White Supremacy (3 of 4)


UI – Part 537 – White Supremacy (3 of 4)

“White Supremacy” is not all white. It is thus not an accurate term, but a useful term for those who use victims, and targets, to advance their agendas.

19th Century-20th Century England

Churchill was born in 1874.  England was a grand empire at the time having applied BritishEmpireFlagsimperialistic maneuvers to expand its presence in the world, colonizing countries from India to Hong Kong, Africa and the Middle East, port cities of Adan and Gibraltar, Island nation’s as Jamaica, Bermuda, Singapore New Zealand and Australia, also Canada and even as an active trading partner with America.  The large British fleet of ships enabled its continued exploration and conquest of areas where resources benefitting the colonies, Britain and its merchants, could be harvested.  From The Last Lion, by William Manchester (1983), he writes about the times around Churchill’s birth when British newspapers were prevalent in the many colonies keeping the elite in clubs and business offices informed about the world.  The Brits did act in a supremest fashion, claiming superiority. One paper wrote, “It is because there are people like this (‘lascars’ or non-British seaman) in the world that there is an imperial Britain. This sort of creature has to be ruled, so we rule him, for his good or our own.”  “Doing so,” Manchester writes, “required preservation of the myth of white supremacy; of what we call racism” (pg. 53)  It was a role, “the role of an Übermensch,” to be played to maintain strength over British subjects, foreign or domestic.  Another telling comment, “England was guided by the self-assured men of the upper classes.”  There were schools where the elite and “the future rulers of the Empire were trained….They thought themselves better than the middle and lower classes” (pg. 55).  England at the time was the Great Empire.  It’s treasury was full and its command of colonies established worldwide gave it a sense of greatness, power and superiority.

Much has changed since that time.  The roots of America were established in Europe and England and it follows that the mindset of the elite embraced an attitude of superiority.  But that has waned to a great extent; not completely (and that may never take place as the pendulum of those considered supreme or superior vacillates).

In the late 1800’s “social mobility, as we understand it today, was not only unpursued by the vast majority; it had never existed. For centuries an Englishman’s fate had been determined at birth” (pg. 64).  Much changed for England from the time of the first through the second world war.  Its imperial status changed dramatically. Fighting wars, defending freedom, the Boer War, WWI and WWII, depleted England’s treasury and weakened its stature.  Oddly Roosevelt objected greatly to Britain’s imperialist and colonizing nature, which collapsed after the wars (primarily due to England’s depleted treasury to defend Europe from Prussian, German and Russian attempts to conquer). Roosevelt, oddly, subsequently allowed Stalin to do much of the same (as the UK) in Russian’s conquest of East Europe and many Balkan states after WWII.

In the UK many of the historical families, bred within the monarchy, still hold tight their traditions and love of heritage, but that is changing. America’s democracy is a concern to the most elite, and has been since the Federalist Days, but since Jefferson fought the Federalists and championed the poor, much has transitioned.  Jefferson held to past practices in many cases, but he was a leader also in changing how America treats its citizens, all of them, by the rule of law as common to all.  Jefferson established the basis of conservatism and the Republican Party, paving the way for all people to have a vote, not just the elite.  Escaping slavery was necessary. By the end of the 1800’s, and the time of Churchill, that occurred.  There was resentment, mind you, a grasp by those unwilling to let go of the past, to include their bias and personal need to be and feel superior and in control.  Democracy, a combining of the lower, middle and upper classes, was considered an “evil of the first magnitude,” considered permissible, “so long as they are not taught to act together…,” which was suggested could be, “averted by the greater wisdom and foresight of the higher classes” (pg. 82). The ‘higher classes,’ indeed, the elites, educated, wealthy, and powerful. So a democratic monarchy in England may be a no-no, but not in America.

The advances in human rights and equality are proceeding forward with haste.  Improvements continue daily.  Yet there are those that resist and demand every trophy be the same size, and the purse be shared among all. America’s greatness is borne out of conservative values that allow for the people to succeed, to have hope, to have a voice, not as victims, but as achievers.  Victims need not remain so. Equality exists at the starting line, but there are those that will finish ahead of others.  They should be recognized, but at the same time they need to embrace those that fall behind.  What is not needed is to see everyone as crossing the finish line simultaneously.  That is not reality.

From a political perspective American democracy has been embraced by the Republicans.  The Democrats are more like the Federalists that Jefferson compromised.  The Democrats as an elite contingent that knows best want to control the masses, providing for the poor as a Nanny State. They need the masses, as if they are their children, to vote for them, to remain as victims to whom they appeal, but they prefer their children never grow up.  The liberals, represented by the Democratic political party, lack advocacy for capitalism which incentivizes all people to succeed and grow.  The Democrats want a mix of people, all races, all religions, all sexes (even new ones recently legally defined), without a mix of opinions.  This is a diversity of people with only one way to think, to believe and to accept others.  More akin to Islam.

The Republican’s desire is that everyone is to start having an equal opportunity. It is clear to everyone, unless falsely convinced otherwise, that the outcome of every race has a winner.  Sports may be the most obvious reality.

Recently I attended a grandchild’s HS graduation.  The valedictorian was not recognized.  The standard for honor students was a low bar, and many met the minimums. All honor students wore the same colors, carried the same banners, so as not to make anyone feel different or recognize those whose achievements were greater, whose efforts resulted in higher grades. The main speaker was not the valedictorian, but chosen from the class as a whole.  Even the class President was selected not by a class vote, but by a vote of the faculty, and was one of the graduation speakers, even though not a class favorite. This was the liberal Democratic Party preference for making all the same, giving the under-achiever equal notice.

….to be continued…. Part 4 of 4 to follow. History is as speaking to the past, a voice from a millennium or a decade ago.  When it comes to white supremacy listen to the voice and hear a change in tone.  The world is maturing. Certainly there are pockets where modernity has not yet touched ground, or where the elitists in power will not let a modern landing occur.

Grace and Peace   

Be sure to sign on to this web site, input your email to receive every blog.

…..

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s