Duke Responds to Poster: In Defense of the White Man

By Selwyn Duke

Not surprisingly, my recent piece "In Defense of the White Man," evoked a tremendous response (emails are still coming in).  Also not surprising is that some of them were negative and expressed some very common misconceptions relating to the article's subject matter.  Because of this, and being that the issue at hand here is so important, I'm going to respond today and in the near future to some of the comments I've received.  And today I'll focus on a post left at my site by "Sam."

In part, Sam wrote:

You fail to address the reason why the economic state of Africa is far far worse than that of American blacks. The root of the problems on the African continent lie hundreds of years ago with European colonization, the slave trade ripping up and pitting tribes against each other, and imperialism. With very few notable exceptions, sub-Saharan Africa was either ruled by whites, or, when the Europeans slowly trickled out and returned African countries to African rule, left virtually stranded with no real basis for forming non-violent societies.

Sorry. We may never know what would have happened on the African continent if not for slavery. Slavery did not just affect the Americas.

Dear Sam,

I understand why you believe what you do, as it's a common myth.  In reality, there is absolutely no correlation between a nation having been a colony and economic state.

The great economics professor Walter Williams (who happens to be black, if that means anything to you) addressed this very well in a column titled "Self-inflicted Poverty."  He wrote:

"Maybe your college professor taught that the legacy of colonialism explains Third World poverty. That's nonsense as well. Canada was a colony. So were Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. In fact, the richest country in the world, the United States, was once a colony. By contrast, Ethiopia, Liberia, Tibet, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan were never colonies, but they are home to the world's poorest people."

However, there is an extremely strong correlation between the type of economic system a nation has and its economic state.  Williams expounds upon this as well:

There's no complete explanation for why some countries are affluent while others are poor, but there are some leads. Rank countries along a continuum according to whether they are closer to being free-market economies or whether they're closer to socialist or planned economies. Then, rank countries by per-capita income. We will find a general, not perfect, pattern whereby those countries having a larger free-market sector produce a higher standard of living for their citizens than those at the socialist end of the continuum.

No question.  However, there are other factors that need to be mentioned.  You'll also find a very strong correlation between religion, and prosperity and advancement.  Generally speaking, the part of the world known as Christendom has prospered and driven technological progress, while the rest of the globe, which had been stagnating, only started catching up when it began imitating the former's ways and adopting its technology.

For example, let's consider the Moslem world.  How does this grab you: More patents were issued in the state of Utah in 2005 than in the Islamic world during all of its history?      

Moreover, when we use colonialism to explain the woes of former colonies we encounter the same problem as when we use "the legacy of slavery" to explain the state of blacks in America: The notion is contradicted by the fact that, generally speaking, their condition was better during times closer to the events we're blaming.

For example, the black family was in much better shape many years ago than today; it was not the case 80 years ago that 70 percent of black children were born out-of-wedlock.  And other social ills weren't as prevalent, either.

As for former African colonies, consider Zimbabwe.  It was once a British colony and was in infinitely better shape during that period.  Now, before anyone goes off half-cocked, this is not synonymous with saying that colonization is a good thing.  It's simply to say that there are worse things.  One of these is Zimbabwean strongman Robert Mugabe.

Since shortly after Zimbabwe's independence, the country started experiencing a downward spiral in almost every way.  Here are some statistics, courtesy of Wikipedia:

"Life expectancy at birth for males in Zimbabwe has dramatically declined since 1990 from 60 to 37, among the lowest in the world. Life expectancy for females is even lower at 34 years.  Concurrently, the infant mortality rate has climbed from 53 to 81 deaths per 1,000 live births in the same period."

Additionally, Zimbabwe used to be a breadbasket, with agricultural products being its main export; now, however, it cannot even feed its own people.  Why?  Because Mugabe saw fit to seize land from the country's white farmers -- who were feeding the nation -- and redistribute it among some in the black population.  It seems that some in the country would rather starve than be fed by white hands.  So be it.  That's what you call biting off your nose to spite your face.

Now let's delve further into the matter of colonization.  You said, Sam, that the Romans had no right to colonize the Germans, and I'm glad you mentioned the event; many are completely unaware that Europeans were colonized at one time, too.  In fact, some of my ancestors lived in regions that were subject to Roman rule.

And I believe the nations they became are now better for it, as my pagan ancestors' cultures absolutely were inferior to what the Romans introduced.  Most notably, Roman colonization had the blessed effect of, ultimately, Christianizing Europe. 

