Features, Recommended, Top Stories

Tiers of Pride and Shame

On December 9, in the small hours of the morning, a drunk Columbia undergraduate student named Julian von Abele was filmed outside the campus’s main library delivering a passionate ode to whiteness. “White people are the best thing that ever happened to the world,” von Abele declared to a group of students, many of whom were not white. “We invented science and industry, and you want to tell us to stop because, ‘Oh my God we’re so bad.’” In an ill-fated attempt to pacify the collection of students surrounding him, he added the caveat, “I don’t hate other people, I just love white men.”

Students and administrators reacted to the incident with unanimous condemnation. Barnard College, Columbia’s sister school, banned von Abele from campus. Many argued that von Abele’s tirade should be understood not as an isolated event, but as a symptom of the university’s ongoing complicity in white supremacy—a systemic problem calling for a systemic solution. Columbia’s Black Student Organization led the charge with a list of demands including extra time for affected students to complete their final exams; increased funding for minority faculty recruitment, on which the university has already spent $185 million since 2005 to little apparent effect; and an unfortunately phrased call for “the incorporation of scientific racism into the Frontiers of Science syllabus.” (Surely they meant the incorporation of information about scientific racism.)

But an isolated event doesn’t indicate a systemic problem. Like so many things nowadays, extrapolating from a single event to a crisis is only wrong when your opponents do it. Just a few months ago, many commentators on the Right extrapolated a supposed crisis of illegal immigrant crime from the murder of a single American by an illegal immigrant. At the time, progressives recognized this for the irrational fear-mongering that it was. Yet it is the same flawed logic that extrapolates an alleged crisis of campus racism from a single racist incident.

Besides, there remains the question (nearly unaskable in polite company) of whether von Abele’s drunken diatribe was actually racist to begin with. Sure it was narcissistic, self-pitying, and belligerent. But was it an expression of bigotry?

At a glance, it’s hard to reconcile the belief that von Abele’s comments were bigoted with the fact that black activists routinely get praised for making similar statements. Von Abele’s remark, “I love myself and I love white people” sounds eerily similar to “I love my blackness and yours,” the Twitter mantra of Black Lives Matter leader Deray McKesson. “We’re white men, we did everything,” nearly echoes a statement made in a commencement speech by Alicia Garza, a co-founder of Black Lives Matter: “Without black women…there would be no me, no you, no us, no civilized society of which we speak. We—I, you, and me—we owe everything to black women.” Von Abele’s monologue, universally condemned, took lines straight from the scripts of America’s most celebrated racial justice advocates.

On the prejudice-plus-power conception of racism, von Abele’s position in the racial privilege hierarchy as a white person renders his comments racist, whereas McKesson and Garza’s positions as members of a historically marginalized group renders theirs permissible, if not enlightened.

A great way to instantly be seen as a naïf, a racist, or both is to ask why this double standard exists. The answer, of course, is historical context. Black people were brought to America in chains, forced to work as chattel, subjugated formally and informally for a century after abolition, all the while fighting to see themselves as beautiful in a culture hellbent on convincing them they were ugly, stupid, and inferior. Black race pride, therefore, is a rejection of, and an adaptation to, the racist elements in America’s reprehensible past. One cannot make the same claim about white race pride, which historically has been more associated with brutal oppression than with noble rebellion.

This history lesson is without doubt important. But does the fact of anti-black racism, whether past or present, overt or systemic, prove that it’s okay for a white person to be banned from a campus for saying things that black people get ovations for? Decent, ethical people are supposed to vigorously nod “yes”—or better yet, not ask the question at all.

Yet the view that black people cannot be racist would have been alien to the civil rights leaders and activists of yesteryear, who experienced far more anti-black racism than the leaders of Black Lives Matter do today. Bayard Rustin, Martin Luther King Jr.’s strategist and the chief organizer of the March On Washington, was arrested no less than 23 times during an era of profound racism. He nevertheless considered it obvious that blacks could be racist just like whites, and he vocally opposed such racism wherever he encountered it.1 The same is true of Eldridge Cleaver, an early leader of the Black Panther party.2

But, more to the point, if we decide to give black activists a free pass to express racial pride because they face racial slights, why not allow von Abele the same pass? After all, Columbia’s campus is no stranger to anti-white rhetoric. Take, for instance, the criticism, commonly heard in Columbia dorm rooms, that the Western canon is deficient because it’s filled with “dead, white men.” Does having to hear the likes of Homer, Plato, and Rousseau dismissed not as bad writers, but as writers of your race, qualify you to express race pride in response?

And the “dead, white, men” trope is only the tip of the iceberg. In my two and a half years on Columbia’s campus, I can count my experiences of anti-black racism on one hand—indeed, one finger. By comparison, I could fill a small diary with the anti-white comments (some intended in jest and others in earnest) that I’ve heard.

I sometimes wonder how I would feel if I had to hear Frederick Douglass, Bayard Rustin, and James Baldwin dismissed in casual conversation not as bad writers but as “dead, black men.” I wonder whether I would have the presence of mind to dismiss such statements as harmless nonsense, or whether the experience of hearing my heroes derided in explicitly racial terms—terms that linked their inadequacy to my own racial identity—wouldn’t awaken a sense of grievance within me. I wonder, moreover, how I would feel if I couldn’t complain.

Von Abele’s error was not that he expressed white racial pride. His error—along with McKesson’s and Garza’s—was to play the racial pride game at all. The notion that your value lies in your membership to the race you were born into by chance makes no sense; taking credit for the achievements of other people with whom you share a skin color makes no sense. Rustin put it well when he observed that “the breast-beating white makes the same error as the Negro who swears that ‘black is beautiful.’ Both are seeking refuge in psychological solutions to social questions.”3

What’s more, pride and shame are two sides of the same coin; so if collective pride makes sense, then collective shame makes sense too. The same flawed logic that allows von Abele to feel proud of the accomplishments of dead, white men should lead him to feel ashamed of their sins. Conversely, the progressive logic that encourages modern-day whites to feel shame for slavery and colonialism should also lead them to feel pride for their ancestors’ achievements. Both white chauvinists and white progressives dogmatically reject one half of the pride-shame binary. Both factions should go one step further and reject the concepts of collective pride and collective shame altogether.

The massive gulf between how we treat expressions of white pride and black pride is unsustainable. I don’t expect the gulf to collapse into a colorblind singularity overnight; that would be unrealistic. But anyone who values consistency and believes that a person’s skin color is irrelevant to their moral character should want, at a minimum, to begin narrowing the gulf.


Coleman Hughes is a Quillette columnist and an undergraduate philosophy major at Columbia University. His writing has also appeared in the Spectator, City Journal, and the Heterodox Academy blog. You can follow him on Twitter @coldxman


1 See Bayard Rustin, “From Protest to Politics” (1964), “The Mind of the Black Militant” (1967), “Civil Rights and Uncivil Wrongs” (1982), and “The Curious Case of Louis Farrakhan” (1987).
2 See Eldridge Cleaver on Malcolm X in Soul On Ice, p. 106, and see Cleaver on Louis Farrakhan: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/race/interviews/ecleaver.html
3 Bayard Rustin, “The Failure of Black Separatism” (1970).


  1. TarsTarkas says

    Prepare to be attacked as an Uncle Tom. Again. Wait, that’s already happened . . .

    Julian Van Abele was stupid and drunk. Unfortunately due to social media his life will be made hell for years to come, and he certainly won’t have any chance at any academic job or a career in the arts or literature. Hopefully that wasn’t his goal when he chose to go to Columbia.

    And of course the race and identity mongers are using his stupidity as their chance to completely take over Columbia and run it to their own benefit. They’ll only be defeated when the endowment starts to shrink radically. Money talks and BS walks.

    • jimhaz says

      I do not see Van Abele as having done or said something stupid – his reaction was one where he was under social duress and he was over adrenalised as a result. One against many is hard to handle for anyone.

      This non-violent reaction to insanity should occur more and more often. The thing is we are not actually talking about insanity – but pure and utter self interest and group behavior dressed up as progressiveness. It needs to be strongly rejected.

      “Since 1990, according to immigration figures, more [black folk] have arrived voluntarily than the total who disembarked in chains before the United States outlawed international slave trafficking in 1807. More have been coming here annually — about 50,000 legal immigrants — than in any of the peak years of the middle passage across the Atlantic, and more have migrated here from Africa since 1990 than in nearly the entire preceding two centuries”

      • jimhaz: I wouldn’t exactly call having to leave one’s war torn country voluntarily. And, they did not choose the U.S. on their own volition, it was dictated by international policies. I suspect many refugees would rather safely be in their country of birth.

        • Stephanie says

          @mj, it’s not like all of Africa was simultaneously at war. If those refugees did prefer to live in their home countries, they would have moved back when things stabilised.

      • jimhaz, what is your estimate for the number of slaves who entered the US between 1787 and 1807? My estimate is less than 200,000. But I might be wrong. Do you have access to other estimates for this number?

        What is your estimate for the total number of black immigrants into the US between 1807 and now? Mine is over two million. But I know of no good estimates of this number.

        If you or Coleman Hughes or others could provide your own estimates for these numbers, this would be helpful. I am honestly afraid to even publicly describe a model to estimate these numbers.

        mj, could you elaborate on your point? Why do you think African immigrants to the US were forced to move between 1807 and the present?

        Is it because of the threat of Islamism? The great Congo war? Or another reason?

        Personally I am skeptical of arguments that Africans needed to leave their own countries. Let us take the great Congo war that might have killed over 7 million Africans or what some call WWIII. It is the responsibility of Africans to save their own countries from genocide. How can they do this if they flee?

        I am not sure our species is mature enough to discuss African issues or slavery. For example see the very violent response of many readers to this light touch of the subject:

        Perhaps there are simply large parts of human history or the current human condition that are not currently discussable by our species?

    • Glen Anderson says

      I don’t know about stupid, drunk yes. People are exonerated for all types of crimes for being drunk. I think this is one of those crimes. He saw the same injustice that was pointed out in the article and becuase the filters where non-existent he spoke. Give him a break, he’s twenty something. If that is the worst thing he ever does then he’s better than most.

  2. Mike van Lammeren says

    Great article! White pride and white guilt are equally misplaced. If my distant ancestors behaved badly to your distant ancestors, or vice versa, then I urge all of them to return from the dead and throw down, zombie style. But they need to leave us out of it.

    • Stewie Griffith says

      +1 Great article.

      “I don’t expect the gulf to collapse into a colorblind singularity overnight”

      All sensible, rational people would seek this gulf to at least contract, yet the pursuit of Grievance Studies in our Universities and the resulting Grievance culture is doing quite the opposite. This will not end well.

      • Western Civilization is a white creation; no one else could have done it. On that evidence, we must acknowledge that racism is a wonderful institution that should be rejuvenated and inculcated in schools and in this journal. It is the last barrier to global homogenization, and represents the default position of 99% of humanity over 99% of historical time.
        A natural and indeed necessary sentiment, racism is just one method for people to evaluate others in accord with their genetic quality. Without racism, the world today would be dominated by Neanderthals, or by the class of people who inhabit sub-Saharan Africa. Civilization requires the leadership of fully-evolved individuals; those areas governed by less advanced races fall quickly into barbarism as we see in so many places today.
        In normal times, racism is so universally experienced that historians hardly bother to call attention to it. It is only in diseased and perverted eras, like our own, that elites rail against this ineradicable and precious human attribute.
        Hate, too, is a necessary and valuable component of life, and anyone devoid of hate – (I’ve never known such a person) – isn’t living a complete life. A healthy society will never try to sequester such normal emotions, an effort forever destined to failure. I myself have a full supply of hatred and loathing and racism, which I take out every night and polish to a high sheen.
        Tito Perdue
        White nationalist author

        • Dan Love says

          The comment above by tito perdue is almost certainly an SJW or a BLM activist planted land mine.

          • Declan says

            Tito looks legit, going by his website.

            If Quillette have any integrity they’ll delete such admittedly racist content.

          • Daniel says

            Ha ha. If we all pretend it’s satire, that’ll render tito perdue pretty toothless.

          • Definitely. I don’t know what they are trying to say, other than shock value or some kind of simplistic guilt-by-association tactic for Ezra Klein to ctrl-F a quotation into an article on vox, proving that Quillette readers are all Nazis!

          • Andrew Mcguiness says

            @Declan – No, free speech should be allowed, even for people who express obviously wrong views. argue, instead.

            From the Quillette “About”:

            What is Quillette?

            Quillette is a platform for free thought. We respect ideas, even dangerous ones. We also believe that free expression and the free exchange of ideas help human societies flourish and progress. Quillette aims to provide a platform for this exchange.

          • Stephanie says

            @Daniel, it’s so laughably ridiculous, it has to be satire. Pretty bad, satire, though. Are there people who actually believe this crap? In this century?

        • George says

          While I find the thoughts and ideas presented by Tito so repugnant and deplorable I would invite hem to leave my house, I will defend to the death his right to say totally stupid things.

          Darn – it hurt to write that but I mean it.

          • D-Rex says

            George, there are very few comments that I would find “repugnant and deplorable”, rather just stupid and uninformed. Tito’s comment made so little impact on my thinking that I was surprised it got so many reactions, it’s not even worth arguing with.
            WRT the article, Coleman’s point about von Abele reacting to the constant belittling of whites on campus needs further exploration.

        • Sean Wood says

          Coleman is arguing against discrimination on the basis of race. He says that everybody ought to be treated the same. Tito Perdue simply disagrees. He is hoping that being inflammatory will make racial reconciliation more difficult to achieve. But holders of his views are now a tiny minority in this country, and their political power and actual impact on society do not justify the attention they are getting. They ought to simply be ignored as sad remnants of a failed philosophy struggling to fend off the inevitable oblivion.

          • Dan Love says


            Just because he has a link doesn’t mean jack. I can easily say I’m Robert Whitesrule and link to his white supramicist website while making a BLM poster with my trans-lesbians.

            And Declan, no. Anyone who doesn’t wear diapers won’t be phased by that comment. Why is the desire to obliterate contrary opinions common? People haven’t removed their diapers, and exposure to such comments help in learning adult potty training. The day Quillette starts going down the path of snowflakey censorship is the day I leave.

          • White bashing by both whites and blacks has become a very troubling phenomenon. It’s not just on campuses, it is widespread in ‘progressive’ communities. In my city ‘progressives’ offer ‘Toxic Whiteness’ workshops. While I can’t defend von Abele’s rant, I can understand it.

      • Stephanie says

        +1 Great article.

        I am astounded an undergraduate student, in only his second or third year, no less, can write such compulsively readable, thoughtful articles. I look forward to seeing where his career takes him, and the impact he makes. Keep it up, Mr. Hughes!

    • Saw file says

      @Mike van…
      “throw down, zombie style”
      You prick!
      I just put all my family albums and history books into my bedroom closet and nailed the door shut!
      Now I’m sitting on my bed drinking whisky with a loaded shotgun pointed at the door!
      I don’t expect to sleep for days now….

      • Constantin says

        @Declan – you are wrong. I am glad a white supremacist outlined his worldview in such a concise and direct manner. In my view, it simply strengthens the important argument of this article. (A Romanian philosopher once said that concrete examples are needed so that sophisticated ideas could be empirically perceived by those with little imagination). In my view, Quillete should leave this comment alone and not join into the frenzy of speech silencing zealotry. I am very impressed with Coleman Hughes’ article. I think it should be widely distributed and understood by anyone who cares about the world. I would add that I am very impressed with his writing and ideas. This is indeed one of the best articles I have read in a long time,

        • I agree with Constantin. Bizarrely, I think Tito Perdue’s comment adds to the discussion here. If one is to pass the ideological Turing test, you need the positions of those you disagree with to clearly outline their belief in the light of day, reprehensible as they may be.

        • Asenath Waite says

          I agree also that tito perdue’s comment should be left up. It appears to be a sincere attempt to express a stupid perspective. I think comment deletion should be reserved for actual trolls (people making comments that are clearly insincere and meant only to incite conflict) or those being verbally abusive or threatening violence. We can handle seeing terrible ideas like tito’s expressed in a civil manner, and they can potentially add something valuable to the discussion as an example of the type of philosophy Coleman Hughes’ article is arguing against.

          • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says

            @Asenath Waite

            Point by point tho, what about Tito’s views do you find stupid or reprehensible? I suspect his views are far more extreme than mine, but to give the Devil his due, we should articulate what we might disagree with, not merely denounce him. For example I myself do not think that racism is a ‘wonderful institution’ but I do think that Tito is correct that it ‘represents the default position of 99% of humanity over 99% of historical time’. Fact is that we are all racists. Indeed studies have shown that folks who declare themselves to be non-racist are subliminally more racist than otherwise. I myself am a racist — like everyone else — but I prefer to deal with it up-front rather than pretending that I’m not. Being honest gives you a handle on your own mind. For example, whereas I recognize the fact that in SS Africa the average IQ is about 70, I also see that Mr. Hughes — being an individual and not only an instance of his averaged-out racial group — is probably smarter than me. I’m a white supremacist who would have voted for Obama, were I American.

          • Sean Wood says

            @Ray Andrews:

            Your desire to denigrate others is not held by 99% of the population.

        • Well said Constantin, on all points. I don’t agree with “tito,” but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t get the right to state his position, clearly as it is stated.

          And this article, +1000.

          • Asenath Waite says

            @Ray Andrews

            A white supremacist is not someone who acknowledges average racial IQ differences. A white supremacist is someone who believes that essentially all white people are superior to essentially all people of other races, and that white people should be given legal privileges above those granted to members of other races. See apartheid South Africa and the historical USA for examples of white supremacist societies. If you support the establishment of such societies in the current day then I would have to say that I find you to be a morally deficient human being.

        • peanut gallery says

          I have a hard time believing Tito is real. He seems too…. “perfect.” There’s a word for this that I can’t quite recall, but IMO his thoughts are too organized. Seems fake. Could be wrong. And this is coming from a guy called “Peanut Gallery.” YMMV.

          • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says

            @Asenath Waite

            “A white supremacist is not someone who acknowledges average racial IQ differences.”

            It depends on how woke the person with whom you are speaking is. I qualify as a WS in the eyes of the victimographers who insist that unless I abhor my white guilt and apologize for things my own ancestors didn’t even actually do, I must be a WS. Acknowledging racial differences is not permitted among the Correct, it is sure proof that one is a Nazi. What I really am is a supporter of civilization and I don’t care who carries the torch, only that it be held high. Treating anyone differently from anyone else on the basis of race is toxic to democracy.

        • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says


          Thanks. All forms of evolution, biological and social, rely on ‘discrimination’ — we (or Mother Nature) select the fittest and the best. Every one of us discriminates a hundred times a day. This is in fact necessary and good because without it there would be no progress. It is especially good for the Oppressed who in effect get a free ride on what the Oppressors have built — while complaining about it all the way. We see everyone in the Arab and Black worlds who can possibly come up with the smuggler’s fee trying to get IN to ‘white supremacy’ countries, do we not? They seem unworried that they will be Oppressed. If the West collapses this will be especially bad for their Victims, since the money will stop flowing.

          Thanks Mr. Hughes for another excellent article. As a Discriminator and White Supremacist, I recognize superiority when I see it, and that’s you.

        • NOT tito says


          Memba how you filled out your name in the “Name (required)” box? Notice how you can fill in any name you want?

          Think maaaaaaybe “Declan” is “tito”?

          Think maaaaaaybe tito/Declan is laughing at you right now?

    • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says

      @Mike van Lammeren

      Good idea! We could have The Night of the Living Aggrieved. Sheesh, someone write a script.

  3. Elizabeth says

    I completely agree that it is as wrong for whites to have “white pride” as it is for blacks to have “black pride” because the color of one’s skin is not a reason for pride or shame. There is nothing intrinsic about a particular color of skin that merits either sentiment. The mere possession of one or another color of skin should not be a reason for shame or pride but the content of our character and our behavior.

    However, and there is always a however, the color of one’s skin does lead to different experiences of the world, often from our earliest days, primarily because of the existence of racism and the mistaken belief that the color of our skin reveals something intrinsic about us and our character. According to the best science, it does not. It reveals nothing about us as individuals except perhaps the length of time since our lineage left Africa.

    Unfortunately, humans have tended to categorize each other, ranking each other in various ways and skin color and other superficial physical traits have historically been a way of doing so. This has led to individuals and groups having different rights, experiences of justice and unequal access to the benefits of our society.

    Therefore, we should acknowledge that individuals and groups have different experiences because of possessing different skin colors, and the social, economic and political consequences of having the “wrong” or “right” color of skin, depending on the context. It would be a mistake to pretend that skin color hasn’t and doesn’t still have an impact on our daily lives. It does. The objective should be to work towards a world where skin color no longer results in differential experience of rights, freedoms and benefits of our world.

    All of us could feel pride at working for and achieving that.

    • “….the mistaken belief that the color of our skin reveals something intrinsic about us and our character.”

      But of course this is NOT a mistaken belief. To be a member of a more evolved race does reveal a great deal about a person’s quality. The lunatic notion of racial equality has by now made such progress that I don’t see how our civilization can survive for much longer.
      Nothing is equal, the races least of all. If the races were equal, countries would be equal whereas in fact there has never existed a black-majority state that wasn’t a hell on earth. For white people to impute equality to black people is akin to ranking rap and rock with Beethoven and Wagner.

      • Asenath Waite says

        @tito perdue

        Did you write Fur Elise? Neither did I. The overall accomplishments of a race of people do not confer value on individuals belonging to those races. If you judge an individual based on the average attributes of the race they happen to belong to, that is wrong from both a rational and (in my opinion) moral perspective. It’s an inarguable fact that there are massive numbers of black people who are far more intelligent and accomplished than massive numbers of white people.

        • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says

          @Asenath Waite

          Except that we all have built in to us a very honest risk appraisal mechanism. In every situation it very quickly sends a report to our executive function as to what around us is potentially dangerous — and it is brutally honest since if functions below the level of PC. Why are black cops just as likely as white cops to shoot young black men disproportionately? Because all cops know what they know which is that young black males are something like 20 X more likely than people at large to be carrying a gun and prepared to use it on them. True! In the best of all possible worlds they would have time to make a less stereotyped decision, but in the real word we all make this kind of generalization and sometimes act on it very quickly.

          It is indeed the fact that many blacks are highly intelligent, but the fact also is that only 15% of blacks in America have above average intelligence. I know that, and so do you even if you pretend that you don’t. I suggest that what we should try to do is not try to stop our appraisal mechanism from doing its job, rather, on the executive level, we should try to put that ‘report’ aside, and force ourselves, when possible, to remember that everyone is an individual.

          • Getting tired, might not read all comments but so far Ray Andrews is exactly right about everything
            Best line… “I know there are racial group mean differences in IQ and so do you, even though you pretend you don’t”

          • Asenath Waite says

            @Ray Andrews

            I thought the stats showed that cops didn’t actually shoot black people disproportionately to white people. I believe I read that in cases of a suspect resisting arrest, cops were found to be more likely to use deadly force on white suspects over black suspects, likely hesitating more in the latter case for fear of the greater repercussions associated with killing a black suspect.

            Also I’m well aware of the IQ thing, but that doesn’t contradict anything I said in my comment. Seems like you’re just reiterating what tito said here. I fully agree with your last sentence, which also doesn’t contradict anything I said. It’s reasonable to have some degree of prejudice regarding any person or situation based on prior knowledge of similar persons or situations, but one should be willing to readily set aside this prejudice when new information regarding the particular circumstance or individual in question is presented to us.

          • Asenath Waite says


            “Best line… “I know there are racial group mean differences in IQ and so do you, even though you pretend you don’t” ”

            I guess that would have been I good line if my comment had in any way indicated that I was disputing the existence of differences in mean IQ between races. My comment was about the difference between averages and individuals.

        • tito perdue says

          “Did you write Fur Elise?”

          How did you know I was thinking about that? Get out of my head!

          I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I’m out of blue pills, and now Little Tito won’t move. He just sits there. The goat porn is on, and the ladies have their strap-ons, but he just won’t move. I got my lotion and everything. The party’s happening, but Little Tito is asleep.

          Live is not fair. Never take antipsychotics. They make your thingy stringy.

      • tito: words and behavior, not skin color reveal a person’s character.

    • Amanda says

      Do all the people of one single racial group have identical experiences?

      • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says

        @Asenath Waite

        I find your views to quite reasonable My Lady, you are clearly trying to be reasonable. Yes, *per police incident* blacks are not shot more often, but overall they are shot more often due to being so much more likely to be involved with the cops. But my essential point is that, when we correct for the situation, black cops do not shoot black suspects less often than do white cops. The entire ‘racism’ thing is just plain wrong.

    • Stephanie says

      @Elizabeth, it is certainly a worthy goal for no one to have different experiences because of their race, but the tough part comes in convincing people to embrace the solution.

      If I had grown up in San Francisco, I would be racist against black people. I was there a week for a conference, and every black person I saw was hugely overweight, obnoxious, disrespectful, and stupid. (The one exception was a beautiful, kind, thoughtful black woman working security at the conference, who stopped me to compliment me on being the only one smiling. She was from Alabama, and said she found San Francisco much more racist.)

      This was in sharp contrast to the black people I had grown up with in Montreal, a friend in elementary school and her family. Her dad was a lawyer and her mom a stay-at-home parent who took us out to the pool on summer days while my mom was working. They lived in a gorgeous mansion, and my friend’s little sister was as adorable and well-behaved as a princess. I couldn’t help but contrast my poor (white) self, my single mom and dysfunctional family, with these amazing successful people. Those early experiences formed my subconscious impression of black people in a way I didn’t understand until I saw their opposite in San Francisco.

      If we want people to not treat others badly because of their race, those people need to grow up with a positive view of people of other races. That can only happen if everyone attempts to represent their race well. It will take time, and probably be rejected by the left because it asks people to take responsibility for how they are perceived, but we are not going to program out our natural urge to categorise. We should instead work with it, such that no child grows up with the impression people of a certain race are bad.

  4. The problem is not what he said, it is their intolerance of someone from a race they have pathologised expressing pride in his race as they express pride in theirs. It is their disordered view and bigotry toward whites which see it as an affront. They project their own bigotry onto him. They see White Supremacy because they wish for Black Supremacy – it’s in their doctrines. If you look at Critical Theory, Race Studies, it is the disgust at Whites that mirrors Nazi race theory – the exact same thing – anything they have they stole, anything they do causes harm, efforts at peace are a lie, efforts at defence (like the lad above) are signs of inherent aggression. It wouldn’t matter what he said or did – they would see it as an offence to them because they are bigoted because they have been taught bigotry – anti-white bigotry. It’s not what he’s saying, it’s their reaction…. Everyone is allowed to express pride in their people – so are Whites. If someone takes offence to that, that’s their problem. We are not prisoners of history….

    • ps if I hear a black guy saying he loves being black, it doesn’t affect me at all – good on him, or an English guy loves being English, great for him too. If he’s a White Supremacist Nazi its not his love for his own people but his hate for others I object to. There is too much policing of the discourse stoked by insane theories coming from Grievance Studies that make everything into an offence because it is a rigid, authoritarian ideaology based on a race and gender theory. It wants harm between the races and genders and it is getting its way… It has to go..

    • Native jo says

      I agree,. I still can’t believe how angry people acted when someone left a sign that said “it’s ok to be white”. In the Western countries it’s the same nonsense. The sign is being called racist as though it actually said anything racist at all. It sounded to me like a response to the rhetoric being spewed in the schools that want to shame white kids for things they never did. They want them to feel bad for having parents that made better choices than others have. They have lectures from giant black women with no credentials weaing inappropriate and unprofessional attire like skin tight bodysuits and talking out their asses about all white people are racist, and that’s that. How they can think their problems stem from racism and not their behavior or their lack of decorum or their refusal to talk like an intelligent adult. White people had damn well better show embarrassment for their skin color. If black students want to dictate who can be on campus and who can’t, it better happen or there will be an immature response like screaming in the yard at a professor over Halloween costumes. The demand that this kid be punished is insane, so what if a drunk kid said he likes white people and pointed out uncomfortable truths, he didn’t say anything rude or mean about anyone else’s heritage. It’s ubsurd that BLM riots are called protests. The students and falculty at evergreen demonstrated the worst behavior and disrespect for their professors and colleges over alleged constant racism claims that were never elaborated on, just claims of racism. They had that nasty woman professor leading them, shouting to the most racist things that school ever heard. Professors of color besides her who weren’t black got in on the hysteria too by accusing a white professor who dared to argue back and although he was a good 20 ft away, when he pointed towards her, she acted like he violently attacked her. Then there are all the hate hoaxes on campus. Students at Drake actually painted a street black because of alleged notes, turns out the black student sent themselves the notes. I can go on, but you can’t cry about oppression while being oppressive, that’s hypocritical. The left is outrageous with their hypocritical antics. Is it suprizing to see people call bullshit on the racists who cry racism? These progressive dumbasses expect the world cater to their personal micro aggressions, well everyone except white kids. Because if you correct the pronunciation of words to a non white kid, it’s racist. It used to be called teaching, but now it’s bad. How about everyone admit things have gone so far that it’s laughable. I think that’s what this kid was expressing more than white pride. Not everything is racist. Quit trying to ban everything. Everyone should be expected to show authorities and superiors respect. Everyone should be held to the same rules. Everyone should have to do the same work at the same time as everyone else. We got minority groups who cry racism for being treated as equally as everyone else. They can’t be allowed to keep getting away with this shit. It’s counterproductive. Giving “students of color” more perks, and longer times to do the same work, or exemptions from tests just because they get loud and make threats will make people think they didn’t earn their degrees, or positions and noone respects that. Some of these alleged professors dont seem to have any sort of intelligence, nor do they sound educated. Look at our Congress, we got racist Muslims, woman beating AG in Minnesota, immigration fraudster-bigomists, a dingaling, bisexual dipshit in AZ, sexual harrassment claims our taxes paid off, mad Max inciting bullying and harrassment of anyone conservative, a congresswoman who accused an 18 month old of racism, Missouri congresswoman calling for our Presidents assassination, andaan ex president who can’t prove anything he said he did or who he is even. Politicians who put foreigners ahead of citizens welfare over a wall. I wonder if these are diversity hires, i question their qualifications. These are the people who also set out to destroy true intellectuals who are “people of color” and call them very degrading names openly and without shame. I am against this PC crap. I won’t let the feminists cuck or abuse my boys, my girls are not going to be shouting like screeching harpies about their periods or following those anti american woman’s march imposters nor will they be participating in hijab day. If I want to dress like Pocahontas on Halloween I will (I’m native so is it still bad?). If I want to wear corn rows, I will. I don’t give af. If I want to wear a maga hat, I will. Remember when Dave Chappelle was on and noone was overly sensitive things and everyone could laugh at the same stuff? Things were better, Obama and his tranny wife ruined the country. Just like Hitler who convinced the Germans they were suffering because of the Jews. People are falling for it again.

      • Dan Love says

        @Native jo

        I agree. Because I enjoyed your contribution, I suggest you split your writing into paragraphs so that other readers can enjoy it too.

      • U NO HOO ? says

        @Native jo / tito perdue / Declan —



        USE THEM!



        Trolling is an art. You make us look like … like … journalists with bad grammar. Trolling is about HUMOR. It’s about tearing down people who take themselves too seriously or talk down to others, despite that they are on an anonymous comments board on a micro-zine in the darkest corner of the internet. Trolling is about maintaining the ecosystem, not wonton stupidity!



      • Native jo, I too enjoyed your post – live and let live. Good for anyone who won’t be forced into someone else’s agenda.

        Although, I think it is nonsense to blame any one person for the condition of this country. Every president contributed to the mess we have today. Party politics is the problem – they are all nothing more than cults.

  5. peakhunter says

    “According to the best science” natural selection works in mysterious ways: it changes our species in fundamental ways, but conveniently stops at the brain.

    Something tells me that the “best scientists” are actually groupthink-sanctioned lysenkoists.

  6. Fickle Pickle says

    I find that this essay titled The Greatest Epidemic Sickness Known to Humanity to be quite compelling, and an exercise in necessary truth-telling,

    Similar essays can be found by doing a search on the topic the Wetiko Disease including the one featured on the excellent Kosmos Journal

    • Constantin says

      “After evoking an entity like wetiko, in order to study it as objectively as possible, we have to hermetically seal it within an alchemical container ” This must have touched a deep chord with you since it follows the exact opposite path of science: find the disease that the axiomatically defined virus may cause. You cannot be serious!

    • D-Rex says

      Fickle, I bet you also believe in crystals and sleep under a home-made pyramid.

  7. Lucifer Ball says

    “A great way to instantly be seen as a naïf, a racist, or both….”

    You’ve been warned – the thought police will get you on this one. Funny how this sort of sneering nastiness pops up in an article trying for balance.

  8. Its really quite simple. Try walking down the street in a brown skinned body in most places in the white western world especially in the USA and including Australia and then you will really know what racial prejudice really feels like.

    • well, not really especially in the USA. maybe more so in europe. and definitely more in asia. and intertribal violence and prejudice in africa is no picnic either. like try being the wrong tribe in kenya when the other one is in power.

      i think a strong argument can be made that being black in the places you mention is the best place to be black. its certainly the best place for blacks financially, as american blacks are the worlds richest.

      • Nakatomi Plaza says

        What a stupid fucking response. American blacks have more money than blacks in Africa so racism is no big deal? Jesus, you dumbasses just don’t get it.

    • Friedrich Goatse says

      By chance, do you know what the interracial crime rates actually look like in places like the USA and Australia? If you do, then you should know that it doesn’t seem to support your narrative here. Maybe we just don’t want to be force-integrated with foreign people at gunpoint and ethnically cleansed out of countries our ancestors built for us and not an unending conga line of foreign peoples.

    • Dan Love says


      You haven’t proven anything. You just stated a dogma we’ve all heard a hundred-thousand times.

      Repeating this ideological narrative worked for decades, but the sponge is dry now, and that’s what you’re afraid of.

    • Sue,
      I am from Honduras. I’ve lived in the Stated for 16 years. I reside in Texas and went to school in rural Arkansas. You see prejudice where you want to see it. Not once has anyone been racist or rude to me based on my skin color. If anything, the people who have been the most rude are white progressives who dismiss my views as soon as they realize I don’t toe their prescribed narrative of oppression and identity politics. Moreover, working for nonprofits for 10 years, I have seen “people of color” (I despise that term) get away with murder based ON the color of their skin. people now bend over backwards to not “insult” or commit “microaggressions” toward people of color. Grow some thick skin.

    • Freddy says

      Try walking through a black neighborhood in a white skinned body.

      • Yep, decades ago a black student friend took me to his home in a black neighborhood and just going to the store in broad daylight wasn’t a pleasant experience for either of us. I’ve long thought that human beings are at the root tribalists, and racism is just a generalization of that. Therefore, it will always be there in the background and sometimes still overt; consider, for example, Chinese or Japanese racism regarding others. We need to mature individually and culturally to continue to consider individuals on their own merit and quash any kind of racism as being counterproductive.

      • I live in the most white state in the country. Because of my work I have been in all black groups – I have experienced racism in those groups but, not by everyone.

        I have walked in all black upper economic black neighborhoods in D.C., I have felt unwelcome.

    • @Sue, “Try walking down the street in a brown skinned body in most places in the white western world….”

      Your comment implies that you have experience walking around in different-colored skins, since you are asserting a comparative experience.

      No matter how one takes that, it is deeply, deeply creepy.

  9. Saw file says

    This young man’s blowback rant is totally understandable. It’s hard to imagine what it is like to be in a sphere where you are continually preached at, that you and your ancestors are’bad’, simply because of your skin colour. And having the administration not only allow this racism and bigotry, but aggressively support and propagate it.
    Had he claimed, my…Scots/Eng/French/Lutheran(why not) have done xyz…would the ridiculous overreaction been any different? (That was rhetorical)
    I feel sorry for this fellow. A drunken bit of push back against the daily injustice he’s been experiencing will haunt him for a long time.

    • Saw file: He will learn and he will be a better person for it. He may one day say it was a gift.

  10. Nakatomi Plaza says

    This is from the incident reported linked in the article:

    “On early Sunday, December 9th, a white student approached a group of students comprised of mostly Black women in front of Butler Library and harassed them with aggressive white supremacist rhetoric. Afterward, he followed these students into a dining hall, targeting other groups of Black students to antagonize them and even went as far as to assault one Black woman. This student has a history of targeting students of color with confrontational behavior while intoxicated even though he is underage. According to witnesses, there was one uniformed Public Safety officer on the scene who did not intervene to de-escalate the situation.”

    Obviously, I have no idea how accurate this report really is, but this guy is accused of instigating all of this, assaulting somebody (probably just touched them), and he apparently has done this before. And why didn’t the security guard step in when an obviously drunk person was yelling at a group of women?

    And the extra exam time was based on the black students getting death threats and harassment. What leave these details out, Quillette?

    You still want to defend this douchebag?

    • Nunya BNess says

      “white student approached a group of students comprised of mostly Black women”

      I just want to make it clear that this is not what happened and you have been duped. Later in the same article you are quoting they admit that the incident did not begin by von Abele “targeting a group of minority women” but instead began by him shouting his support for Trump in front of the library. THEY confronted HIM upon hearing him shout his support for Trump. THEY are the ones who on video were pointing their fingers into his face and even started filming him and encouraging him to continue. It’s absolutely clear that he was not the aggressor, he was just a drunk kid shouting about how he supported Trump and this group came and confronted him, leading to the video.

      He was certainly not the aggressor. It is a deliberate lie to pretend that he was just shouting at a group of black women that he loved white people, they clearly came to him and engaged with a drunk guy shouting political stuff. Not once did he ever demean any other race, not once did he express any form of hatred. Had he been a non-white student saying the exact same things he not only would have been ignored, he may have been praised.

      The public flagellation that this kid has had to endure for his stupid public rant is ridiculous. He was not being a bigot and there is absolutely no reason this should be a national news story other than to provide another bogus example of a “racist white attack”

    • Dan Love says

      @Nakatomi Plaza

      A group of women?! No way! One white guy against like 8 black women? The security guard should have pulled out his gun and emptied the clip into whitey’s chest.

      I think those women would prefer physical cunnilingus rather than a rhetorical one on a site they’ll never visit.

    • He is obviously a hate-filled moron, but that doesn’t represent anything near normal. The reason it’s even a story is because of its rarity. 99.9 percent of whites will condemn such abhorrent behavior.

      • D-Rex says

        “He is obviously a hate-filled moron” and you obviously have a habit of jumping to spurious conclusions based on scant or non-existent evidence. “99.9 percent of whites will condemn such abhorrent behavior.” I must be in the other 0.01% ’cause I actually have a lot of sympathy for this poor guy.

  11. Friedrich Goatse says

    It has nothing to do with “pride.” It has to do with survival. This article is pure autism where you’re essentially saying it’s irrational to care more about your own children than random other children. It’s not. Access to us and our lands is not a “human right.”

    All of these other groups have their own lands still. If racial equality ideology were true, why is it that none of them have been able to just copy us? To take these civilizational blueprints we’ve been waving around and build something up. Because what we call “western civilization” is a product of specific gene groups, they can’t do it. The only groups that have been able to do anything like that and it’s not 1:1 are the groups that the HBD crowd would predict could with psychometrics; Japanese, Korean, and some areas of China, chiefly. Very intelligent populations but seemingly short on the ability for original thought on the same level as Europeans. They were able to take things Europeans made and copy them, and sometimes create their own derivatives.

    The narratives on white guilt are bunkum because they’re based on revisionist history or selective readings of history. Example: slavery. Everyone did it. In fact there are groups like Arabs that did way more than Europeans ever did. Europeans are the only ones who ended it.

    Race isn’t just “skin color.” It’s a lot of evolved differences which you must accept are real if you’re not a liberal creationist who thinks that–magically–evolution only created very superficial differences in appearances in humans, when we know it creates a host of differences in every other type of animal with subspecies differentiation. Which is what we call “race” actually is. The Neo-Lysenkoists of course won’t even have a debate, they’ll just try to shut down and unperson anyone who talks about this, such as James Watson who pointed out twice that this is what the data and evidence shows.

  12. Saw file says

    Well, Sue…
    This must be a one on one issue, because I don’t see it and neither does my wife (in her “brown skinned body”).
    On many of the ” any street”s, it’s the opposite.
    Possibly you’re trained to be predisposed to see it?
    Possibility you may even be a racist? Maybe just a arsehole?

  13. ga gamba says

    On the prejudice-plus-power conception of racism, von Abele’s position in the racial privilege hierarchy as a white person renders his comments racist,

    If I understand the premise of both the p + p = r equation and the privilege hierarchy, simply being white renders the person racist. One needn’t say a word. Von Abele’s statements betray his unwokeness and demonstrate the lifetime of indoctrination wasn’t powerful enough to force his compliance, so they must be redoubled. (May we demand uni applicants write an essay and submit two letters of woke verification by people of colour?) His punishment warns others to, at the very least, shut up. Much like a reforming drunk twelve stepper who asserts “I’m always an alcoholic though I no longer drink” the proper practice of allyship has the white recognise s/he is racist due to his/her positionality and then partake in a lifelong process of examination and acts of submission to appease the aggrieved. As the aggrieveds’ demands grow ever more strident and their words increasingly… well… racist, we can’t have whites blurting out, “Bollocks!” That’s intolerable.

    There is an argument to be made that people like von Abele serve the cause unwittingly. His foul, minor that it was and with no apparent victim, requires a wildly disproportionate response of condemnation, punishments, and gift giving to placate the agitated.

  14. Saw file says

    @N. Plaza ranter…
    I would suggest that “Black” (cap) and “white” (no cap) would be somewhat telling, regarding the ‘report’. Other details in the’report’ don’t pass the sniff test. Not even remotely.

    “Obviously, I have no idea how accurate this report really is, but this guy is accused of instigating all of this, assaulting somebody (probably just touched them), and he apparently has done this before. And why didn’t the security guard step in when an obviously drunk person was yelling at a group of women?”

    “I have no idea”, either. Is the whole vid (giggles) posted?

    “accused of instigating all of this”. Accused. No provocation? I don’t know. You?

    “assaulting somebody (probably just touched them)” Probably? Was he “just touched” first? I don’t know. You?

    ” he apparently has done this before.” Apparently? Shouldn’t there be a statement with the’repoer’, by the Black (cap) women, who are so innocently involved? No?
    What is the reason that you mentioned he was drinking underage? The Black(cap) women never have done such?
    Why am I waisting my time responding to a judgemental bigot like you?
    I can’t help myself, sometimes….

  15. Claiming pride in having a specific skin tone based on the achievements of historic figures in the past with the same skin tone makes no sense but as a positive expression is not as bad as expressing hatred or anger towards a group based on skin tone, religion ethnicity etc based on crimes committed in the past.

    What is a huge problem is that racism and sexism have become accepted and instituitionalised against supposedly powerful groups, basically white men. There is a widespread narrative that white men should be criticised and actively discriminated against because they are white and male based on the supposed crimds of white males in the past. In this context arguing that white men in thd past have achieved many positive things is anti-racist rather than racist. It would be unnecessary and perhaps inappropriate if not for the endemic, systematic and instutuionalised racism and sexim in american academic instituitions.

