VICE: You probably knew when you wrote this that it was going to make people angry. Why do you think Americans are so unable to talk about race?
JG: Because racism is the Great Demon of the Modern Age. It's hilarious to me the way that otherwise intelligent people shroud this topic in superstition and retarded emotion. You can't talk about race with any measure of logic or science, it is confined to a primitive morality tale with clearly defined angels and devils.
I believe that the economically powerful focus on race, and whether you're a rabid racist or a rabid anti-racist, you're unhealthily focused on race, as a smokescreen to divert attention from class disparities. It's always been about class.
Africans weren't enslaved primarily due to racial hatred, they were cheap labor. This is all but forgotten. The Man has done a very good job at keeping everyone's attention diverted from where it should be. That's why he's The Man. He's very good at what he does.
But the chief reason for racial hysteria is that there's so much unresolved guilt regarding race relations. The problem, as I see it, is that the WRONG white people get blamed for what happened to blacks in this country. The poor white trash acquired racist attitudes because rich whites always pitted them against blacks for the shitty jobs. But it was the rich whites who owned slaves. It was the rich whites who've encouraged blacks and rednecks to view one another as enemies. It is the rich whites who finance all the anti-racist propaganda, even though it's the poor whites who invariably live alongside blacks and have to deal with their resentment.
The way history is taught in schools we're lead to believe America is rich and powerful because it built a fortune on black slavery. This also gets linked to the reason Africa is poor.
All wealth is built upon the exploitation of labor. Focusing on black slavery ignores that fact that white CHILDREN were toiling under slave-labor conditions in New England factories well into the 1900s, long after black slavery ended. Y'all cats always miss the bigger picture. That's why I write, I pull the camera back and focus on the panoramic totality of human corruption. Humans are fucked-up creatures, not just white men.
If America's wealth was built primarily on slavery, how come the North, which DIDN'T have slavery, was an industrial powerhouse that was able to roll over the supposedly choking-with-riches South? Where did THEIR wealth and military might come from? It came from the exploitation of workers, just like all wealth.
How come you never hear anyone claim that Europe's riches came from 1000 years of exploiting the serfs? Serfdom existed in Russia for 50 years after black slavery ended in America.
Africa's current condition is undoubtedly due in part to European meddling. But here's the uncomfortable question for the whitey-bashers: If Africa was doing so great BEFORE the European invasion, why were its economies so puny and its systems of military defense so primitive that it was a breeze to overrun it in the first place?
I disagree strongly with the idea that it was a matter of "cultural differences" and that Africans were peace-loving and non-imperialistic. Hannibal was an African general who TRIED conquering Europe. He failed. The Moors were Africans who invaded Spain and ruled there for 500 years, sending whites into African slavery. Just because Africans were losers at the Imperialism Game is no reason to get so bitter.
But I object most strongly to this concept of "The White Man," as if he were the legendary Bigfoot and there is only one White Man. Throughout history, only a tiny percentage of whites called the shots. The rest were pawns of the elite.
"But," you counter reflexively, "all whites living in America today enjoy the fruits of the sins that the Evil Minority of whites committed."
"Yes," I answer with boundless wisdom, "and so do all blacks living in America today. Very few of them would go back to Africa if given the choice, since life is so much better here. Isn't that what started this fucking argument?"
Most people seem to be offended with the part where you say blacks in America are better off than blacks in Africa. They take that to mean "American blacks are poor because they are inferior."
Unless you define "better"ˇ strictly in economic terms, which I don't, I wouldn't be so bold as to say American blacks enjoy better lives than their African counterparts. But it's inarguable that their economic standard of living is much, much, much higher. It's also an uncomfortable fact for the breast-beating, self-hating whites to ponder that African blacks tend to envy the economic status and relatively cushy status of American blacks. This doesn't jibe with their comfy little morality play at all. It doesn't fit neatly within their fragile cosmos to consider that most African blacks would probably rather be in America than the inverse.
Apparently, "blacks are inferior" is the only conclusion these people can draw from the facts. That isn't what I was saying, but it's interesting how quickly they try to project this conclusion onto me. The stark fact is that American blacks DO enjoy at least a part of the wealth their ancestors' labor helped to create, rendering the idea of economic reparations somewhat silly.
Another criticism is that the article brought up points that didn't need to be brought up. For example, many consider the reparations debate to be long since dead and to bring it up is to agitate for the sake of agitation.
When did the issue die? How come no one told me? Last I looked, multi-millionaire Dave Chappelle was talking about reparations on his show. In Portland recently, a flyer was circulating depicting LeVar Burton as slave-boy Kunta Kinte from ROOTS with a chain around his neck and the word REPARATIONS at the bottom. So as far as I can tell, the issue is very much alive. I'd be glad if the topic were to die. Either that, or the definition should be expanded to include every American worker who has ever received less than their work was worth.
Someone once described the idea of modern-day reparations for slavery as (I'm paraphrasing) "forcing people who AREN'T guilty of something to pay other people who DIDN'T have the crime happen to them."
Some were confused by the Australian entry. Were you saying that Australia was built on white slavery?
Partially, yes. I have little knowledge about the extent to which Australia's aboriginal population was economically exploited, and I've learned to keep quiet regarding that which I don't know.
The real fear is acknowledging any kind of racial difference is going to lead to another Nazi movement. Do you agree?
Well, it hasn't turned me into a Nazi. For over a decade now, I've believed that innate racial differences exist, and I've yet to goosestep. I haven't wished anyone harm because they're different from me. What's interesting, though, is the firm belief of the equality-peddlers that Nazism is inevitable if one were to admit that people are born unequal. What do they fear about THEMSELVES if they were to acknowledge such a fact? It reminds me of the classic censor's mentality, they try to wipe out porn, or "hate speech," or any sort of unpopular opinion because they primarily fear its potential effect on THEMSELVES.
Relax, people, you can admit we aren't equal without wanting to hurt anyone. It's easy.
Jim Goad goes more into detail in his book The Redneck Manifesto. See more of the facts on this from Jim Goad's book here.