In other words, many of my European ancestors were no doubt angry that they were under the dominion of some strange foreign invaders.  I'm sure they were upset that their culture was being disrupted and that different values were being imposed upon them.  Yet good came out of the evil, and I do not lament the disappearance of my ancestors' ancient cultures.

Although this perspective is rare among more recently colonized peoples, it does exist.  Just last night, in fact, a Zambian friend of mine told me about how he believed that the effects of colonization were, on balance, positive.  And then there was a man I knew years ago who hailed from India, who actually hated Mohandas Gandhi (or at least what Gandhi did).  He explained that when Gandhi succeeded in expelling the British, all India's engineers, technicians and other professionals left the country.  I personally don't know how accurate this characterization is, but that's what the man said.

One problem people have when analyzing these issues is that they don't understand, to paraphrase St. Augustine, that God can bring good out of evil.  For example, we should not have illicit sexual affairs, but if a child results from one, is he not a blessing?  Do we say his existence is a bad thing?

As for what the state of the Third World would be absent contact with Christendom, it's no mystery.  You may say "we may never know," but that is presumptuous.  I know very well.

These were civilizations that had stagnated -- for all intents and purposes they were not advancing technologically.  Advancement is not a given.  Why, even in the late 1970s, we were still occasionally discovering stone-age tribes in places such as South America.  And the only benefit they derived from not having contact with the West was that they generally didn't have to worry about the infirmities of old age.   

Thus, the only way we could conclude that the effects of colonization were mainly negative is if we subscribe to the noble savage myth.  But it's a myth because primitive peoples were far more savage than they were noble -- and this includes my ancient ancestors. 

How many of us could dispute this with any sincerity?  Do you really want to return to the ways of 19th-century Africans or ancient Germanic tribes?  I sure don't.  But if you do, feel free to cast aside the trappings of modernity and return to nature.  It wouldn't be hard, as there are still plenty of wild and woolly places where you can live without being accosted by cars, TVs, computers, refrigerators, toilets and running water.  I'd say send me a postcard, but the places I'm talking about don't have mail service, either.

Next, another poster, Shaun, said that things such as slavery and colonization are "stains on the history of Europe."  While I understand that he was trying to emphasize his distaste for such practices, I wouldn't even go so far as to echo that sentiment. 

Now, if we mean to say that any time people sin it's a stain upon them, that's one thing.  But further than that I would not go.  None of us should commit adultery, but does the fact that some people in every race did so put a stain upon that race? 

All groups are guilty of every sin imaginable.  Slavery and exploitative colonization are sins.  We have to endeavor not to sin, but it would be ridiculous to lament over the sins of the past.  When people come to an area, they may come as conquerors, guests or missionaries but never as angels.  And it makes no sense to trouble over the fact that our ancestors were human. 

The Romans were proud of their conquests, even though Julius Caesar was guilty of visiting great carnage upon his targets (his forces killed about a million during their invasion of Gaul).  And while we've grown beyond taking pride in such things, they shouldn't be a source of shame, either -- except for the people who actually perpetrated them.

To me, feeling shame over things that Europeans did to some people's ancestors would be as ridiculous as being angry at the Romans over what they did to mine. 

                     © 2008 Selwyn Duke -- All Rights Reserved 

Comments

[Philip France]

Once again I applaud Selwyn Duke for his inimitable logic and his articulation into plain, understandable and indisputable fact.

In a previous post I recommended that one follow the arc of cultural and technological advnacement and compare it to the arc of the spread of Christianity. The correlative is undeniable. I invite and welcome any and all arguments to the contrary.

[dacklow]

I can only say that the mark of the beast is here

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90008

[Sam]

I should begin by saying that I appreciate your response and I wish I had time to respond in full, but I'll start off with this for now. I realize that here I am responding to words that are not your own, but those of Professor Williams, you merely cited them as an example.

"Maybe your college professor taught that the legacy of colonialism explains Third World poverty. That's nonsense as well. Canada was a colony. So were Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. In fact, the richest country in the world, the United States, was once a colony. By contrast, Ethiopia, Liberia, Tibet, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan were never colonies, but they are home to the world's poorest people."

