture would be lost because of their different culture. He wrote all sorts of prejudicial things about them. And similar things happened when Irish immigrants came.

Black people say there is no such thing as reverse racism. A lot of white people would then say, not so fast, what about affirmative action? So, let's look at that in the area of college scholarships. There have been statistics quoted that say white people are 40% more likely to get a private scholarship than black students.

The thing to keep in mind about scholarships is this: there are more white people, so it stands to reason that statistically, more of them will apply for and receive scholarships. That's just common sense. If there is a pizza and everyone gets the same size slice, but there are more white people in line for a slice, more slices are going to be given out to white people. That can be twisted to say that because black people didn't get as many slices, they were discriminated against. It doesn't seem to matter that they get the same sized slice. That's why we have affirmative action. Affirmative action essentially forces some of the white people to get out of line so that more black people can get into line.They don't compare say, 200 whites and 200 blacks to the total available scholarships. They compare say 200 whites and 30 blacks. You can't do that and have an outcome where whites aren't being penalized for their race.

Whites make up 69.3% of the students There are 6.2% of white students that get private scholarships and 4.4% blacks getting them. This means as a group there are 63.1% of white students NOT getting private scholarships. As you can see, white people are only getting 1.8% more private scholarships.

But the same study said that white students were 40% more LIKELY to get a private scholarship. That doesn't make sense. It doesn't reflect that white students make up 61.8% of the population. And black students only make up 14%. It doesn't make any difference what the rest of the figures show. The only thing anyone is going to hear is that random 40% figure.

To revert back to the pizza analogy, yeah if there are more of us, it's more likely that we are going to get the scholarships. It's not surprising that some white people feel they are penalized by affirmative action. Who cares what the likelihood is, the important thing is the end result. Basically, the study shows that white people are getting a slightly higher amount of scholarships, but gives absolutely no basis for where they come up with that 40% more likelihood of receiving a scholarship from, and the point is irrelevant anyway.

Looking at another statistic, the study says that whites get 65% of total funding even though they only make up 61.8% of the student population. That's a difference of only 3.2%. Blacks make up 14% of the students and they get 11.9%. That's a difference of 2.1%. So whites get a little more than they should and blacks get a little less than they should. There could be a million reasons for those differences that have nothing to do with racial privilege. One might be grades and another might be as simple as they apply for them.

About 1/3 of white and Asian students that got PELL grants had high grade point averages, but only about 1/5 of blacks did. So in effect, this is what the problem is. It's not money, it's how hard you work for what you get. The white students are getting better grades and their reward for it is that black students with lower grades get almost as many grants and scholarships. You can check this stuff out yourself. (http://www.finaid.org/scholarships/20110902racescholarships.pdf) The bottom line is blacks get almost as much money by percentage of student as white people do, but they don't do it based on grades. The system is rigged. It should start out based on grades, and then from within that group be allotted according to race if race is going to be a factor at all. It may be purporting to level the playing field according to race, but it handicaps whites according to grades.

The idea of quotas and preferential treatment is counter to the American dream. And in 1978, the landmark Regents of California v. Allan Bakke case made racial quotas unconstitutional. Most Americans support affirmative action, but most whites are against preferential treament according to race. Affirmative action seeks to eliminate racial bias, but preferential treatment isn't the same thing.Americans Support Affirmative Action Not Minority Preference

I want to come back to that whole cultural appropriation subject again. If white people do anything that black people do, it's cultural appropriation. And if they wear straightened or blonde hair or lighten their skin, it's supposedly so that they can survive in our world and conform to our ideas of beauty. Do, they not realize that if white people mimic something from black culture, it's because they found something from within it to admire, and maybe they are including blacks into their idea of beauty? If they weren't being so negative, they would realize it's a compliment. Imitation is the greatest form of flattery. White people are exposed to the same media influences as black people.

When it comes to black on white crime, they resort to semantics again. They say that black people killing white people isn't hate crimes, because it isn't due to the “system”. Again, the argument is that to be racist it has to be something to do with the “system”. But that doesn't fit with the legal definition of a hate crime. The FBI has defined it as “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” There's nothing in there about the “system”. If that's the rule we have to live by, then it's the rule they have to live by.

I will just go ahead and include the statistics for black on white crime and blacks killed by police at the same time, since we have to have the “system” involved in order to prove racism. Blacks make up 13% of the population, but commit about 50% of the homicides. Between 1980 and 2008, they committed 52% of the homicides. Whites committed 45%. That's DOJ statistics. (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf). More recent statistics are similar. In 2013, black criminals carried out 38% of murders, compared to 31.1% for whites, again despite the fact that there are five times more white people in the U.S. (https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats)

Between 2011 and 2013, 38.5 % of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black. That is three times the 13% black population. Black men make up around 3% of the population. Yet they are responsible for the vast majority of these crimes. That's

an astonishing statistic.

Here's a good place to insert some Chris Rock racism. Speaking about police brutality, he said, “It’s not that it’s gotten worse; it’s just that it’s part of the 24-hour news cycle,” Rock said of police brutality. “What’s weird is that it never happens to white kids. There’s no evidence that white youngsters are any less belligerent, you know?”

Even though blacks and whites commit a similar number of crimes, whites are almost twice as likely to be killed by police. (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/21/michael-medved/talk-show-host-police-kill-more-whites-blacks/) Between 1999 and 2011, 2,151 whites died as a result of being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks. Again blacks make up only 13% of the population and yet the number of crimes is nearly equal to that committed by whites. The number should be much lower.