    Teh reaction to this statement versus countless others which laud black achievements shows the reality of discrimination in these environments.

    Given the actual context it is arguably a brave if arguably foolish act of resistance.

    The racist aspect of this seems to be a mostly US phenomenen there are examples in the UK but far rarer as an import from the US which sits uneasily in British culture. The sexism part is endemic in western culture and seems to continue to get worse.

  16. Rendall says

    Would the Bronze Age Ancients, considered the founders of Western Civilization, be considered White if they were transported in time to now? Not likely.

    Dividing people into such massive oversimplifications as Asians, Blacks and Whites and then ascribing common traits to all of them, especially ancestral sin, helps no one to understand our world and our place in it. None of these groups are monolithic cultures.

    Personally speaking, as a pale person, I find being lumped in as a White to be spectacularly tedious. There are nations of pale people who, if they were dark, would be held up as yet more examples of victims of White colonial aggression. These folks are lost to time and ideology, blamed for the actions of their conquerors, if they exist at all. I am a lucky mutt of at least two of these nations.

    18th century European colonialism was the foreign policy of a small number of coastal European countries, decided and enacted by a tiny coterie of elites. And yet, because of surface similarities with those nationalities, it is a truism that all pale people the world over without exception, and no dark people whatsoever, were enriched because of it, irrespective of history and logic.

  17. Jezza says

    Please consider this: it is a glaringly obvious fact that different breeds of dog have quite different attributes. Border collies make excellent sheepdogs; corgis are generally quite stupid; American pit bulls like to eat children. (I generalize.) Consider also the different breeds of cattle: Jersey bulls are very dangerous beasts – never turn your back on one; Holsteins are rather more docile; Murray greys can be quite affectionate. Moving right along to the various breeds of human beings: I am not going to instruct you on the obvious inherent differences – that would only give rise to cries of “Racism” and “Bigotry.” It should be sufficient to acknowledge that there are striking differences. I do not regard the current Black Get Square movement as an advance or a civilizing influence – I don’t think it is intended to be. It is just political BS. When I was very young, what is now called “White Privilege” was called “The White Man’s Burden”. How times change.

    • Emblem14 says

      Based on what evidence do you think the genetic elasticity of dog or cattle breeds accurately compares to genetic variations across human population groups? And how does the intentional selective breeding of domesticated animals for specific traits compare to the fitness selection process for different human groups, if at all? Or is this just an…intuition of yours?

      • Sobre says

        That evidence is all around if you wish to see it. Consider one example: you will never find a West African runner winning an elite world-class marathon; you will never find an East African runner winning the hundred-yard sprint. I base that assertion on history, body-build and current and recent world records. West African types hold all the sprint distance world records, East Africans the world marathon records. Africans (many living in the West) dominate world-class running events.

        There is good an bad in all races (indeed, in each one of us).

        To take the views and actions of immature students (who show a racial preference for the same race “. . . eight black women . . . ,” and a drunk), as a matter for serious discussion and not what it is, base and shallow, is a mistake, something one would think the university administration would recognize. Sadly, given the present-day reality (yes, there is evidence all around for this too if you care to look for it) of those who run those intellectual cess pits, it is not surprising.

      • The problem is that there is insufficient data because it is politically incorrect to study such differences. The obvious model to use would be admixture studies, based on the fact that there has bee some genetic mixing of black and white genes for centuries. One piece of evidence for this is the occaisional appearance of sickle cell anaemia in ‘whites’. If traits are genetic, then they will vary statistically according to the proportion of black/white genes.

        Anyone stupid enough to apply for a grant to study this would be horse-whipped by the committee and the public when it was ‘leaked’.

  18. White is beautiful, so is black. But I wouldn,t put that one on your cups and mugs.

  19. Emblem14 says

    It’s still amazing to me how the several racists who comment here have decided that Race (leaving aside how one can precisely delineate races or seperate the social construct element from the biological element) is the proper framework through which to understand human difference. Of all the Theories of Difference, it’s genetic determinism and some weird quasi familial affinity for people with the same shade of skin and facial features that for them best explains why the world is the way it is. Forget other variables of basic historical contingency or environmental constraints or advantages – no, the proper way to construct societies, create social bonds and trust, and to formulate a ranking of social values, is through extended tribal networks based on physical appearance. And this is supposed to be the “hidden truth” of the world? That barbarism should be the normative model of human society?

    Even if you took the most aggressive bell curve arguments at face value, there’s more overlap between groups near the middle of the distribution than there is non-overlapping disparity at the tails. Meaning that even if we used our as yet very limited understanding of genetic determinism as a serious social sorting mechanism, we’d still have a very large multiracial mix of people in the average range, including slightly below and above. Maybe some groups would be greatly overrepresented in the top ranges, and some others in the bottom, but the mediocre middle would still be the multicultural hell these white chauvinists detest so much. The only way to resolve this is by instituting racial collectivism for how individuals are treated, which negates the very concepts of individual agency and merit. We already saw how this works in practice, for most of American history.

    The Commies wanted a totalitarianism defined by class membership, the Nazis wanted one defined by national and ethnic membership, and these white supremacists, being the least sophisticated, will settle for mere appearance and “culture” aka the particular, parochial traditions and customs of some white people in some places. As if some MAGA hat wearing redneck is the cultural custodian of Aristotle, Beethoven and Descartes, rather than gun fetishism and dumbed-down evangelical christianity.

    Deciding what crew to run with based on physical attributes or blood ancestry is what barbarians do in pre-modern tribal societies or inside modern prisons. Great fucking models.

    • Regardless of genetic determinism, one split-second look at a person contains way more information than you’d like to admit. Of course, there is much more information to be gained by getting to know an individual, but that takes a major investment in time that isn’t practical for many purposes. One doesn’t need a racist view of “the inherent superiority of the X race” to simply apply Bayes’ theorem (use whatever information you have to update your assumptions).

      For example, a typical Asian college student with IQ 115 spots an average black guy for two seconds out in public. In less than a second, he knows that odds are slim that they will be able to communicate about anything meaningful, based on raw IQ difference alone. And no one has to teach him this — people recognize such patterns, fast. It’s not racism, it’s just Bayes’ theorem.

      • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says


        Yup. That my appraisal engine, as I mentioned above. It’s fast, it’s honest, and it makes sweeping generalizations. It is usually right. As you say, it completes its work in under a second.

        • jimhaz says

          Add me to that list. Lol, for example it takes me one look at anyone Trump has appointed for me to know they will be some some of vicious scumbag. The few that I didn’t judge negatively in that fashion have left.

      • Emblem14 says

        Stereotyping and Prejudice are heuristics that might have a ‘better than chance’ accuracy rate and might be useful shortcuts in simplistic situations, but they generate a lot of false positives, they’re often not based on good information, (rather myths, propaganda or overgeneralizations). Most importantly, if we want to treat others how we would wish to be treated, we have to put more effort into the final analysis after our brains take the first unconscious pass at filtering reality for us. To do otherwise may have utility, but when it has a negative social impact on individuals who don’t deserve it, it’s hypocritical and lazy.

    • David Schnarr says

      I though he just said he liked white people , and is proud of their accomplishments, NOT that he wants them to be “supreme” somehow.

    • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says


      “the several racists who comment here have decided that Race (leaving aside how one can precisely delineate races or seperate the social construct element from the biological element) is the proper framework through which to understand human difference”

      It is exactly the other way around. The Correct suppose that Race/Identity difference in outcome *must* be due to Oppression — they define their existence entirely as an instance of their Identity group(s). We racists point out that there are other reasons for unequal outcomes that are much more believable. However, we despair of the entire subject of Identity politics and we wish that each individual would be judged as she is, not according to her Identity. Our individual realities are so complex that they simply cannot be reduced to our membership in our Intersectional Identities.

      “Maybe some groups would be greatly overrepresented in the top ranges”

      Exactly. It is not surprising that Jews have won something like 25% of all Nobel Prizes. The thing is that no one cares about the folks in the middle of the bell-curves, who mostly lead normal lives as normal people. The fighting is all about representation at the top end. Alas, as we go higher up the curve, we see a dramatic fall-off of certain groups. It really is quite proper that, on merit, we see more Asians than Whites in elite universities. Nothing broken, nothing to fix there.

      “Deciding what crew to run with based on physical attributes or blood ancestry is what barbarians do in pre-modern tribal societies or inside modern prisons.”

      Yes. What Westerners figured out is how to have a meritocracy. We don’t do it perfectly, but we do it better than anyone else (so far). If you are good, you will rise, and we don’t really care about your race or your religion or your favorite color. Those who make it, make it. We aren’t keeping score. It is the Warriors who demand equal outcomes when the incomes are not equal. Sorry, but they aren’t.

      • Emblem14 says

        I’m sure you’re aware of the studies that Peterson likes to cite about gender differences in occupational choice in egalitarian Scandinavian countries. They suggest that when you remove environmental obstacles to equality, biological differences maximise.

        In the same vein, for those who believe biological factors of intelligence or “good personality traits” are far more influential and heritable than is considered polite to say in the current climate, the best strategy to prove this theory is to actually capitulate to most of the equity policies favored by the social constructionists to “level the playing field”.

        If the bio determinists are right, no amount of external leveling will change the underlying, intractable forces that drive inequality, and as a bonus, social constructionism can be strongly debunked, because they were able to run their experiment and will run out of excuses.

        Wouldn’t they move the goalposts? They might try, but right now there are still too many environmental factors that can plausibly explain ongoing inequalities, and that supposition will stay intact until you can separate the signal from the noise.

        • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says


          Interesting idea! Let them spend their capital till they go bankrupt. But how much disruption and bother in the meantime?

  20. Matthew B says

    If my memory serves, Mr. Hughes is a philosophy student…I have to say that the logic and clarity of his writing is refreshing. I have read all his articles on Quillette and I found this his most concise and best crafted. Kudos to him.

  21. People are going to find comradeship with others who look like them, think like them, act like them. In short, people who share their DNA. And pride emerges when your team does well. Especially when exposed to others who look, think, and act very differently and in opposition.

    This is simply not going to change. If you build an ideology around the idea that it can and must change by constant pressure and force, that ideology is set up to collapse the moment an alternative becomes available. In the West, that moment is close at hand.

    • Emblem14 says

      Genetic ancestry is just one dimension of similarity you might share with someone else. It’s a pretty shallow one. It has never been adequate, in isolation, at fomenting kinship between non-family members. There are so many other more meaningful, (and more socially successful) socially-binding concepts, that thinking DNA or skin color is the most important one, reveals a kind of brutal simple mindedness that is frankly baffling.

  22. JWatts says

    “If Quillette have any integrity they’ll delete such admittedly racist content.” -Declan

    Censoring comments just for their content is a ridiculous idea. Bad ideas don’t go away just because you don’t let yourself see them.

    • Emblem14 says

      Of course they won’t go away. That’s not the point of moderating comments. The point is to keep the comments section from being dominated by noxious fringe elements and wingnuttery, to prevent it from turning into a cesspool dominated by highly offensive fringe commentary, which will scare away normal people and eventually ruin Quillette’s reputation by overshadowing whatever good work it does.

      Fact is, who you tolerate will determine who tolerates you, and who you welcome will determine who feels unwelcome. We’re social animals, we judge each other by the company we keep.

      If you create a place where there is no judgement and no rules, you will have 5 principled libertarians and 5 million scumbags.

  23. David Schnarr says

    The article says that Columbia has a ‘Black Student Organization’. If that’s true, could they also have a White Students Organization’? I’ll bet not, by the same double standard.

  24. FluffyBuffalo says

    Good, thoughtful article as usual. Regarding the last point – that pride in or shame for one’s ethnic identity makes no sense: that seems like a reasonable take at first, but I have come to the conclusion that it’s not quite as simple. Pride and shame in one’s own deeds and achievements are the emotions that come with the realization “I did something well, I should do more of that” and “I messed that up, I should stop that or go about it differently”, respectively. Perfectly reasonable.
    Pride and shame in one’s group – it could be the family, the university, the town, or the race/ ethnicity/ culture – stand for the realization “the group is doing good, and I should joyfully participate in whatever they’re doing”, or “what this group is doing is fucked up, I should not participate and either dissociate from them or get them to change their ways”. Which would be an entirely justified reaction if you’d been born into, to pick an obvious example, Hitler-era Germany. Even though one’s influence on the group is sometimes just a drop in the ocean, these are still important and worthwhile sentiments, both for the individual and for keeping the community on track.
    Pride and shame in one’s group’s past achievements and deeds is a little tricker. Obviously I can’t change anything about the past, and I didn’t have a hand in it one way or another, but it’s still helpful to ask if what happened was, on the whole, good or shameful, and which aspects of culture that led to one outcome or the other are still active. If they are good aspects, then take pride and cultivate the traditions; if they are bad, feel shame if you are involved with them, and work to discontinue them. Makes good sense to me.
    Of course, things are always brighter or darker shades of gray rather than unalloyed good or evil, and shame for some aspects of your culture shouldn’t demolish your self-worth if you are a good person, and neither should pride in your group elevate you above members of other groups. That said, compared to the competition, those white men haven’t done that bad, globally speaking, and people who try to shame anyone for being white probably have their moral compass all fucked up. (Happens when you get involved with “Social Justice”, apparently.)

    • augustine says


      You’ve hit on areas of this article that got me thinking along similar lines. Pride in membership of any kind, and pride of one’s own accomplishments are very different. Both are likely to be detrimental in any but the smallest doses. Yet how do we separate harmful pride from feeling good about individual or group successes?

      Pride has been regarded, rightfully I think, as the mother of all sin. It is an opportunistic entry point for the worst of our natural tendencies. If you have time to indulge prideful thinking then you are probably neglecting practical matters that deserve more of your attention.

      When Mr. Hughes got to mentioning pride I had hoped he might help us differentiate racial pride from racial identity. If one’s racial or ethnic identity was merely conscious or incidental rather than instrumental, then we could dispense with a lot of unnecessary tension and discuss more important things.

  25. BritWoot says

    This article filled me with so much hope for us all, and it felt like a light switched on in my head. When you hear something that articulates a truth you always knew but couldn’t express. Thank you Coleman Hughes for your work.
    Unfortunately I also read some of the comments and this Tito person makes my stomach turn over and reminds me that we all balance on a razor’s edge between the best and worst humanity is capable of. Here’s hoping for the best. 🙂

  26. “. . pride and shame are two sides of the same coin . . Both factions should go one step further and reject the concepts of collective pride and collective shame altogether.”

    This is a VERY important point that is is need of clarification.

    Pride and shame are indeed two sides of the same coin, which is the coin of shared tribal or national identity, which is fundamental to being human, evolved human nature itself being inherently tribal.

    I have been able to extend my sense of tribal identity from my extended family (which is where it evolved), to being English, to being a Native Briton (which includes Scots, Welsh & Irish) to Native European (that is, all the peoples of Europe & their descendants all over the world (in America, Canada, Australia, South Africa, etc.), i.e. my entire white, European, RACE, which is pretty good going, I think (it embraces 100s of millions of people), but that is where my sense of shared tribal identity ENDS.

    I can identify with people of a different race at a personal level, but not as a group/tribe, as I can and do with my own race. I identify with white Americans in general, because we share the same race, but not with non-white Americans, anymore than they would identify with me. I am, I guess, a white nationalist or identitarian, as were America’s founding fathers, who were the original white nationalists.

    I feel pride in white achievements & shame for the terrible things we have done, both to ourselves and to others, and I think this a good thing. Coleman Hughes’ suggestion of doing away with collective, i.e. tribal, identity, pride & shame I think a very bad idea, reminiscent of how communism sought to change human nature to suit its own ends.

    We need to understand and learn how to work WITH human nature, which, as I say, in inherently tribal, instead of demonising it, which is what academics are in the habit of doing, in the service of their state employer, which wants everyone, regardless of race, to identify with itself as their tribe or nation.

    I tweet on this these issues a lot and invite anyone who is interested to take a look: https://twitter.com/rogerahicks/status/1008227827945213952

    • Emblem14 says

      Why are you able to extend your feeling of kinship and belonging to a huge collective of millions of strangers, some of whom have very little in common with you other than ancestry or appearance, and yet you cannot muster this sense of belonging with people who may have many things in common with you, but have a different appearance, or color, or ancestry?

      You’ve already abstracted your tribal affinities to the broader concept of RACE, which encompasses millions and has heavily socially constructed parameters. Why do you think you chose race, and not religion, or nation, or some other proposition of shared value. Why race?

      And given that you did not choose your race, or the lineage of your birth, is your endorsement of collective pride or shame based on some metaphysical sense of collective agency/responsibility, or is it more of a social phenomenon to signal group loyalty for strictly instrumental reasons?

      • Friedrich Goatse says

        In the real world, how are we seeing extending our “feeling of kinship” to other racial groups playing out for Europeans around the world? How’s that working out for us? Seems to be we’re being dispossessed and piecemeal ethnically cleansed out of our own lands with people smugly and triumphantly telling us that we won’t exist in the future (and that’s a good thing!).

        It seems that if you’re as naive as you are, what ends up happening is you go extinct.

  27. xyz and such says

    The problem is that nothing that anyone says anymore is subject to discussion or debate. It’s all just a question of virtue signaling – on both ‘sides’.

    What I find disturbing is that trying to stay in *principle* is very rare – even those who are supposedly centrist like the Quillettians or those who follow the IDW folks get apoplectic when one of them says something that isn’t squarely ‘against’ what is perceived as SJW. Trying to steer a conversation that stays true to a principle is a herculean effort. There’s no nuance allowed, ever.

    • Nuance disappears when you are at war. You don’t want to be killed by your own side. The left has been eating their own over minor issues for decades. But the right is only now coming to understand that war has come to them, whether they like it or not. The endgame of Social Justice is South Africa, where the leaders of the Rainbow Nation openly sing songs in public about killing white people.

      • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says


        The endgame is the final solution to the white plague. The songs are a warmup.

  28. Asenath Waite says

    Nice article. Some actually progressive views on race. It’s stupid (not to mention racist) to assign guilt or pride to individuals by association with the sins and accomplishments of people of the same race. I’ve never owned a slave, nor did I have any hand in inventing the polio vaccine.

    Likewise, everyone should be upset when they hear people being disparaged for being members of a particular race (e.g. ‘dead white men’). Therefore I think the drunk kid was wrong to express personal pride in the accomplishments of others of his race, but right to speak out against racist attitudes.

  29. Constantin says

    If the civilizational challenge is to overcome the tribalism on which our survival depended since the beginning of time, I can not see how strident identitarian politics provide a viable answer. I strongly believe that it is the most misguided way to reverse the progress of the last 100 years and of sowing discord and mistrust among people, exactly when they made the longest strides towards eliminating prejudice and expanding their horizons.
    The experience of Europe – and increasingly elsewhere – shows that forced cultural dilution and population replacement is causing a great deal of fear and insecurity. It must be understood that such policies are a very bold form of identitarian politics in reverse. The idea that assaulting and destroying cultural, geographic and physical kinship is a fast portal into a rosy globalized utopia appears to be mostly misfiring and fuelling the resurrection of cultural and racial identitarianism. My point is that identitarianism begets identiarianism, and that it betrays fundamentally the project of such luminaries as Martin Luther King. It is indeed unfortunate that some continue to confuse revenge with justice and enjoy the existential worries of former oppressors. While psychologically easy to understand (like all human basic impulses), it is hard to see how any rational individual would see such actions as building trust and laying a foundation for a peaceful and harmonious coexistence.
    The position that there is no culture worth preserving or protecting (unless backed up by a real threat of suicide bombing and mass murder 🙁 ) and that one’s cultural and physical (including geographic co-existence and familiarity with others) is an expression of deep held prejudice and bigotry, is a profound assault on that basic mechanism of survival that has been with us since the beginning of time. Those who mastermind and plot such assaults know this very well and intent to rapidly (and no matter how painfully) replace an organically developed common identity with an expanded artificial one. They hope that the transition would be a fast process of social engineering facilitated by a near complete monopoly on mass media and education and an intentional weakening of national sovereignty.
    The problem with the progressive mindset has always been an unbridled messianism combined with the willingness to impose hardship on those perceived as “retrogrades” in the process of rapidly building an utopian future. Historically they have mercilessly failed and followed a fully predictable pattern (without exception): 1) they never had the patience to negotiate and wait for an organic evolution towards the desired goal; 2) they consider those who oppose their project subhuman and morally irredeemable, and want them eliminated from the public sphere; 3) they adhere to a morality that denies the humanity of those opposing their methods and power grab and revert to mob “justice” (social lynching, physical lynching and ultimately the Gulag); 4) have always been eliminated themselves by those more interested in the benefits of concentrated power than the utopian project itself; and 4) once fully formed, the resulting dictatorships stifled everything from economics to culture and decayed into untold misery and social strife.
    It is so easy and tempting to believe that a group of people or another is so weakened in their cohesion and cultural heritage that delivering the “coup de grace” is justified – if nothing else – as an act of mercy. Hungry for power, most people play a forceful positioning game in society and are all too willing to exploit alliances of interest and grievance for dominance. This has been so since the beginning of time and will likely be there forever. However, it is also true that moral and intellectual leadership and inspiration could be also gained from those who are not interested in dominance games, and remain faithful to values that unite and inspire. This is why notable and worthy intellectual contributions, such as the very interesting articles of Mr. Hughes are important. They unmask the primal motivations hidden under identitarian divisiveness and call us back to a project with real chance of success.
    If you really care for humanity call an immediate stop on mass social engineering and accelerated processes that cause people to feel frightened and insecure. Re-establish the security that allows a seamless transition into expanded identities and reject the hubris of overpowering human nature by political fiat. War and strife begins when the honest and well meaning negotiation stops and when one’s worldview includes the notion of “a deplorable”. If in your mind, such a creature exists, you will no longer be able to understand an argument such as the one made by Mr. Hughes, you do not understand the greatness of Christian thought, and you will join a mob motivated by hatred and mistrust of the “other”. You will fear democracy, fear “free speech” and clamor for more government control and centralized power. If You are an American you will stop perceiving the greatness of the most exquisite contribution to constitutional thought and human progress and agree with those who want the constitutional foundation of the freest society in history destroyed. Worse of all, you will perpetuate a vicious historical cycle instead of helping to stop it. The first step towards a truly better tomorrow is to “turn the other cheek” and stop dehumanizing those who mistrust you or do not agree with your project (no matter how worthy and illuminated in your estimate). Conceive the possibility of building a better future by negotiating and gaining small steps in the desired direction and avoid and flee those who seek to force humanity to accord with their particular viewpoint. Avoid also those who seek to build a “better future” by deceit and manipulation, or information control. They are merely making tools for future despots that you can’t even imagine. Try to stick to the idea that telling the truth is the only solid foundation for any lasting human improvement, and value does who articulate their truth (even if gravely mistaken) above the shrewd ones skillfully hiding their intent. To illustrate this with an example, this is why I do not mind white or black supremacists openly voicing their opinion. In doing so – they invite comment and feedback. I also do not mind communist fringe groups writing or demonstrating peacefully. The real problem is with those who silence feedback and silence thought through the exercise of physical and political power. When a thug dons a mask and carries a baseball bat his or her intention is to end conversation and dominate by power. They are the ones who subvert the main achievements of the Western Civilization and put at risk the future of the most just and free societies in history. A white, blue, polka dot or what have you supremacist with a pen in his or her hand is still engaged in conversation. Take the pen away and the conversation is replaced by rage and violence. Qui bono?

