Non-Discrimination, Private and Public

In The House of the Seven Gables (1851), Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote that “the wrong-doing of one generation lives into the successive ones, and, divesting itself of every temporary advantage, becomes a pure and uncontrollable mischief.” Are we Americans paying for the crimes of our ancestors with the decline and imminent ruin of our beloved country? Maybe, but if so, what exactly was the crime? Taking the land from the Indians? Slavery? These are the obvious answers, but I cannot think that the evils we suffer today represent any kind of just punishment or karmic retribution for those events. We have long since done what we could to remedy the inequalities that they supposedly caused.

Perhaps the true answer is the opposite of what we conventionally think: our crime – or, at least, our profound error – is not discrimination, but non-discrimination. We started out feeling that it was not decent, or moral, to “discriminate” against minorities, meaning, mainly, black people; and the principle of non-discrimination gradually took over every functional institution of our society, until these institutions became actively harmful to the interests of the very people they were supposed to serve.

I certainly believed in non-discrimination for most of my life. For a personal example, which is almost amusing to me now, I once went on some dates through the classified ads (this was back when they were commonly printed in the free “alternative” weekly city papers, something I imagine has been supplanted by eHarmony). The ads would often specify the race of the person desired, e.g., SWF seeking SWM. I am a white man, but it offended me that so many white women were specifically seeking white men. I didn’t want to go out with someone who would say that! Also in the spirit of non-discrimination, I went out with a black woman or two. One lady was quite nice – clearly interested in white men (she was a lover of books and culture, and apparently couldn’t find many black men with compatible interests), but the instant I saw her I knew that I could not be attracted to her. It didn’t occur to me that preferring one’s own race might be a natural and healthy thing, or that, at least, people have the right to discriminate in the most personal of relationships, even if they believe in equal treatment in the public sphere. (It didn’t occur to me, either, that a white woman with an interest in black men might not be the best potential partner for me!) To give another example, I remember commenting to a female friend about a certain female acquaintance, that I didn’t think I could date her because she belonged to the Baha’i religion. The friend told me that she knew lots of wonderful Baha’i followers and that my comment made her “angry.” Here, at least, I stuck to my guns, insisting that religious differences were real, not something that could be overcome by niceness and kindness.

Non-discrimination is thought by its practitioners to be a virtue – perhaps the highest and most essential one of all. Yet it seems to be the code of non-discrimination that allows the worst evils to enter and flourish in our society, especially as a foundation for legal processes and decisions. The most egregious examples are probably immigration-related. (In a way, this entire blog is a reaction to mass non-Western immigration, though I usually approach the issue indirectly, by thinking about who we – the non-immigrants – are.) Outrage after outrage takes place, and nothing ever changes. Genetic testing reveals that the vast majority of Somalis brought here for family unification are actually not related to the people bringing them in. Investigations show that the vast majority of Chinese students in the United States faked their transcripts and essays. Vast numbers of Hispanics use stolen Social Security numbers. Is a commonsense decision ever made to put an end to the fraud by simply stopping taking in so many people from the particular countries involved? No, it is not. (The Somali reunification was halted, but apparently is slated to be resumed.) Somehow, the system itself cannot accept a sensible act of discrimination in that most personal – and most publicly important! – of choices, that of who to admit into one’s national family. We end up with a sick perversion of the American Dream, where lying and greed are rewarded and become the foundation of new citizenship. Is this moral? Is this virtue?

Ayn Rand, whose works I admire only very selectively, said that one must never fail to pronounce moral judgment. Laura Wood says that we must not fail to discriminate – in this article, she is referring to “economic discrimination in favor of men” in the workplace, but the statement applies to every aspect of society. Failure to judge and discriminate unleashes evil and mayhem. Even worse is the aggressive, coercive enforcement of non-discrimination through grievances and lawsuits. The great challenge for traditionalists and conservatives is to find a way to rebuild a society that judges and discriminates as it should.

Advertisements

9 Responses to Non-Discrimination, Private and Public

  1. And to see the extent to which some New Class Elites are willing to go to see that people don’t engage in Crimethink you only have to look to the north.

    http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/homeschoolers-cant-be-taught-gay-sex-sinful/

  2. Father D says:

    To discriminate simply means to be able to evaluate and make sound judgements. The alternative, indiscriminate, is to make no evaluations and therefore no judgements. The person who makes no judgements has a 50-50 chance of getting things right (also a 50-50 chance of getting things wrong).

    God gave us brains that we might think, to make sound judgements and thereby improve our lives. To refuse to do so is to refuse to use the gift of God, given for our benefit. He did not leave us powerless, but we choose (foolishly) to make ourselves so.

    I will endeavor always to discriminate.

    • stephenhopewell says:

      Father D, exactly, and it gets even worse, doesn’t it? One is not merely “tolerant” of the bad, one must actively embrace it as good.
      Thanks for visiting.

  3. Liam says:

    To be a “man of discrimination and taste” was considered a compliment not so very long ago.

    Ed West has a blog in the Telegraph along the same lines.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100140724/non-judgmentalism-%E2%80%93-the-new-upper-class-hypocrisy/

  4. pa says:

    Two anecdotes:
    This week I needed to take my car for repair, and it turned out that the problem was an amusing oddity. The specialty shop that fixed it was staffed by the friendliest people I have met in ages. Six or seven guys aged 20s to 60s and one motherly middle-aged lady, and every one of them made a point to come say hi to me (I am a short, pudgy, middle-aged lady and in no way do I attract hot-babe attention). They were all so cheerful, open-faced, easy-going, and just gosh-darn friendly, with not a trace of any personality defects. Great eye contact skills. They all talked in long paragraphs with me and with each other, and everybody got along so well. I haven’t felt that I fit in so instantly with any group of strangers since I don’t know when. I felt like I was visiting my favorite cousins. On the ride home, it suddenly occurred to me that they were all white, American stock from way back. No victims, grievance-mongers, or any multi-culti diversity grouch to spoil the mood or make anyone feel self-conscious about unwittingly saying the wrong thing. How long since any American business got away with hiring like that? I really do miss old-fashioned all-American groups.

    I was wearing my American flag T-shirt, too, which I bought here:
    http://www.whatonearthcatalog.com/cgi-bin/hazel.cgi?action=DETAIL&ITEM=VH8982T
    I get more compliments on this shirt than anything else I own, from teenagers to old folks and every single time I wear it in public. Now that I am thinking in long-forbidden terms, it occurs to me that everyone who has ever said anything about my shirt was a white guy. I think it’s not the shirt itself they’re responding to, but they’re expressing a pro-American attitude that we are not supposed to openly declare. The shirt gives them an excuse for saying they love America, loud and proud.

    Down with diversity. Up with Americans!

    • stephenhopewell says:

      Pa, thanks for the great story. I think I accidentally deleted another comment from you, thinking it was spam. Sorry about that.

  5. […] his blog The Heritage American, traditionalist Stephen Hopwell adroitly and profoundly turns the tables on a common leftist accusation. Here is a summary; be sure to read the entire post: Are we […]

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: