Below are some excerpts from a literary debate between a Negro and white scholar 88 years ago. I have reproduced what I found to be the salient points here largely to highlight the following facts.
1. Locke and Stoddard where light years ahead of the current leaders of the racial debate of today in terms of civility, lack of hateful expression, a desire to better the lives of all people, and most importantly their level of geopolitical and historical knowledge. Note Locke’s comment on the Soviet Union.
2. Locke and Stoddard wish for ‘the best minds’ of each race to arrive at an equitable and nonviolent solution, both citing the ignorance of their own race’s masses. Contrast this facet of the discussion with the pure appeal to the masses—most notably the raw appeal to the emotions of guilt, fear and hatred—that typifies the terms of debate in our own, supposedly more enlightened, time.
3. Note that both Locke and Stoddard are primarily concerned with the life of the mind—of the transcendental human element—as opposed to the material concerns of today’s whites who are motivated by a clinging need for absolute physical security and eschew all moral principals in favor of material comfort, and of today’s blacks who seem to be motivated by the base and bitter animosity that Locke and Stoddard warn against.
Read on and try and image either of these men looking at today’s level of petty angst and herd-like media stampedes that have since replaced their debate, and they imagining what we have achieved since their time as anything other than devolutionary. I think they would both be horrified that a century after their time the life of their nation had devolved to the point of an argument over the comforts and desires of ‘the masses’ which to them signified the abject nadir of humanity, let alone that fact that Culture is no longer a subject of debate, but a discarded facet of the human condition, now regulated by little more than legalities and the logistics of advertising based consumption.
Also note that both Locke and Stoddard agreed that white America held a view of black America that was over generalized.
Forum, October 1927: “Should the Negro Be Encouraged to Cultural Equality?”
THE HIGH COST OF PREJUDICE: Alain Locke
For the asserted inferiority of the Negro does not pivot on the average man—black or white—and cannot be settled by mass comparisons; as a challenge it must be fought out in terms of the exceptional man and the highest values of civilization. It is the price of prejudice that it should be.…
Apart, however, from this broad question that creative genius is the hardest and costliest thing to refuse to recognize, in a suppressed minority group it is the most dangerous thing to deny it free play and recognition. The balked intelligence of such a group, thrown back upon the repressed masses, invariably comes forward within another generation's time in the uglier form of radical leadership. Behind it rally the aroused masses and their harsh demands. As with the Jewish intellectuals of Russia, subverted social light may readily become revolutionary fire. I am not an alarmist; but I can see danger ahead in this persistent American lumping of the best with the worst in Negro life.
Both as an American and as a Negro, I would so much prefer to see the black masses going gradually forward under the leadership of a recognized and representative and responsible elite than see a frustrated group of malcontents later hurl these masses at society in doubtful but desperate strife. The only way out of mob psychology and mass hysteria—and they threaten now not from one side but from both—is through the building up of the representative elements of Negro life; and this involves not merely the Negro effort to improve and qualify, but the Caucasian will and vision to reward and recognize by putting at social premium not the worst, but the best.
THE IMPASSE AT THE COLOR LINE: Lothrop Stoddard
The basic reason for white America's attitude and policy toward the Negro is not a belief in the Negro's inferiority, but the fact of his difference. True, most whites today believe the Negro to be their inferior. Yet this belief is, in itself, no mere arbitrary prejudice. On the contrary, it springs largely from realization of racial difference and all that that connotes. White Americans feel that to incorporate the many millions of this widely differing stock into our racial life would profoundly change our national character, temperament, and ideals. And since these matters are supremely cherished, we do not propose to jeopardize them, either for ourselves or for unborn generations who have an indefeasible right to their racial heritage.
Another school of thought exists, typified by the late Booker Washington and today represented by Dr. Moton and other influential leaders, who frankly recognize the white attitude and who believe that the American Negro's hope for the future lies in an amicable understanding between the moderate, sensible minds of both races, who should gradually evolve a workable system of racial adjustment. Men like Dr. Moton neither threaten nor cajole. They believe in their race and they are satisfied to develop their special attributes within the medium of their own group life. Finally, they realize that cultural recognition for Negro talent will grow spontaneously in the genial atmosphere of friendly understanding, but will merely be retarded by imperious demands and bitter hostility.…
Why should not the best minds of both races attempt to arrive at a frank understanding about the fundamentals of racial relations and try to formulate a definite policy which will have their mutual assent and support?
Parting Note
Locke and Stoddard conducted this debate in a similar spirit of articulation with a focus on ‘the best’ of, for and by, their peoples. This was a discourse that would have resonated with Plato, Aristotle, or Marcus Aurelius, all thousands of years dead. However, I suggest, that if either of these opinions were put forward today they would seem not only wrong and elitist, but nigh incomprehensible not just to most of us, but the best educated as well.
Somewhen between 1927 and 2014 the human mind seems to have lost its will to do anymore than wrangle the best-cushioned and best-fed situation for its flabby host.
To read the full article click the link below.
Obviously, you have not delved too deeply into Nationalism. You have a very surface understanding. Check out recent David Duke videos on yotube. The mainstrem media paints him a monster but check out his video and/or books for yourself.
In REAL life many nationalist are friendly with non-Whites. One must be careful about getting most or all of their information from jews. They lie by ommision a lot, not sharing information that doesn't fit the prescribed narrative.
"Hate" is a loaded word. My mother wouldn't even allow us to use the term growing up. Now, if you simply want to preserve (what is left of) your culture you are called a hater. It is completely disingenuous.
And OF COURSE this is about culture! Skin color is just one dna marker anyway. We don't "hate" people because of their skin color per se, we are just smart enough to see what KIND of cultures come from peoples of dark skin. Everybody know dark countries are poor countries dirtier countries nd more crime-ridden countries. Despite the "sins" of the White race, I would rather live in ANY White country over the ANY Black country. And so would you....so would most of them. So it I simply a matter of not wanting to live in a poor, dirty, crime-ridden area where our particular type of creativity and innovation (culture) can't flourish.