Even though white people outnumbered blacks five to one, blacks commit 8 times more crimes against whites than whites commit against them. This is from FBI statistics from 2007. A white male is 40 times more likely to be assaulted by a black male than a black man is to be assaulted by a white male. Interracial rape is almost totally black on white. (http://news.yahoo.com/black-americas-real-problem-isnt-white-racism-070000529.html)

This inclination to commit violent crime is precisely what causes more blacks to be in confrontations with police in the first place. It's just common sense that if most of the calls to police are coming from black neighborhoods, and the calls are concerning blacks committing these violent crimes, then of course they are more likely to have an altercation with police.

Black Lives Matter perpetrates the story that black people being victims of these police encounters is because the police are racist. Racism plays into it but it's only one element of the situation.

Blacks argue that they are targeted and framed for crimes by the police because they are racist. But according to the National Crime Victimization Survey, it is the victims who identify their attackers as black and not the police. (Race and Racism in the United States: An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic [4 volumes]: An Encyclopedia of the American MosaicFront CoverCharles A. Gallagher, Cameron D. LippardABC-CLIO, Jun 24, 2014)

Poverty is one of the causes of blacks being more likely to commit violent crime because it makes family breakdown worse. And I have already addressed the abuse rates in black households. But pop culture also idealize it. A study conducted by the Prevention Research Center of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Berkeley, CA, showed that young blacks that listened to rap and hip hop were more likely to abuse alcohol and commit violent crimes. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5390075) And the liberal media justify this violence as they did after the riots in Ferguson.

As I earlier stated, white people are accused of being in denial when we say we aren't racist and we don't have white privilege. Police brutality is definitely a problem, not only for blacks but for everyone. But blacks are also in denial of the fact that the have a part in the problem of police brutality. As long as they refuse to admit that blacks committing violent crimes is a problem, the situation is never going to be solved.

Black Lives Matter, The New Black Panthers and other political leaders and protesters, along with the liberal media are responsible for the continued violence and the resultant police brutality against black people.

How is it that I as a white person supposedly benefit from racism? Well black people say things like, white people are all much wealthier than we would have been if we hadn't stolen land and used the free labor of black people to our benefit. And that the financial success of the country is both directly and indirectly linked to slavery. That would mean that as American citizens, they also benefit from slavery financially. They rationalize that their poverty is entirely due to slavery. And that all wealth that white people have is due to slavery. And we supposedly all get paid more for the same job and amount of work than they do. And we have less unemployment because we are less likely to be fired and more likely to be hired. The Century Foundation’s Working Paper Series says that when you account for racial differences in age, sex, marital status, occupation, state of residence, and other factors that there is just a 5% gap in the unemployment rate between blacks and whites. Those statistics don't tell you why there is a difference, only that there is one.

Statistically, black children are more likely to grow up in poor neighborhoods or to come from poor families. This in turn causes them to be stressed, to suffer from deprivation and neglect. They are frequently being raised by uneducated single parents who don't have good parenting skills. But there are programs in place to teach them things like to read to their children and to take them for regular checkups at the pediatrician. WIC is one such program. Some of the blame here again comes down to priorities and morals. Whatever your station in life you can choose to be happy with what you have. And if you neglect your children, that is not someone else's fault.

We get to live in better neighborhoods with better schools and because we have a better start in life, we do better in school. That one is easy to counter without even using statistics. If you live in a nicer neighborhood, you pay higher taxes, regardless of your income and that tax base pays for nicer schools. And it's against the law to keep black people out of a neighborhood or building based on their race. Even Donald Trump has been sued over it and lost. I'm not saying that it's not a fact that being poor actually causes changes in brain wiring. And this follows them the rest of the way through childhood meaning that they are less likely to go to college. But that is why there are early childhood learning programs. It's to try and counter the problem. It's not as if people are ignoring the problem. This all somehow translates into them being more likely to end up in the criminal justice system. I guess it's because being poor is an excuse to resort to crime to make money.

They even gripe because we live longer. Black men live five years less on average than white men. Again this goes back to their start in life. They are more likely to be born as low birth weight babies. The infant mortality rate is nearly double too. But this is because they are more likely to be born to unmarried teen mothers who are uneducated, poor, and less healthy. And they are less likely to get prenatal care. Despite Planned Parenthood, black women use less contraception than white women. There is no indication that any systemic racism causes this. There are programs to help unmarried women of low income get contraception, and prenatal care. Some of them may not qualify, but some white women don't either. I understand that if you are poor, you don't eat well and nutrition effects both the brain development of a child and their health. But this doesn't change the fact that part of this viscious cycle is the fault of blacks too. Because of this bad start in life they have more health issues the rest of their lives like obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes. But again, it's not as if nobody is addressing the issue. With Obama Care, there has been a significant change. It made preventive care more affordable and concentrated on several other areas in which black Americans have lagged health-wise, including a projected expansion​ of maternity coverage to more than 390,000 black women. But the one of the greatest causes for black men living shorter lives than white men is homicide. Homicide accounts for almost as many deaths as heart disease and more than cancer. CDC Causes Of Death For Black Men I've already shown that they die from killing each other many times more than being killed by anyone else.

They say that the system never works in their favor. I have already established that sometimes racial preference in the name of affirmative action works in their favor. This system that is so terrible provides many of them with Section 8 housing, with SSI and Footstamps. If they work, they pay into and receive the same Social Security and Social Security Disability that white people do.