    “As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
    There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
    That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
    And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

    And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
    When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
    As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
    The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return! ”

    How about no more!

    • Brian Kemp says

      If the conversation were to stop here, Constantin, and no more comments were written, yours would be a fine end-note to the conversation.

      Thanks for sharing your perspective. In doing so, you’ve helped me find mine. (It’s quite close to yours.)

    • @constantin, thank you for your thoughts, particularly this one:

      “It is indeed unfortunate that some continue to confuse revenge with justice and enjoy the existential worries of former oppressors. While psychologically easy to understand (like all human basic impulses), it is hard to see how any rational individual would see such actions as building trust and laying a foundation for a peaceful and harmonious coexistence.”

    • Ray Andrews (the dolphin) says


      Are you by any chance running for public office anywhere near me sir?

    • Saw file says

      @ constantin
      Agree, and TY.
      I couldn’t (literally) have said it better

    • Dan Love says


      Please split your writing into paragraphs! If it weren’t for the praising comments, I would have not read your excellent post.

  30. Coolius Caesar says

    I think another aspect to consider would be that of stereotyping and responsibility. Like Germans after WW2 (and to this day) there is specter of collective guilt thrust upon whites for slavery even though no white person alive owned slaves and no black person alive was a slave. However, when statistics on black violence and crime are brought up the result is always the same: “stop stereotyping us”. So why are whites made to suffer for crimes committed but others are not?

  31. Mike Dolphgren says

    The idea that tribalism is bad or that it’s going anywhere is absurd.

    All this anti-white behavior is doing is creating a massive backlash. There is no danger of whites overrunning africa or asia, but the author (who isnt white) would like white people to sit back and refuse to play the identity game every other race is playing, while THEY still have their homelands, which are in no danger of being overrun.

    My answer is an resounding No.

  32. Thanks to Coleman Hughes. I read it in a Fb group at
    It is very thoughtful. I have a slight problem with “the race you were born into by chance” which philosophically seems a little weird, but analyzing[*] it here would be off topic.
    [*](I can’t help commenting that it reminds me of the joke, “If your parents didn’t have any children then neither will you.”

  33. Leo Strauss says

    Thanks for a wonderful article! Very clear and gets at something very important.

    How long will using racial pride terms make sense to use for disadvantaged groups? That is, while, generally speaking or all things being equal, it is easier to be a white man in the US than a black man, it is certainly much better to be black man today in the US than 100 years ago. Which is to say, some important progress has been made. So, if, or to the extent, that equality is reached, racial pride language will really become troubling. And, perhaps, racial pride terms are already more of an obstacle to living in the kind of world that I think we all want to live in; namely, one in which we judge HUMAN beings on the basis of their moral character.

    As an aside, I find the “dead, white guy” trope so disappointing. Reading older books can help us see that there are permanent problems or questions, and that easy “solutions” are often more tension riddled than we think. People from the past can say true things or articulate questions and problems that are very much with us today.

    The Platonic dialogues are absolutely outstanding at showing how unreasonable people can be. For instance, most of the interlocutors don’t actually admit their own ignorance. Like Meno, who says, “I’m bewitched; I’ve made thousands of speeches about virtue.” He doesn’t admit he doesn’t know, and attributes supernatural capacities to the person who refutes him. Or Laches, who says that the definition of courage is just there on the tip of his tongue even though he has been soundly refuted. Plato shows us how incredibly difficult it is to let go of emotional convictions that we have held for a long time, especially if we are proud of them. Which is to say, dead old white guys can say true things, and it has nothing to do with their whiteness.

  34. Cailen says

    If the double standards of the type mentioned by Coleman continue, more people will turn to the Titos of the world. It is not hard to imagine what will happen then.

    The only way to prevent this from happening is by doing what Coleman is doing: taking a stand for civilization.

    Coleman is speaking up for lessons hard-learned in the past: to avoid ethnic violence, we cannot hold people of different ethnicities to different standards. The only realistic alternative is by treating others as individuals.

    It may be unpleasant to join Coleman and swim upstream of woke dogma, but if we do not we will face a far worse fate.

  35. Jorge Anderson says

    “A great way to instantly be seen as a naïf, a racist, or both is to ask why this double standard exists. The answer, of course, is historical context. Black people were brought to America in chains, forced to work as chattel, subjugated formally and informally for a century after abolition, all the while fighting to see themselves as beautiful in a culture hellbent on convincing them they were ugly, stupid, and inferior. Black race pride, therefore, is a rejection of, and an adaptation to, the racist elements in America’s reprehensible past. One cannot make the same claim about white race pride, which historically has been more associated with brutal oppression than with noble rebellion.”

    Ah yes, so the fact that serfdom in Europe lasted longer than slavery (and that unlike slavery in the USA, members of other races didn’t wage wage to liberate them) is part of this brutal oppression? Those serfs of course were all part of the “white race” out their “brutally oppressing”. To say nothing of the vast amounts of European slavery by Africans in the past. Or to say nothing of the abolition of Sati, the Thuggees, human sacrifice in Tahiti, tribal genocide in New Zealand….but all this is beside the point. The point is that Coleman, for all that he poses as anti-identitarian, is going on here about “the white race”. British, US, Canadian, Indian, Nepalese, NZ, Australia soldiers ridding the world of German and Japanese tyranny….forget that, its all about “the white race”. Stuff any fine distinctions. Saxons vs Danes…”white race”. Cold war versus Stalinism “white race”. The mix of good and bad of British Imperialism compared to the unremitting bad of Belgian Imperialism…all washed into one big homogeneous “white race”.

    Let’s face it, Coleman is a one trick pony, exposed when he over-reaches by his lack of historical knowledge. Give me Thomas Sowell any day.

    • Alice Williams says

      Hughes is a young man just starting out on his career as a writer and commentator, Sowell is in his eighties and it is only to be expected that he has more experience and greater knowledge than someone in their early twenties. This is a good, well balanced article as always from Hughes.

  36. Paolo Scussolini says

    Only thing I want to say is: another great reflection by Hughes! Such clarity and sharpness of argumentation, such elegance in the formulation of ideas. All of them very simple, but never so compellingly juxtaposed to bring new understanding, to issues where society seems stuck.

  37. Jezza says

    To expand on that: Yes, but I have had experience with all the animals I mentioned and thus I reached a considered (but not *scientific*) opinion. I am aware that we are animals too, and think it reasonable to assume that we also evince behaviours peculiar to our breed.

  38. latterdayfunhouse says

    I like this article. What follows is a quibble.

    Your pride-shame binary arguments rests, to my mind, on a rational view of human nature.

    Whether one feels pride or shame is up to the individual, and doesn’t necessarily answer to a rationalist analysis of what emotions “should” comprise human nature – or what outward representations these emotions “should” rightfully rest on / correspond to.

    Spending many hours exploring human nature in a therapeutic setting, taught me that the emotions one logically “should” feel are often the least
    important to what is actually going on.

    As an example taken from this paper, you mention that Frederick Douglass and some other famous black people, are or were your heroes.
    Is that rational? Does that make sense?

    I think pride is natural and shame is learned; or both are natural but one is first-order natural and the other is second-order natural. I think love is first order natural and hatred is learned or second order natural; learned through painful experience. Black men of the past are of the same biological ilk and stamp as their descendants today, and therefore it seems natural to pride oneself on being created by God in that same template – one can, reasonably, associate with their experiences and accomplishments – and put upon oneself the mantle of their glory, so to speak. The rational calculus of what emotions should be, might disallow this. But I think thats motivated more by the desire to appease a fraught societal consensus – hoping if we throw overboard the adolescent seeming glory-seeking of racial identification, we can ease the process of integration for everyone. Perhaps.

    But the author’s mind made an association between himself and Frederick Douglass. Why was this easier for him than say, identifying with John Brown the abolitionist? The mind is generally not rational, I contend.

    Allow me speak with the widest angle lens I have about the issue.

    Races are ideas in the mind of God. They are divine templates that are meant to express the many-facetted nature of the Human being.
    Each one has special gifts and virtues which the other cannot have or create as easily. Outside of human value hierarchies, all races are
    equal, as we are all in absolute spiritual equality with one another – all souls are created equal. In our expression, both as individuals,
    groups, and races – we are not equal. Equal in essence, value, spirituality and potentiation – but not equal in any of the visible expression metrics
    upon which human societies generally base themselves. Any two human beings even within a family, would be unequal on many metrics.

    These measures we see are our society’s perhaps somewhat ham-fisted attempts to reconcile the spiritual ideal of equality – which is truly absolute, with the practical reality of people’s differences.

    Also, Races are very formidable. We are talking about groups of humans. These are the most powerful beings on the planet, and when you address them in their Racial aspect, you address their group mind – you touch one of the most profound, primal centers of their being. Each one is infused with a profound love of the Archetype it represents – though its mind can be swayed by other things. It will be drawn again and again to the Archetype.

