A Different Perspective on What’s Dividing Us
I don’t have the time to do a lot of reading, so am quite selective
One publication I like and usually read cover-to-cover is the quarterly Academic Questions (AQ) a journal from the National Association of Scholars (NAS).
FYI, NAS is involved with other good efforts — like promoting Critical Thinking in K-12 schools — so check them out.
As you know, societal discord is well on its way to tear America apart.
I found one essay in the Winter 2023 Edition of AQ particularly insightful, in that it emphasizes a different perspective from what we are ordinarily presented: Whites against minorities.
This is an article by Dr. Lawrence M Mead. You can read the whole thing here, but here is an extraction (with minor edits — like I put some text in bold):
In a recent book (Burdens of Freedom), I argued that America is culturally divided. Most Americans who descend from Europe display an individualist temperament. That is, they chiefly seek their own goals but are also restrained by moralistic notions of right and wrong that they internalize in childhood.
Minority groups, however, all descend from the more cautious non-West, where most people adjust to their environment rather than seeking change, and right and wrong are shaped more by the expectations of other people than by internalized standards. Many scholars of world cultural differences have said this.
That might seem like a merely academic idea, but the establishment reacted to my book with little short of panic. I had written several earlier books on poverty and welfare, all of which easily found publishers and reviewers.
But all my former publishers declined Burdens of Freedom, as did several other prominent houses. Fortunately, Encounter Books accepted it. But then, in the four years since the book came out, it received only three reviews—all favorable—and no university or think tank has allowed me so much as to give a public talk about it.
What is so frightening about cultural difference? In this paper I will try to explain. Cultural difference does arouse political objections, but above all it questions something never before doubted in American commentary—that the United States is a universal nation that is open to anyone, from anywhere, who seeks a life of freedom.
That vision, it turns out, presumes an individualist culture, which is found only in the West. We have never admitted the problems that non-Western peoples pose for us, as they also do for Europe.
We think our problem is only racism. But culture, not race, is the true limitation to the American vision.
Rejecting Racism
Burdens’ most immediate offense was that it redefined our social problems in terms of culture rather than race. In the orthodox view, America suffers from poverty and inequality mainly because whites refuse to treat non-whites as equals, especially blacks.
On the evidence, however, the great majority of whites gave up racism decades ago. They no longer view blacks as inferior. Their objection today is far more to cultural difference: many minorities do not function well in an individualist society.
Many fail to get ahead, and many display unusually high levels of crime and other social problems, so they do not inspire the same trust as whites. Nor is cultural difference merely a euphemism for race.
Scholars of world cultures make quite clear that culture has no necessary connection to race. This great problem would remain even if whites suddenly became completely colorblind about race, or if all blacks became white.
The solution is for blacks to assimilate to mainstream society.
The antiracism movement blames all black problems entirely on white racism. White elites do not dispute that idea, but few can really believe it. The hard truth is that minorities must adopt an individualist way of life if integration is ever to succeed.
That is far tougher than to harass our white upper class over racism.
Rejecting Sameness
Besides redefining race as a cultural problem, Burdens called for limits on immigration. In this connection, as with race, the establishment refuses to discuss cultural difference.
Rather, it trumpets sameness—the conviction that newcomers from anywhere in the world are no different from the native born and should be accepted as such. Thus, we should have no fear of opening our borders to the multitudes now fleeing collapsing countries in the Middle East, Latin America, etc..
A cultural analysis, however, calls for caution. The vast influx of immigrants during the Progressive era, a century ago, is fondly remembered as having assimilated well.
The difference was that the earlier waves nearly all came from Europe, many from countries that today are nearly as modern as America. So these newcomers were largely attuned to individualism coming in.
Today’s immigrants, however, nearly all come from the non-West, where countries of origin are far poorer and less developed. Migrants come here mainly to escape adversity, not to seek freedom and its obligations (and those demands often defeat them).
Without cutting immigration sharply, America would inevitably become a non-Western country. It would lose the dynamic and civic qualities that come from an individualist culture, and which have empowered it to lead the world…
I think that this perspective has a lot of merit — so why isn’t it being widely discussed? Yes, cultural differences do not explain everything (and neither do racial differences), but shouldn’t we be considering this when trying to work things out?
Evidently, the culture part is not discussed because the anti-American cabal feels that the racism narrative will give them more leverage to impose draconian measures on Americans.
Note that the racial focus also subtly shifts the responsibility (and blame) about any divide to white Americans, as vs minorities.
I encourage you to support NAS and subscribe to AQ, as there are other thought-provoking commentaries.
See more here substack.com
Header image: Linkedin
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Tom
| #
I will always be divided from a government that thinks it has the right to tell me how to think, what to say and do. And from anyone else like that.
Reply
Wisenox
| #
“because whites refuse to treat non-whites as equals, especially blacks.”
That’s a lie. The ‘white’ and ‘black’ stuff is symbolism; by definition. As in, white = bright and shining (risen above peers, wealthy).
When you see the words in media, replace them with alternate definitions and you will see how racism is instituted from the top.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Critical thinking – the option to take something so far from reality that it becomes an agenda.
“the great majority of whites gave up racism decades ago”
I never knew it was a national past-time. Fancy that.
“so they do not inspire the same trust as whites”
Really? Trust is ultimately earned, though still in the purview of the individual.
“The solution is for blacks to assimilate to mainstream society.”
The great word missing here, is ‘consideration’. It should be a feature of all, but seems quite rare.
“The hard truth is that minorities must adopt an individualist way of life if integration is ever to succeed”
See above answer, and add ‘compromise’. It isn’t hard to be a part of society while remaining individual to one’s roots in a more private setting. It is the individual, perhaps driven by agenda groups wanting things all their own way that is the problem.
Reply
Joel
| #
The author and his beloved NAS are unfortunately living in the same dream-world that Americans have been living in since the birth of the nation. What is “mainstream society” anyway? It’s certainly not static because it seems to change over time; in reality, “assimilating into mainstream society is what largely got us in the mess we all find ourselves in today. The problem is a lot more complex than the author or his NAS realizes; some people will never figure it out.
Reply