You cannot possibly expect anyone to swallow valid argumentative comparison of the treatment of Canada as a colony and the treatment of Cambodia or Rwanda or South Africa. Australia, New Zealand, etc., were colonies predominantly populated by settlers from their founding European nations, said European settlers were not forced into slavery. If you want to see the true effect of those colonies, think about the people who were there already. The current poverty levels of Aboriginal Australians and North American Indians/First Nations should give you an idea of the adverse effects of colonization of those currently prosperous countries. Canada and Zimbabwe are not on the same page. Again, you lose me within your very opening argument. (Tibet is also not a country and Liberia is not exactly a great example, as it was most prominently settled by African-Americans who emigrated to the African continent.)

I will also add that I find it more than a little unnerving that you suggest Zimbabweans should have been eternally satisfied with their position as inferior peoples in colonial Zimbabwe because it afforded them a stable white-run government. I will not blame Mugabe and the subsequent problems entirely on colonialism, but it is again outrageous to say that an entire country of people should be content with forced servitude on land that they used to own.

[responder]

Canada was a colony. So were Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong.

They were also uncolonized by those who colonized it in the first place. So Canada became autonomous. Australia became autonomous. New Zealand became autonomous. Hong Kong was absorbed by China, which already had strength.

This is different than other colonies, which were essentially deserted by those who colonized it.

[John]

This person Sam sounds like he doesn't have the education to really understand the issue. What Duke says makes absolute sense. Sam, you sound like a woman with the way you think. No logic.

[Joycelyn]

John,

I dislike your comment. As a black woman, I see the logic in Duke's point. I think what he says is true. Besides, the illogic you're complaining about is being expressed by a man (although admittedly, he is probably black). I want to say something to Sam now.

Sam,

Mr. Duke didn't say that the Zimbabwe people should have wanted to stay under the rule of Europeans. He only pointed out that their condition was better back then. I agree that these nations deserve their independence. But they shouldn't be doing things like adopting communist policies and breaking up farms that are feeding the people.

[Paige]

"Sam, you sound like a woman with the way you think. No logic."

Terribly sorry sir! I'll just scurry back into the kitchen and get to work on your sandwich! Oh, how silly of me, wearing shoes!

"For example, let's consider the Moslem world. How does this grab you: More patents were issued in the state of Utah in 2005 than in the Islamic world during all of its history?"

You cannot possibly be serious. For one, just when was the patent system implemented in the Middle East? Two, when you look at the ideas invented by Arab scholars-- algebra, guns and gunpowder, trebuchets, the kerosene lamp, sugar refineries, the fountain pen- in the 13th century, it leaves you with nothing but xenophobia.

"Generally speaking, the part of the world known as Christendom has prospered and driven technological progress, while the rest of the globe, which had been stagnating, only started catching up when it began imitating the former's ways and adopting its technology."

I understand that you are not familiar with history, but let me assure you that fundamentalist Christians have never been on the forefront of new technological advances.

"To me, feeling shame over things that Europeans did to some people's ancestors would be as ridiculous as being angry at the Romans over what they did to mine. "

One of these things is not like the other. Roman rule of Gaul or Britannia has absolutely not affect on the way you are treated as an individual in the United States of America in the 21st century. On the other hand, black people still face discrimination at all levels everywhere they go-- not just in some backwater down beneath the Mason-Dixon Line.

I recommend you pick up a copy of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"-- or at the very least, not some masturbatory rag for your male, white, Christian sensibilities.

[Janice]

Paige said "let me assure you that fundamentalist Christians have never been on the forefront of new technological advances."

Galileo said "I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth—whenever its true meaning is understood."

[John]

Paige, maybe you should get back in the kitchen if that's how you think. Your post was pretty stupid.

[Shaun]

Paige, I can partially understand being a bit peeved at the comment posted making generalizations about woman. I hate it when someone makes an ignorant comment after an awesome post. With that being said I have to respond to rest of your post with a different light.

1. No one can doubt that after the fall of rome Europe leapt into a backwards state and for many centuries other parts of the globe flourished(although many of the inventions you mentioned were not by arabs but the chinese) while Europe(in some parts more than others) remained stagnant. However, history is rock solid in showing that the blood of christendom Europe has been a beacon of advancement and prosperity since the renaissance era, above and beyond every culture on earth. Let us look at the ideals of democracy and capitalism, modern medicine, spaceflight, architecture,liberalism(classical), the automobile, the vast welfare system which has spent more on american blacks than blacks the world over have spent on themselves. Which race presided over the industrial revolution? Which race has made it so every human being on Earth has the chance of a better standard of living? I could on...

