Dave Gibson's Racial Arguments

Discuss this on our boards!

Dave Gibson's Racial Arguments
by James Hall, Associate Editor

July 31, 2002

"Leaning Left"

James Hall I was both shocked and saddened by Dave Gibson's article, "What Happens When Whites Are No Longer The Majority," published in The American Partisan on Monday. Shocked because attitudes like Mr. Gibson's are still prevalent in the political netherworld of America, saddened because TAP published his words without comment.

Now I believe that our publisher, Tim Rollins, is the soul of decency, a man who hates censorship and prejudice in part because he's been a victim of it himself. But I feel he made a mistake in publishing this article. Not because it is "politically incorrect," but because it is not a political article at all. Its purpose is not to argue an ideological point or debate policy or sway public opinion, but to condemn whole groups of people because of their heritage.

In The American Partisan we debate political ideology, the theories and policies of liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism among others. We write with vigor, taking no prisoners, arguing for our particular point of view. But an article that condemns people based solely on their birth and parentage and not on their political beliefs or practices is racial in nature, not political. Mr. Gibson's article condemns whole groups of people without reference to their individual beliefs, policies, or political viewpoints.

Mr. Gibson tells us that no nonwhite can hold political office without corrupting it, ignoring the evidence of hundreds of serving Black and Hispanic mayors and elected officials, and of exemplary public servants like Condolleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Mel Martinez, and Clarence Thomas. He tells us that good ideas come only from white authors and not from nonwhites like Thomas Sowell or Dinesh D'Souza. That South Africa has failed because its leaders are Black, not because the white minority refused to teach its Black citizens economics and self-government or create a national infrastructure they could participate in.

Beyond the inherent racial character of these arguments, Mr. Gibson's central point --- America's white majority is disappearing --- makes no political sense anyway, since white voters don't vote as a bloc. Nor do many nonwhite voters. Hispanic Americans split their ticket, as do Asian Americans, and Black Americans might do so more often if conservatives weren't hell bent on dismantling the mechanisms that historically protected Blacks from being made second-class citizens. If Gibson sees the politics of immigrants as a danger, it may be because conservatives have historically made it tough on immigrants, most of whom become hard working and loyal citizens of our nation.

Indeed, Gibson's rant sounds much like anti-immigration rants of the past, which in the 19th century labeled the influx of "black Irish" as a threat to the Anglo-Saxon nature of the nation, then in the 20th century decried the tide of swarthy white Southern European immigrants --- Italians, Greeks, and Spaniards --- as a threat to its white Protestantism. The major difference is that Gibson also singles out Black Americans, born and bred in America, for the worst of his vitriol.

We all know the results of racial thinking in the 20th century. It promoted political policies that isolated, disenfranchised, and even destroyed people who didn't fit a racial ideal. What can Mr. Gibson's article do but continue to stimulate the feelings of race hatred and fear that have fueled so much injustice in the past?

Conservatives have been telling me and other liberals for quite some time that the days of prejudice are over in America and it is we liberals who continue to whip up the specter of a vanished racism in order to keep minorities in our corner. But it seems clear that prejudice remains with us. The attitudes that Mr. Gibson expresses publicly are not always put in writing; more often, they remain hidden behind a veneer of civility.

If conservatives are as devoted to the ideals of individual freedom and responsibility as they say they are, then I'm sure that they will respond with outrage at an argument that lumps our nation's citizens into color categories. If they remain silent, that only proves that we liberals were right all along about the need to protect people of color --- and ultimately all people --- from becoming or remaining second-class citizens in their own nation. Even people like Mr. Gibson. ***

Photo of the author courtesy of staff files