Just because I believe all men are created equal doesn't mean I believe their journeys in life will all be the same or should be. I haven't had to worry about whether I would be hired based on my race. I never had to worry about whether or not I would be accepted into a college based on my color. It is arguable that many white people have a head start. But it is also arguable that many of them have reached a hand back and tried to pull their fellow man up with them. Saying that all people are racist because they benefit from racism is akin to saying that all white people are guilty of the murder committed by one man. Or all black men are guilty of the murder committed by one black man.

Black people have an issue with white people being so called colorblind.You know the thing where white people say that you should be blind to color/race. I am not colorblind. I see very clearly that there are racial and cultural differences. I think that is magnificent. I have always thought it was well meaning stupidity to say that we are all the same. I think all of the uniqueness within humanity ought to be celebrated. They keep telling us that we can't just be passively about not discriminating, that we have to be actively trying to end inequality. But nobody tells you how they want you to do that. A good case in point was when the Black Lives Matter told white people to go home from their demonstrations.

White people are faulted for believing that if you work hard you can achieve much. We are told that our success doesn't have much to do with all that effort we put in, that the American dream isn't real. They say things like out of the 400 richest people in America, Oprah is the only black one. Why doesn't anyone ever check to see where those people started out in life? Supposing they inherited their wealth, where did their relatives start out and what did they do to achieve that wealth. If Oprah had children, would she not leave her money to them? Racial dynamics may have played into it. But negating a person's hard work is disingenuous. My mother's ancestors came here from Germany in the mid 1700's. They were escaping religious persecution. When they arrived in Philadelphia, they worked there for about seven years before they were able to buy land in Virginia. They worked that land for several more years before moving further into Virginia and buying other land. Nobody gave it to them. I just do not agree that they were able to do that because of slavery. They fought during the Revolutionary War. And several more generations later, they fought for the North in the Civil War. There is nothing in that narrative that suggests a benefit from slavery.

Here are some of the more silly ways that I have found on the internet that I am found guilty of white privilege.

1. Band aids come in flesh color, white flesh color. I don't know anybody who is the color of band aids. But if the companies who make them think we prefer that color, and they are in business to make a profit, it makes sense that they would market to us, since there are more of us. It's simple supply and demand.
2. The shampoo at hotels is of a type made for white hair. And somehow it's because we expect it to be. When I go to a hotel, I either bring my own shampoo or I go somewhere in the vicinity of it and buy some. It has never occurred to me to think hotels were supposed to provide me as a white person with white people shampoo.
3. I can buy pantyhose in my color pretty much where ever I look for them. Seriously? There are about 50 million different colors of pantyhose and a lot of the time I buy black pantyhose to go on my lily white legs.
4. They don't put my haircare products in an area designated as ethnic. I couldn't care less which isle my haircare products are in. When I went to Myrtle Beach, the drug store I went to to buy shampoo had way more ethnic products than white ones and I noticed it, but it didn't bother me.
5. I can purchase travel size bottles of haircare products as most drug stores. Again, who cares. If I couldn't I would go to the one that did have them. I'm not buying that most drug stores in black neighborhoods only sell products for white people.

If these are the kind of advantages I'm supposed to be happy about, I got screwed. I want better advantages.

Here are some more:

6. People don't assume that I got where I am because of my race or affirmative action. No. But they do assume it's because of my privilege.
7. When I was taught history in school, I was supposedly only taught white history. I wasn't taught about any of the contributions that black people made to the country. This is unadulterated bull excrement. I went to an upper middle class predominantly white school. But we were absolutely taught things about black people. And all of the pictures in the books weren't of white people.
8. National monuments are only of white men in places like Washington D.C. Well of course, they were the founding fathers. There weren't any black founding fathers. If they only represent white history, then why do they only reflect the early years of the country? Every doggone town in America has a Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.

Ben Shapiro wrote an essay called "Why White People Seek Black Privilege." He addressed the topic of white people having privileges they didn't earn. If you are born into a wealthy family, that might be an unearned privilege. Both blacks and whites can have those. Being born smart or tall or athletic is an unearned advantage. But what if you are born “white in a rural backwater in West Virginia”? That isn't an advantage over being born the son of Colin Powell, he points out.

There are things within our culture that glorify black culture. Black History Month, BET and things of that sort are reverse racism. All black television shows don't bother me. They have been around forever. But The BET Awards is different. The black actors participate in award shows with people of other races and then on top of that have awards specific to blacks on BET. Samuel L. Jackson won a Lifetime Achievement Award in 2016, at the BET Awards. He is worth $170 million dollars. I don't think that award means as much to him as all that bank. He could make do without that award and sleep well at night. But award shows are at best mildly entertaining to me, black or white. So, I really don't worry a lot about them. It just became an issue when a bunch of black actors decided they were going to boycott the white awards shows because they feel underappreciated. Give me a break. Will Smith is worth 200 million dollars.

They say that we don't need a white history month because all history is white history. That's stupid logic. There are other races after all. History is the history of mankind. Black History month is supposed to be about history in America. Yet there are people being taught about like Nelson Mandela. He's not American. If Apartheid were being taught in a history or social studies class, they wouldn't leave him out. But that's world history. There are people who were Jazz musicians being taught about as black history. They don't teach about musicians of any other race as history. I learned about Mozart in music class, not history. And he was European. They never ever implied in my music classes that black people made no contribution to music either directly or by omission. And black scientists and inventors, were taught about in my history class. I learned about George Washington Carver and Eli Whitney. It makes much more sense to me to integrate whatever black people think needs to be taught about during Black History Month into the regular curriculum. Otherwise, we need to have Hispanic-Latino Month and Asian Month and the list goes on. There are only 12 months. The United States Census officially recognizes six ethnic and racial categories: White American, Black or African American, Native American and Alaska Native, Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and people of two or more races. By my count, we should be having four other special months. The most interesting one would be the month for bi-racial people. There are so many variations in that category.

How do black people benefit from black privilege? Before you start jumping up and down, there is a list for this too.

1. The NAACP. There is no National Association for the Advancement of White People. That would be racist.
2. Black people think it is perfectly acceptable to call white people things like “honky” and “cracker”. But we better not use the “N” word.
3. The NBA is racist because 90% of the players are black. You can't say it's because they earned it. Because white people aren't allowed to claim they earned their privileges.
4. Have you ever heard of “affirmative grading”? That's when college professors hold black students to lower standards than whites.
5. If you aren't successful in any other field in life, you can build an entire career out of complaining about being black and call it activism. That works so well Rachel Dolezar pretended to be black so she could cash in on it.

You might say this list is ridiculous, but so is the other one.

It is entirely possible to acknowledge that racism exists, while not agreeing that I am guilty of it. I may have benefited from the way things are in the world, but that doesn't mean I should feel guilty. There's not a black person living in a housing project who if they won the lottery would feel guilty for it. I think white people should feel compassion for their fellow man and to try and better the lives of anyone they can. But they should do it because it's the right thing to do, not because they are guilty or ashamed.

One decided disadvantage to being white is having to answer for all of the ills of the world as if we created them each and every one all by ourselves. This myth is being foisted upon the American people at our so called institutions of higher learning. If you type white privilege into a search engine, a lot of the web addresses that come up have .edu at the end. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/whiteness05.htm. This University of Dayton site says white persons have a "special freedom or immunity from some [liabilities or burdens] to which non-white persons are subject[.]" There was also a conference held earlier this year to discuss white privilege. http://www.whiteprivilegeconference.com/. Apparently white people have meetings to aid each other in better experience their collective shame.

If I have white privilege, I'm not going to try to justify it. But I'm not going to apologize for it either. Check yourself.

Ezekiel 18:19-20 ESV “Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Lamentations 5:7-8 ESV “Our fathers sinned, and are no more; and we bear their iniquities. Slaves rule over us; there is none to deliver us from their hand.”

History and Practice of Eugenics PT 6

History and Practice of Eugenics

Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood

Some of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood's history needs to be covered, because her organization has branched out all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations and with the blessing and aid of the US Government. She was also associated with the American Eugenics Society.

Margaret Sanger was jailed many times for promoting birth control. She opened the first birth control clinic in 1916 for which she was jailed. In an interview, Mike Wallace reported that her first marriage ended in divorce because of her crusade. During the interview, he said that her Catholic mother died young after eleven pregnancies. Her father was an atheist, who suffered financially because of it. The people in the village she lived in called her and her siblings, "children of the Devil." But she denied having any antagonism toward the Catholic church as a reason for her work. She stated that she was a born humanitarian and that as a nurse she had seen a great deal of suffering and cruelty that were unnecessary. She said that besides alleviating the suffering of women, that the population problem was also a concern. She said that population needed to be kept at a static level until the level of available resources picked up, and when asked which was more important, controlling population or picking up the level of resources, she said that there is just so much you could do to pick up the level of resources.

She disagreed and took issue with the Catholic church's opinion that the natural purpose of marriage is to beget children. She said that many people had happy marriage without having several children. And said that the priests were celibate and really knew nothing about marriage. She said that she had read in the papers put out by the Catholic church that they had out-bred the protestants in Boston and other cities and speculated that their reasoning for being against birth control was because they wanted more Catholics, which would give the church more power. She denied having said that she believed that it should be illegal for the clergy of any religion to forbid birth control.

Toward the end of the interview, Mike Wallace asked her if she believed that sin existed, She said that "the greatest sin in the world was bringing children into the world that had diseases from their parents, that had no chance in the world, to be a human being, delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things, just marked when they are born. That to me is the greatest sin people can commit."

(http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/sanger_margaret_t.htmlhttp://www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/video/2008/wallace/sanger_margaret_t.html)

But whether or not she admitted to any negative agenda on television, she has been quoted as saying things that are thinly veiled racism. Speaking about eugenics, she said, "On it's negative side it shows us we are paying for and even submitting to the dictates of an ever increasing unceasingly spawning class of human beings who never should have been born at all--that the wealth of individuals and of states is being diverted from the development and the progress of human expression and civilization."(Margaret Sanger, 1922)

As I stated before, it was during the early 20th century that eugenicists began to use code words and phrases, such as feeble-mindedness, and quality of life, meaning that under classes had no quality of life, so would be better off not being born. They were not talking about eliminating poverty, but eliminating those who live in impoverished conditions.

In the paper that the Birth Control League put out called Birth Control Review, Walter Terpenning had this to say, in 1932, "As among whites, there are cases of degenerate Negroes whose propagation will be checked only by sterilization or institutionalization, but the practice of birth control among the majority of colored people would probably be more eugenic than among their white compatriots. The dissemination of the information of birth control should have begun with this class rather than with the upper social and economic classes of white citizens."

While the worst of that statement is directed at black people, he is also referring to eugenics being applied to lower class whites.