2. As far as racism in America. Give me a break! Although I have no doubt it is more difficult to be black in a western society that was built for and geared towards white christians, as Selwyn has said before, no nation on Earth has done more to accomodate its minorities. Whites are the only people on Earth to willingly displace themselves on the fanatical belief of Multi-culturalism. WE are the race that ended slavery! WE are the race that has spent trillions on social spending geared towards black communities. Who else will do these things for blacks? The arabs? The chinese? Show me the day!

Shaun
UCA

[Jason]

I notice that the lefties haven't been back. Not surprising. That's what always happens when they lose debates.

[T. Bruce]

Janice,

I'm not so sure that reference to Galileo is terribly fitting here; although I do think there are lessons to be learned from Galileo's experience. After all, he was brought before a papal inquisition on charges of heresy for his outlandish proposition that Earth actually revolves around the sun. All good Catholics in Galileo's day knew that Earth's position was fixed, and that the rest of the universe moved around IT.

I think that a reference to St. Augustine, made by Galileo, is very interesting:

"If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ AGAINST CLEAR AND MANIFEST REASON, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there..." [Emphasis added]

Simply profound.

[Philip France]

I wish to add to Shaun's Point #2.

"Racism" and "racist" are terms used by children (albeit adults who argue as children) who cannot articulate ideas based on factual and empirical evidence. It is also a misleading term, as the idea behind it is actually racial bigotry.

For hundreds of years, Americans have celebrated genius regardless of race. I cite as some examples George Washington Carver, Frederick Douglas and Grandma Moses as just three of many.

Go on through our history and observe Americans' love for Louis Armstrong, Jesse Owens, Joe Louis, Louis Jordan, Ray Charles, Charlie Christian, Cassius Clay/Muhammed Ali, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, Ollie Matson, Jim Brown, Flip Wilson, Sidney Poitier, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan and the pattern is clear: When it comes to greatness and achievement, America has long been color-blind.

What about other races? If there were a race that should have been hated and bigotry bestowed upon it would be the Japanese. They bombed our homeland, for Christ's sake! They look different, their accent is peculiar and there were nationalist grounds for which one could bear a grudge. And yet we embraced Japanese immigrants. Why? Because they have both assimilated and achieved with nary a word of grievance.

Let's move to immigrants from India. They are dark complected, have a nearly indecipherable accent and come from a culture vastly different than ours and prescribe to a religion very foreign to our Judeo/Christian sensibilities. Yet we embrace them. Why? The answer again is simple: assimilation and achievement.

The Left and their soft-headed useful idiots like to use name-calling as their counterpoint to their aversion and hostility to facts. Terms such as "racist", "sexist" and "homophobe". Real argument-enders. Give me a freaking break. How childish!

When it comes to achievement, the vast majority of Americans are color-blind (and, by extension, racially impartial). Where America is not so blind is when we see racial minorities given special victim status and afforded opportunities and preferences that are denied to the cultural majority; programs and policies such as Affirmative Action and racial quotas. THIS is true racism; er, ahem, racial bigotry. And THIS is perpetrated by Leftists and modern liberals.

The stellar radio talk-show superstar Michael Savage summed it up best: Liberalism is a mental disorder. It truly is. Most of my liberal friends are intelligent people, but when it comes to matters of social and political ideology (add to that knowledge of history and the embrace of actual fact), they are daft. They are children. They are nincompoops. Can someone please tell me the last liberal ideological cause that has any proof, whatsoever, that they were correct? I dare you.

[Sam]

Nah, mostly, I've decided this is no longer worth the time it would take me to respond. While Mr. Duke makes some reasonable arguments with a polite tone, the average commenter here appears to be a misogynistic borderline racial and religious supremacist, so I'll pass. Don't worry, this has been linked to on another blog, I'm sure someone will be along to banter with you shortly. Have fun thinking you've won!

[Sam]

Minus Shaun. Thanks for leaving thought-provoking comments, sir.

[Sam]

Wrong on both assumptions about me, sorry.

[Frutz]

I only want to say one thing about this. The richest country in the world is not the US but Luxembourg, where i am actually from. And some other european countries are richer than the US like norway or even Ireland. And in these countries there is simply no racism, may be because they never had be a colony neither have colonies. So they are colorblind by nature. When you are talking about racism over here, people simply do not understand what you mean.

