De Tocqueville on Race in America - Peter Myers, February 10, 2002; update June 8, 2002. My comments are shown {thus}.

Write to me at contact.html.

You are at

(1) Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (2) My Solution to the Ethnic Problems of the United States

The following is an illustration of Aryanism:

(1) Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vintage Books, NY 1945.

{p. 544} The territory now occupied or claimed by the American Union spreads from the shores of the Atlantic to those of the Pacific Ocean. On the east and west its limits are those of the continent itself. On the south it advances nearly to the tropics, and it extends upward to the icy regions of the north.

The human beings who are scattered over this space do not form, as in Europe, so many branches of the same stock. Three races, naturally distinct, and, I might almost say, hostile to each other, are discoverable among them at the first glance. Almost insurmountable barriers had been raised between them by education and law, as well as by their origin and outward characteristics; but fortune has brought them together on the same soil, where, although they are mixed, they do not amalgamate, and each race fulfills its destiny apart.

Among these widely differing families of men the first that attracts attention, the superior in intelligence, ;n power, and in enjoyment, is the white, or European, the MAN preeminently so called; below him appear the Negro and the Indian. These tvo unhappy races have nothing in common neither birth, nor features, nor language, nor habits. Their only resemblance lies in their misfortunes. Both of them occupy an equally inferior position in the country they inhabit; both suffer from tyranny; and if their wrongs are not the same, they originate from the same authors.

If we reason from what passes in the world, we should almost say that the European is to the other races of mankind what man himself is to the lower animals: he makes them subservient to his use, and when he cannot subdue he destroys them. Oppression has, at one stroke, deprived the descendants of the Africans of alrnost all the privileges of humanity. The Negro of the United States has lost even the remembrance of his country; the language which his ~orefathers spoke is never heard around him: he abjured thelr religion and forgot their customs when he ceased to belong to Africa, without acquiring any claim to European privileges. But he remains half-way between the two communities, isolated between two races; sold by the one, repulsed by the other; finding not a spot in the universe to call by the name of country, except the faint image of a home which the shelter of his master's roof affords.

{p. 545} The Negro has no family: woman is merely the temporary companion of his pleasures, and his children are on an equality with himself from the moment of their birth. Am I to call it a proof of God's mercy, or a visitation of his wrath, that man, in certain states, appears to be insensible to his extreme wretchedness and almost obtains a depraved taste for the cause of his misfortunes? The Negro, plunged in this abyss of evils, scarcely feels his own calamitous situation. Violence made him a slave, and the habit of servitude gives him the thoughts and desires of a slave; he admires his tyrants more than he hates them, and finds his joy and his pride in the servile imitation of those who oppress him. His understanding is degraded to the level of his soul.

The Negro enters upon slavery as soon as he is born; nay, he may have been purchased in the womb, and have begun his slavery before he began his existence. Equally devoid of wants and of enjoyment, and useless to himself, he learns, with his first notions of existence, that he is the property of another, who has an interest in preserving his life, and that the care of it does not devolve upon himself; even the power of thought appears to him a useless gift of Providence, and he quietly enjoys all the privileges of his debasement.

If he becomes free, independence is often felt by him to be a heavier burden than slavery; for, having learned in the course of his life to submit to everything except reason, he is too unacquainted with her dictates to obey them. A thousand new desires beset him, and he has not the knowledge and energy necessary to resist them: these are masters which it is necessary to contend with, and he has learned only to submit and obey. In short, he is sunk to such a depth of wretchedness that while servitude brutalizes, liberty destroys him.

Oppression has been no less fatal to the Indian than to the Negro race, but its effects are different. Before the arrival of white men in the New World, the inhabitants of North America lived quietly in their woods, enduring the vicissitudes and practicing the virtues and vices common to savage nations. The Europeans, having dispersed the Indian tribes and driven them into the deserts, condemned them to a wandering life, full of inexpressible sufferings.

{end of quote}

(2) My Solution to the Ethnic Problems of the United States

Those seeking to change the outcome of WW2 or the American Civil War are wasting their time.

We need to reject much of Modernism & Marxism, but a return to the Old Order (described by de Tocqueville) is not an option.

Therefore, a new cultural order must be developed. That takes time, & is painful.

This could not include barriers to racial intermarriage; however, in the US, it might include regions in which minority peoples dominated.

Just as, in China, the minority peoples are concentrated in certain regions.

Minority peoples (including Blacks) would be offered resettlement on Agribusiness  farmlands, which would be turned into conglomerations of small farms using small  machines. These farmlands, regionally based, would become rural homelands for various  ethnic groups, who would voluntarily move there from the cities.

The following tentative scheme comes to mind:

Firstly, existing family farms would not be affected in any way. The only farms resumed  for public use, would be Agribusiness farms. These employ managers to run the farm;  those managers would be urged to stay on, drawing their salaries, maintaining production  and assisting the project as it developed in stages.

The owners - "investors" in big cities, locally and abroard - would yield up their land  for public use, without compensation. This would be a reversal of the "Enclosure" policy  of recent centuries. The justification for the resumption, would be that the property  of  the country is ultimately vested in ALL its people; that much of the imbalance in  wealth  has arisen out of a financial system based on fraud (the private creation of the  people's money) and tax evasion (e.g. via tax havens).

With a population of around 240 million, the US exports a lot of food, using big farms  and huge machines. Yet China, with over 1200 million, nevertheless exports food. Its  people are based on the land - on small farms, using mainly small machines.

There is a lobby which wants to clear China's people off the land, into big cities,  replacing them with American-style farming. My proposal is the opposite: to bring  China's methods to America's Agribusiness farmlands.

Who's going to do this? Of course, at present it would be impossible. But it's worth  bearing in mind, as a possible solution for the future. If the United States continues  to fracture, if community spirit continues to fray, if civilization declines further  ...  who knows, this may then be seen as the solution.

I occasionally receive racist email. It was specifically to disavow that, that I issued  the above vision of rural ethnic homelands in the United States, to solve the problems  of idle people bottled up in megapolis - anomic, fractured lives given over to mindless  entertainment and then despair. The true racists have no wish to let Blacks have their  own farmland.

In the model I presented - the Chinese model - these rural lands would remain public  property, but usage of them would be given out to individuals or groups on the  "responsibility" model adopted by Deng Xiao-Peng, i.e. after the failure of Mao's  "collective" model.

Urban people CAN learn rural skills. New arrivals from the city (who choose to come -  they must have the motivation) - would have to do 12 months' free labour for those  already established (their living expenses paid out of a special fund; since many of  these people would already be on welfare, this would be merely a tranfer of  appropriation). By this means, new arrivals acquire skills on the job, not from a  blackboard; at the same time, those already there benefit from their help.

I envisaged that the cities would continue to be multicultural, and never contemplated  barriers to intermarriage.

You may be surprised that I, who Trotskyists would consider quite  counter-revolutionary,  envisage such a revolutionary step. It's because the people driving society refuse to  modify their course. And so, the current course produces its opposite.

"Dialectical", "reflexive" or "lateral" thinkers understand that the human world is  more  like a squash court than a tennis court. The latter is unbounded - once a ball goes  out,  it stays out. But in a squash court, the ball bounces off the walls and comes back at  you. Hence the Leninist maxim, "The worse, the better".

Write to me at contact.html.