    The Races are formidable: they have claws. One should not play lightly with, or abuse an advantage over another group of people, unless expecting to draw fire down on oneself and possibly one’s descendants.

    Imagine the alcohol-soaked greed and jollity of the early slave traders, who made themselves rich; yet the wheels of discontent and anguish they set in motion would redound for hundreds of years – and still are redounding.

  39. Russia did this says

    make the peasants fight each-other over the skin color – so they never revolt against the elites, divide and conquer

    • Friedrich Goatse says

      Have you ever considered the fact that bringing in millions of unwanted dissonant racial strangers is itself a dividing act? It’s not a natural state. You sound like a dumb boomer regurgitating something George Carlin said in his standup acts.

  40. “Conversely, the progressive logic that encourages modern-day whites to feel shame for slavery and colonialism should also lead them to feel pride for their ancestors’ achievements.”

    Too true. Endlessly heckling white peiple implicitly gives them permission to defend themselves as… … white people, and naturally some of them more marginal types will become radicalized. In this atmosphere, Richard Spencer and white nationalists are as inevitable as Farrakhan and the Black Panthers.

    I suspect that’s exactly what is desired by intersectional progressives, who primarily define themselves opposite of bigotry and clearly desire more if it to further affirm themselves, and that Charlottesville was the Nazi rally they were secretly hoping for.

    • Asenath Waite says


      I agree with this. Attacking white people based on their race is causing many of them to begin to defensively identify more and more heavily with their race when they otherwise would not have, and I believe this is the primary driver behind whatever white nationalist or whatever movement is currently on the rise, to the extent that it is actually on the rise at all. The goal used to be clearly to move beyond judging people based on race, but now it seems that we’ve started regressing at an alarming rate. It’s extremely depressing and makes me want to check out of society altogether.

      • jimhaz says

        Particularly as it is coming so much from people chosen to join in with the country. Recent migrants and their descendants desire to take over from those that gave the gift.

        They have become Inglorious Bastards.

        When some form of economic shit hits the fan, as it will at some point, their lack of attitudinal integration (nationalism) could easily mean they run will run rampant. In the past integration was forced by society – no longer.

      • Friedrich Goatse says

        It IS the cause, but your threadbare “analysis” leaves out that you have no solutions to this and that all of these people brought into our countries as a biological form of weaponry weren’t here before and all have their own countries still. Multiracialism is NOT a natural state. Virtually all of the progress in world history we would deem good and worthwhile came out of overwhelmingly homogeneous places like England before it was swamped with foreigners in the last 70 years.

  41. SumdumgI says

    This is my favorite Hughes piece yet…just delightfully insightful (even more so than usual if that’s possible) and, it seems to me, especially personal and authentic. Bravo and thank you!

  42. John Astel says

    He said “white race pride” …”brutal oppression” not “white race”! There’s a difference!

  43. I think you look at the question from the wrong angle when you say you are proud of being white, black, or x or y or z. Like the author says, people don’t chose before birth to be x, y or z, and they did not influence the past or the glorious (or inglorious) deeds of the people who came before them. I think, in the case of positive traits, or deeds passed down to us the right word is “thankful”. I am a biracial person, black, white, I am not proud of my ancestors, black or white, I am thankful to the them. I am thankful they not only reproduced but they had the fortitude to get up every morning and raise a family despite all the difficulties. They made me possible. At both the family level and the civilizational level, the people who came before me lived through events that shaped their lives for better or for worse, I am the final distillation of what they experienced and how they chose to pass or not pass those experiences on. I am thankful. My turn now to pick up the work.

  44. Bandy says

    Political correctness is really getting to ridiculous levels! I do not see any problem in people forming groups to share the things they have in common, no matter what they are. I am an older person and not white, and I just don’t see people through the color prism anymore. If someone wants to rant about the virtues of being white, especially in college, let them do so as long as there is nothing vicious or hateful or inciting violence of any sort.
    Heck, I might even stop and listen! 🙂

  45. I.m surprised about the focus on skin color, in article and comments. Though, as a social and cultural phenomenon in the US, easy to understand. On a visit in the US, I was amazed to see the denomination Caucasian or black in passports, is this still done?
    This Caucasian, by the way, in the original classification, has skin color not at all as a distinctive race mark, neither IQ (came much later), but more facial and cranial characteristics, blacks from the Horn of Africa (now Somalians, pitch black) also belonged to the Caucasian type, so, quite a difference with that American Caucasian. However, the hierarchy in races, as preached here by some in the comments, was nothing new, also then, Caucasian was number one, the most perfect and delicate race, though, at that time, more to differentiate them from the ugly and primitive East Asians (the Mongoloids, the ones with that high IQ right now), than with the Negroids. The times, they are a’changing.

  46. I think black pride makes some sense because in some ways blacks in America are more than racial group, but a semi-cohesive cultural and social group with a history, a religion, a literature and a music. White pride makes no sense in that whites are not a semi-cohesive cultural group. As a Jew, I take pride, as do many Jews, in our Jewish winners of Noble prizes, our successful Jewish actors and writers, etc. Of course, I’m being a bit silly since I haven’t myself won any Noble prizes lately and if I take pride in Jewish success, do I need to hang my head in shame for Jewish criminals?

    • But, Mark, where do you belong to? To a religion? A race? A cohesion of groups with an origin and a book? What I know, you belong only to the jews depending on the mother you have, so, it’s something biological, and not like in the christian and moslim faith. Oh, oh, oh, what to make of that!

    • Morgan Foster says

      “… if I take pride in Jewish success, do I need to hang my head in shame for Jewish criminals …”

      I think one should want to.

  47. P. Rossi says

    The “Progressive” definition of Racism = Power + Privilege” isn’t that far off if you add CONTEXT to the equation. The rarefied context of a liberal arts college where “Dead white males” are routinely bashed is a far cry from a loan officer redlining a minority real estate lot. There are many many micro-environments, even social cliques, where whiteness is positively demonized. You are right ot point out that in such contexts whites can indeed be the victim of racism.

      • To imply that someone else does not have potential power and wisdom is racism. It is also a rejection of the assumptions of eastern philosophy and European Enlightenment Classical liberalism.

  48. Hestia says

    I love this kid. He is speaking the truth, and he is my hero.

  49. Flair and balanced says

    This was a…hold up…very well-argued and profoundly rational article! Amazing that such dispassionate analysis can exist on the internet. Stunning that this is the work of an undergraduate writer.

  50. Kurmu Jeon says

    What called my attention was that the writer, in sharing his experience of his student days, claims not to have heard more than one instance of racist speech. It is very possible that his report is accurate, but more likely it is a reduced understanding of what racism means.

    As I understand it, Racism is an institutionalized control of access to resources organized around perceived identification with a particular race. A phenomenon that accompanies this system of privilege is a blindness to what you take for granted, that privilege. So I am not surprised that anyone used to conceiving the world as racist would not see the racism in it, and would not notice that specific speech utterances are not the only elements that maintain said system of privilege.

    “Whites” are racist because the society they built, as advanced a von Abele might think it is, is based on only allowing “Whites” to control resources. It is a system of privilege. If you are “white” you are born with a silver spoon, whether you take your socio-economic class into account or not, because the path of least resistance is for you to have an advantage over someone from another group in the same class standing.

    The system is not only limited to giving privileges to “Whites” as based on race, it is also skewed to giving privileges to straight males, which is based on another social construct, gender.

    • BioEmeritus says

      Excellent statement of the Standard Social Science Model of racism. You definitely deserve an “A” grade in all of your required multicultural courses.

    • Kurmu Jeon, racism is treating other deferentially on the basis of race.I would define race as DNA gene haploid admixture patterns. How would you define race?

      The only non racist people are people who have transcended the habits and patterns of their subconscious brain and nervous system auto reflexes. In other words people such as Mohammed, peace be upon him, Jesus, Elisha, Elijah, John the Baptist, Buddha, Mahavira, Lao Tsu and other spiritual masters from all over the world.

      The only way to end racism is for us to increase our observation, understanding and control over our own brain and nervous systems. Increasing our own mental health broadly defined and our own deep intelligence (where “general intelligence” is a subset within the superset of deep intelligence). Many ancient traditions unlock this through what is sometimes called “love”. Deeply misunderstood though this term is.

      Human beings are inherently and potentially wiser and more powerful than our grandest dreams. To imply otherwise is racism.

      Structures, institutionalized control of access to resources organized around perceived identification with a particular race, systems of privilege, socio-economic class, social constructs, gender are all tiny specs of dust compared the blazing fiery star of human potential.

      One of the reasons this “human potential” is locked is a European post modernist marxist conspiracy to colonize the minds of “darkies” with inferiority complex to damage their self confidence and keep them down.

      We need to fight this conspiracy.

      A description of this European conspiracy is here:

      At the same time, Europeans didn’t get “rich” by oppressing others. Europeans got rich by unlocking their own intrinsic intelligence, mental health and power. See the ending of the above article for a description of the greatness of Europeans by Swami Vivekananda.

  51. BioEmeritus says

    Excellent, insightful article. But, what, if anything, was Columbia’s response? Did Mr. von Abele suffer any negative consequences other than being banned from Barnard’s campus and being condemned by some students and administrators, neither of which I would consider negative? Did Columbia act as it should and ignore the whole brouhaha?

  52. Coleman Hughes, I have watched and read most of your content and am a big fan.

    Many ancient civilizations and cultures around the world deeply revere, respect and honor their elders and ancestors. Why is this wrong?

    I would dispute the idea that there is such a thing as “whiteness” at all. There is such a thing as culture and subculture. Culture is different from race. Many authentically identify with many cultures simultaneously, myself included. There is such a thing as American culture, English culture, French culture, Spanish culture, German culture and so on. The concept of “European” civilization strikes me as deeply amorphous, imprecise, multi-modal and non descriptive. “White” culture and civilization far more so than the “European” handle.

    For this reason taking pride in the achievements of ancient “whites” makes little sense. But taking pride in the accomplishment of ancient Romans, Gauls, Germanics, English, Greeks, Greek Turks (Anatolia was culturally greek for thousands of years), Serbs, is not wrong. Taking pride in “whiteness” strikes me as bizarre and meaningless.

    We can honor our ancestors long gone without constantly condemning their mistakes. Feeling guilt over the actions of ancestors long gone makes no sense. Why can’t we feel gratitude, respect and pride without guilt?

    You are right that the greatness of our ancestors is their greatness, not ours. We need this humility alongside respecting our ancestors.

  53. JP Merzetti says

    Long have I pondered how and why it is that perceived humanity leaves race in the dust. Culture, language, traditions, rituals, diets, customs, habits……..mean everything or don’t mean anything depending on the human stamp upon it. It takes a little looking beneath the surface of things. Arguments become as weak as water when depending attitude without responsibility. By that I mean response – ability. The ability to respond. Favorably, if possible, and at least neutral if that is the best you can do.
    Liking your “own kind” is not the same as liking people.

Comments are closed.