Newell L. Sims also said in the Birth Control Review in 1932, "In virtually every community where Negroes dwell one finds them in fat times and lean alike contributing a disproportionate number to the rolls of dependents and delinquents. They make excessive demands on the white man's charity and overtax his patience with the delinquencies."

T. Lothrop Stoddard was a member of the American Eugenics Society, Director of The American Birth Control League and wrote for the Birth Control Review. He wrote a book called The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy. The book The Dragon And The Cross says that he was the Exalted Cyclops of the Massachusetts chapter of the KKK.

"Non-white races must be excluded from America...The red and black races if left to themselves revert to a savage or semi-savage state in a short time."(Lothrop Stoddard)

He supposedly met personally with Heinrich Himler and Adolf Hitler on 19 December 1939, during a four month visit to Germany. When Halle University began to teach courses on race, Doctor Kuertner, told students that the course followed "American pathfinders Madison Grant and Lathrop Stoddard."

Stoddard wrote in his book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, "the white race divides into three main sub-species--the Nordics, the Alpines, and the Mediterraneans. All three are good stocks, ranking in genetic worth well above the various colored races. However, there seems to be no question that the Nordic is far and away the most valuable type..."

What you need to take from that statement is that whites can be racists against other classes of whites. Eugenics is not just a problem for persons of color. If they succeed at eliminating colored people, they will learn from the process, and be more practiced and efficient at eliminating whomever they deem to be the next group in their way.

As you can see, Margaret Sanger, may not have been willing to say what her true racist opinions were when she was interviewed by Mike Wallace, but she was aligned with men who had no qualms about it. She has claimed that the Birth Control League was never associated with eugenics. But at least until 1956, The American Eugenics Society listed her as a member. Many of the members of either group were members of both groups. She even at one point proposed merging both groups, or at least combining their publications, but the members of the American Eugenics Society were against it.

She is known to have made earlier statements though that give insight into her true leanings. "The eugenic and civilization value of birth control is becoming apparent to the enlightened and the intelligent...the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aim of eugenics."(Margaret Sanger, 1921)

She wrote a letter to Catherine Dexter McCormick, "I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them."(Margaret Sanger,1950) Catherine McCormick was heiress to the International Harvester fortune, and funded the development of the birth control pill.

In 1926, according to her autobiography she gave a speech at a KKK meeting, in Silver Lake, New Jersey, afterward, she was invited by twelve other KKK chapters to give speeches for them.

In 1927 she organized the World Population Conference in Geneva Switzerland, which was covered in Birth Control Review. Dr. Eugen Fischer attended the conference. If you will remember he worked for the Nazis.

Harry Laughlin from the Eugenics Society was also a member of the Birth Control League. He had some pretty diabolical opinions. "Eugenical sterilization is for the one purpose of preventing reproduction of persons who according to the known facts of heredity, in high probability, produce degenerate offspring. Several of the eugenical sterilization statutes provide for sterilization for the "benefit of the individual and for the good of society" No sterilization law is needed for providing for sterilization for the therapeutic benefit of the individual. Existing surgical laws amply cover operations which incidentally might cause sexual sterility."

What he is saying is that according to the law a doctor can perform an operation which has the added benefit of sterilization. He seems to be saying that doctors could slide this procedure by the law by saying the surgery was for something else. But most likely he also meant that the surgery could be snuck by the patient as well. In fact, this actually happened in some instances. Young girls were told that they needed appendectomies and while the doctors had them on the table, they also sterilized them.

Ernst Ruden was President of The International Federation of Eugenics in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, which was also funded by the Carnegie Foundation. He was a German and in Birth Control Review, he called for racial purity in 1933. He wrote the eugenics laws for the Nazis. He helped in the round up and sterilization of 600 bi-racial people in Germany who were reportedly fathered by black men. The were referred to as Rheinland Bastards. After the war, he was identified as one of the doctors who experimented on the prisoners in the camps.

The Nazis may have gotten their idea for concentration camps from Americans. In 1932, Margaret Sanger called for the US government to set up farms and camps for the poor, illiterate, unemployable, morons, defectives and epileptics would be segregated from the rest of society. They should be forcibly kept there until they developed better moral conduct.

In Indiana they actually set up some of these camps, where they could send people who were feeble minded. The state could label as feeble-minded, someone who was shiftless, poor, or did not do well in school or had insufficient moral judgement. There are people who are not black who could be defined that way now.

In the 1920's Massachusetts a Eugenics Project proposed sterilization of girls who were defective. i.e. unwed mothers, poor, or a non specific category of socially undesirable. Young teenage boys could be castrated for having signs of kleptomania, or something called solitary behavior.

Hitler wrote, in 1934 a letter to compliment Leon Whitney, Executive Secretary of the American Eugenics Society, for a book he wrote on sterilization. His book was called, The Case For Sterilization. He wrote that the "If we could purge the country of our typical slum elements in city and country alike, what harm would be done" Why would it not be well worth while to include them in the group whom we are weeding out of the population garden? " His writings were also published in the Birth Control Review. Obviously, he was indicating that the list of undesirable people should be expanded to poor whites. He also wrote that, "...we should probably be disposing of the lowest fourth of our population,,, and that they were "too stupid to comprehend or carry out the simple methods of contraception...we should hardly miss them."

The President of the American Eugenics Society, Frederick Osborn, stated that "Eugenics goals are most likely attained under a name other than eugenics."

In 1942 due to negative associations with the Nazi's, The American Birth Control League, changed it's name to Planned Parenthood. The were seeking to distance themselves from terms like "population control" and "eugenics." The agenda didn't change, however.

In 1929, Samuel Holmes, American Birth Control League, stated that mandatory birth control should be used as a tool to eliminate the menace to the white race, i.e the increase in Negro population. He proposed that a quota system be instituted by the government, which would determine who had the right to have children, and determined by race.

1936, Julian Huxley, stated that genetically inferior classes could be made to have fewer children if they were denied easy access to welfare. He also thought that medical care should be restricted to those classes of people so that fewer of their children would survive. People who were unemployed for too long should be forcibly sterilized. He received honors from Planned Parenthood and spoke at one of their conventions.

"We hope the restraint to population growth can come about through voluntary means. But if it does not, involuntary methods will be used."(Dr. Donald Menkler, 1972, President of the American Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians, and member of Board of Directors, Planned Parenthood Federation of America)

Garrett Hardin received the highest national award from Planned Parenthood in 1980. He was a Professor at UC. He called it insanity to rely on voluntarism to control population. He was a member of the American Eugenicists Society. He said that parents should be willing to give up their right to breed for the betterment of society.

Gunnar Merdal or Myrdal, wrote a book called, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem In Modern Democracy. He had a staff of 75 assistants,while writing this book, who were paid by the Carnegie Foundation. He and his wife also received money from the Kennedy Foundation and were connected with Swedish eugenics and the forcible sterilization of 66,000 people. Sweden was his and his wife's Alva's native country. A few quotes from the book, " There were about 17 times as many Negroes in the Unites States in 1940 as there were in 1790, when the first census was taken, but in the same period the

white population increased 37 times (Figure 1). Negroes were 19.3 per cent of the American population in 1790, but only 9.8 percent in 1940. (Chapter 7, pg.1) "Commonly it is considered a great misfortune to America that Negro slaves were ever imported. The presence of Negros in America is usually considered as a "plight" of the nation, and particularly of the South."(chapter 7, pg. 167) "All white Americans agree that, if the Negro is to be eliminated, he must be eliminated slowly so as to not hurt any living individual Negroes."(chapter 7, pg. 168") "The only way possible of decreasing Negro population is by means of controlling fertility."(pg. 170) "...birth control facilities could be extended relatively more to Negroes than to whites, since Negroes are more concentrated in the lower income and education classes..."(chapter 7, pg. 176)

The first quote shows that either they had already been fairly successful at lowering the growth rate of the Negro population, or that it was really the whites who were overpopulating.

Eventually, the eugenicists developed the birth control pill and other forms of contraception that were more acceptable to some than sterilization had been.

"There is a campaign to bombard the poor with pills and potions. If this movement continues, we soon may be accused of fighting poverty by eliminating the poor and overcoming hunger by removing the hungry." (Hugh Carey, Congressman, New York, 1966)

"Contraceptives will become a form of drug warfare against the helpless in this nation. Those whom we could not get rid of in the rice paddies of Viet-Nam we now propose to exterminate if necessary, eliminate if possible, in the OB wards and gynecology clinics of our urban hospitals." (Jesse Jackson, 1971)

"Under the cover of an alleged campaign to 'alleviate poverty,' white supremacist Americans and their dupes are pushing an all-out drive to put rigid birth control measures into every black home. No such drive exists within the white American world."(Black Unity Party, 1068)

"Birth control and sterilization in the wrong hands would be more deadly to Negroes than all the tanks, riot guns, cattle prods, billy clubs and shackles we have overcome in the past." (Dr Leroy Swift, OB/GYN, 1968)

"Black people are the target of birth control not because the ruling politicians like them and care about their economic equality, but because they had them and can no longer use them in plantations and other cheap-labor conditions." (Muhammad Speaks, Black Muslim Newspaper, 1970)

In 1958 black people in the Caribbean began to protest birth control that was targeted at blacks. At the same time, whites were being encouraged to have children.

Newspapers have reported that in South Africa, under Apartheid, birth control was one of the main chief weapons being used against blacks.

Once they figured out that birth control was being used to eliminate overpopulation of Blacks, African American people began to resist. So eugenicists began to call for chemicals to be added to the water supply of urban areas. In 1969, it was considered during a UN meeting. If the plan had been implemented, couples would have to apply to the government to become parents, and they would be given an antidote to the chemicals that had been added to their food and water.

In a letter to Clarence Gamble from 1939, Margaret Sanger wrote, "The minister's work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." He was an heir to the Proctor and Gamble fortune and a backer financially of Margaret Sanger. He himself said, "For every one man or woman who has been sterilized, there are 40 others who can continue to pour defective genes into the State's blood..."

Clarence Gamble was the heir to the Proctor and Gamble fortune, and he founded Pathfinder International in 1957. This organization focuses on reproductive health, family planning, HIV/AIDS prevention and care. Pathfinder operates family planning and reproductive health programs in more than 25 countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America In 1996, Pathfinder received the UN Population Award. In 1928, he opened a women's clinic in Cincinnati, OH. He worked closely with Margaret Sanger, in order to gain acceptance of the birth control movement in the United States. In addition to being a millionaire, he was a Harvard trained doctor. During the 1930's, he was president and delegate-at-large of the Pennsylvania Birth Control Federation; state delegate, one of five vice-presidents, and member of the Executive Committee of the Board of the American Birth Control League; medical field director of Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau; and treasurer and member of the board of Robert Dickinson’s National Committee on Maternal Health.

They began to recruit ministers to push the Planned Parenthood agenda and gave them sermons to preach. They did things like hold contests for the minister who could write the best pro-eugenics sermon.

The History and Practice of Eugenics, Pt. 1

The History and Practice of Eugenics. 

(This Article will be divided into several parts.)

If you have ever heard of eugenics, you have probably only heard about it in reference to blacks or the Nazi Holocaust. But you need to be aware of it even if you are not black or Jewish. Because it is being used in the 21st century to eliminate more that just those two groups of people. If you do not belong to one of the elite families who wield power around the world, you have the potential to become a victim of eugenics, thanks to the modern advances of genetics, nano-technology and robotics.

In the 1800's, geneticists believed that they could use science to prove that degeneracy was an hereditary trait. And if it was, the premise was that these people should be prevented from reproducing. Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution. It was also explained by Sir Francis Galton as "the study of the agencies under social control, that improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally."Eugenicists believed that if people were poor and unfortunate and disadvantaged, it was because they were genetically inferior.

The basis for eugenics came from Charles Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, who believed in something called positive eugenics, and selective breeding for the upper classes. He is considered the father of eugenics. The result of these two men's ideas is called Social Darwinism. The fathers of these two men and a man named Josiah Wedgwood pledged that their families would only breed with each other. You can see their family tree charting the characteristics of philosophy, science and art, here: http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/index2.html?tag=1061 There is an easier to follow chart here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%E2%80%93Wedgwood_family

So to them, it was not just a theory, they intended to put it into practice. They believed that within a few generations, their gene pool would produce super men. The Darwin's were scientists and doctors. The Galtons made their money through arms manufacture, but diversified into banking later. The Wedgewood family are famous for Wedgewood blue pottery.

Francis Galton was born in 1822. He dropped out of school in 1842, at the age of 20. But he inherited a fortune two years later. In the 1850's he was studying genetics and the family trees of noble families. In 1869, he wrote a book titled, Hereditary Genius. It had some of his early ideas on the subject of eugenics, without actually calling it that name. He believed that the lower classes would out breed the upper classes who practiced restraint. It would be necessary to take steps "to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable." It is interesting to speculate to what degree the fact that his marriage did not produce children, effected his opinions. Upon his death, he left his fortune to London University for an endowment for a Professional chair on eugenics. There were many people from different backgrounds interested in the subject. One of Galton's friends, Karl Pearson, was a statistician. Tracking statistics would have been highly valuable to the field.

As I said before, Social Darwinism was also part of eugenics. It was the idea that Darwin's ideas had to be applied to humans, so that the race wouldn't be over run by degenerates. It is an entirely human tendency to feel that you are better than other people who are different than you are. Eugenicists were mostly from the upper class, and therefore considered themselves better than the lower classes. If the upper class were the "fittest" then the lower classes were considered "unfit." In the U.S., the lower classes were predominantly black or some other minority. So, it took on racist tones from the start. Although it wasn't only aimed at blacks. Irish Catholics and Jews were a target. The Irish posed a threat to Anglo-Saxon Americans because they were competition for jobs, land and space. And they fell into the idea of being considered "others" because they were mostly Catholic, and Americans were mostly Protestants. And Jews were often darker complected. as well as being historically blamed for all the ill in the world by Christians. The lower races, the poor, and mentally handicapped were said to be sexually immoral. Sex was not usually addressed directly in polite conversation. But in the minds of upper class people. children being born were evidence of sex just by their very existence. The lower classes supposed tendency to be preoccupied with sex, was considered degeneracy, or in other words, morally corrupt. Degeneracy referred to physical short comings, and moral ones, like promiscuity, alcoholism, and criminal tendencies. The other term used to single people out was feeble-mindedness. This included both mental illness and a low I.Q. I will cover how I.Q tests were used in the field of eugenics later. Since they were supposedly using science, alcoholism and crime were evidence that you were degenerate, incapacitated and feeble-minded.

Sir Frances Galton, the father of eugenics studied twins and family traits, and began the nature vs. nurture debate that continues today. He believed in Positive Eugenics, which encouraged the reproduction of imminent men whose family accomplishments, which he had tied to human progress. The opposite of Positive Eugenics is the discouragement of reproduction in people who are considered to have undesirable traits, and blamed for hindering human progress. While he cautioned against drawing any definitive conclusions from his work, his work was ultimately used just as his cousin Charles Darwin's was to justify, some awful crimes throughout history.

Some people point out that he eventually rejected slavery, but his family derived their wealth from slavery, and he did not reject it until after it had ended.

"I do not join in the belief that the African is our equal in brain or in heart; I do not believe that the average negro cares for his liberty as much as an Englishman or even as a serf-born Russian; and I believe that if we can, in any fair way, possess ourselves of his services, we have an equal right to utilize them to our advantage..."(Frances Galton, 1857)

"...average Negroes possess too little intellect, self-reliance, and self-control to make it possible for them to sustain the burden of any respectable form of civilization without a large measure of external guidance and support." (Frances Galton, 1873)

Most people do not know that Charles Darwin himself, was racist. "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world...The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state...and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin, 1890)

He was saying in a very polite way that black people were a link between man and gorillas or baboons.

The original title to The Origin of Species had subtitles. The original title was, On the Origin of Species, By Means Of Natural Selection Or The Preservation Of Favored Races In The Struggle For Life. The later editions had the shorter and more politically correct title.