[John]

Frutz, the richest? It depends on what measure you use. Per capita income? GDP? That's the rub. But to quibble over Williams' calling the US the richest country is silly. He's an economist and a great one. And I'm sure he has some statistic to back up his claim.

Now, racism. If those nations don't see distinctions between people (which I don't believe), they will learn the hard way. Norway is slowly being taken over by muslims. And if you don't know that they're racist you'll learn the hard way. Your head is in the sand. And Ireland? They are known for their violent battles between Protestants and Catholics. So please. Prejudice is prejudice.

[Shaun]

John,

Id have to agree with you 100%.In my experience, many American whites who live in nearly all white neighborhoods often seem to be flustered when they read about "racism" and wonder why people can't quit being ignorant. The problem is they have not lived with the same cultures they pretend to champion and are at loss when it comes to understanding the conflict. Multiculturalism is the death of one groups culture to expand the influence of another. Quite simply, you either resist, and be called a racist, or you open the flood gates and say goodbye to your cultures, values, customs and way of life. To me this is an unfortunate fact of mankind, but one that is true enough regardless.

Shaun
UCA

[Jordan Kribbs]

There's quite a bit of conjecture here, Paige, but very little evidence.

So Arab scholars invented all those things and then stagnated for the next 800 years... Impressive. Meanwhile, Western civilization (while under Christendom) took those inventions and continually expanded on them - never mind the COUNTLESS independently Western inventions that vastly outnumber the scant number of Muslem inventions over the last several hundred years.

By the way, when was the patent system implemented in the Middle East? You never did say. But then isn't that the point? That part of the world is so incredibly retrograde that a patent system wasn't even adopted until... fill in the blank. So much for xenophobia. If you have a soft spot for theocratic despots, at least be honest about your admiration instead of trumping up Arab countries based on ancient, long past achievements.

"black people still face discrimination at all levels everywhere they go-- not just in some backwater down beneath the Mason-Dixon Line"

Feel free to elaborate on this comment - I insist. Please be specific as I don't buy into abstract discrimination.

Lastly, Howard Zinn is a self-admitted biased "historian" of the far left brand. It's no wonder that everything you wrote is revisionist garbage.

[Dmitry Chernikov]

I don't get it: isn't it universally known by now that genetically, blacks are on average more stupid, lazy, and violent than whites, and it is that inferiority (if you want to speak in such terms) that is the cause of their failure?

It is not the African "culture" nor white colonialism that are at fault, but the individual Africans who, given their genetic shortcomings, are unable to generate a successful economy or, indeed, culture.

Therefore, it is not true that "We may never know what would have happened on the African continent if not for slavery." We know very well: what would happened is... absolutely nothing in terms of progress of any sort.

[Dmitry Chernikov]

Colonialism in Africa, however deplorably it was conducted in actual fact, was nothing more than recognition of the fact that blacks, in general, are incapable of self-government.

[Dmitry Chernikov]

I fully admit there is a tension here.

Selwyn is right that "Slavery and exploitative colonization are sins." But sin corrupts the sinner. Hence, the Roman empire-making not only made his "European ancestors.. angry that they were under the dominion of some strange foreign invaders," but also corrupted the very virtue and civilization of the Romans, such as they were. Selwyn likes moral absolutes, but war and tyranny are the antitheses of those. Most colonization projects, all things considered, have been bungled.

I make an explicit exception for Sub-Saharan Africa. This is a doomed territory, fated seemingly forever to be miserable and irrelevant. Perhaps, if the colonizers had not exported socialism, things would have been different on it. I don't know.

Reality is so complex that good comes out of evil and vice versa all the time, completely unpredictably; but in any event only moral good out of physical evil; moral evil yields nothing good whatsoever to anyone. Selwyn is again right that conquests should be a "source of shame... for [and only for] the people who actually perpetrated them."

Imagine, though, how glorious our society would be if people had been closer to angels. I'll bet that (1) even capitalism would have been invented sooner, and we'd be having those flying cars after all, and (2) Christianity would have seemed (and seem now) far more credible to the unbelievers. In other words, God would have a far easier job making good out of evil if people were saints.

But enough of this. Can't we all admit we're victims of something or someone in the past and just get on with our lives?

[Dmitry Chernikov]

By "bungled" I mean regarding treatment of the natives.

[melliroth]

Interesting post)