I find it highly ironic that Francis Galton left his studies due to a mental breakdown, being that he felt that mental incapacity, was relegated to the lower classes. He even wrote this: "Men who leave their mark on the world are very often those who, being gifted and full of nervous power, are at the same time haunted and driven by a dominant idea, and are therefore within a measurable distance of insanity." Another biographical fact that was of interest to me was the fact that he was a Mason. In 1844 he became a member of the "Scientific Lodge."

People of color have been viewed as not quite the equal of even well meaning white people since the days of abolition. While they felt that some time in the future, that black slaves might catch up and become equal, even men who were considered to be open minded enlightened thinkers, believed blacks to be inferior and colonialism was based on the idea that whites had a Christian duty to help them become more like whites by force if necessary. The believed that they had to send missionaries to places like Africa and India to bring the peoples there over to their religion, ideology, and social customs, which to them were obviously superior. They had to civilize the uncivilized. Eventually, the abolitionists and missionaries came to the conclusion that people of color could not be civilized and should be exterminated. Where British men and women went to settle, like in Australia, they held the view that the races were arranged into some sort of hierarchy, with them at the top. So, since the Aboriginal people were at the bottom of that hierarchy, they were justified in treating them like sub-human animals. When they had to compete with them for land, they felt justification in killing them. In Tasmania, they wiped out almost all of the approximate 5000-6000 Aboriginal people. The British began colonizing Tasmania in 1803, about 25 years after they settled in Botany Bay. When they were down to a few hundred, the governor, decided to send a missionary who had been working amongst them to convert them to Christianity, to round them up under the premise of negotiating a treaty with them. He convinced them to go to an island with the missionary supposedly temporarily, so that they would be safe and be able to live in peace. As in the manner of US reservations this place really turned out to be a place to finish removing their culture from them and force them to become civilized Christians. They eventually became susceptible to European diseases because they were worn down physically and mentally. The result was that almost all of the remainder of them died off. The place where they moved them to, had been a convict station, and was abandoned, because it was not considered a fit place for convicts to live. There have been some people recently, who say that through studying the records, there is no evidence that there was any conflict between the whites and the Aborigines. But the fact remains, that by 1825, there were 13,000 whites, to the original 5,000 Aboriginal people. They didn't stand a chance.(Forgotten Genocides: Oblivion, Denial, and Memory - Page 71,René Lemarchand - 2011)

By the 1840's, all around the world the Christian abolitionists found that the peoples that they sought to civilize did not learn to be civilized as quickly as they had hoped they would, and in places like the Caribbean where the whites were losing money in the sugar cane plantations, began to say that it was because the missionaries had been wrong and that civilizing blacks was never going to work because they were born lazy and inferior. Thomas Carlisle was a British writer and historian, and he was among those who began to call for returning to some sort of slavery. People began to be swayed back to the idea, that there was a proper order that things should be ran in. Men should rule over women, white people should rule over people of color, educated people should rule over uneducated people, because they knew what was best. Many imminent writers of the time held opinions that we would now recognize as racist. Charles Dickens wrote about the inequality of classes, but he was only concerned with whites. William Makepeace Thackeray, who wrote Vanity Fair, was racist. "It is to the middle-class we must look for the safety of England." Charles Kingesley who wrote Water Babies, was a racist. They showed this by showing support for the governor of Jamaica who had been put on trial for ordering his troops to kill 500 Jamaicans and burn their homes in the 1860's. Many people believed that he was justified in doing it , because blacks only understood brute force and violence. During the Victorian period, anatomy was flourishing due to the study of dead bodies. Robert Knox wrote a book called The Race of Man. He said that race was important in everything. Literature, science, art, and civilization as a whole depends on race. It would determine your character, your position in society, and your destiny as a whole. He said, "Can the black races become civilized? I should say not." He was using the science of anatomy to base his opinions on, a scientific basis for racism. He believed that whites and blacks were in a war of extermination, and that one or the other must prevail.

Samuel G. Morton collected the skulls of people of different races and studied them. Skulls were deemed to be of importance because they held the brain, and the bigger the skull the bigger the brain. The American School of Race Sciences decided that the skulls of the races were so different that they must be different species. They began to think that other races were not lower races of man, but probably not human at all.

But the person who had the greatest effect on racism was Charles Darwin. Because of his theory of natural selection, people began to feel that whites had evolved into something superior to people of color. And it justified British Colonialism. People like Thomas Henry Huxley, ancestor of Aldous and Julian, and the economist Herbert Spencer began to be what we call Social Darwinists. Darwin’s theory said that all through nature, the most successful organisms were the ones that specialized. And British people were specialized at expanding. They were the most recently evolved, and the most successful at it, and by default, the other races that were in competition would naturally be eliminated. They would disappear because they couldn't compete. The more successful they were at wiping out other people and expanding their territory, the more they saw it as proof that they were right and were the superior species.

It didn't take long for British people to begin seeing each other as separate races, Cockney people, Welsh people, Scottish people were referred to as races. So whatever your economic status in society, was a result of your race and defined your race. But in direct opposition to Darwin’s theories, the lower classes multiplied faster than their so called superiors. Darwin’s cousin, Frances Galton was deeply affronted and frightened by the fact that those he considered the least fit, were surviving, and felt that he had to stop it. Thus eugenics came into being because he felt that the middle classes should be encouraged to multiply and the lower classes discouraged and prevented from multiplying in an attempt to direct human evolution.