In his “Postjudice” post, Steve Sailer notes how odd it is that the media continue to use the “prejudice” refrain when they cover the Philadelphia pool story. For the swim club must have known in advance what the “complexion” of the new kids would be. They just did not realize—being good, wealthy Philadelphians—what such diversity would entail. Once they found out—once experience interupted their gay thinking—then they decided that diversity was not such a fabulous option, after all.
If you are unaware of the incident, a private swimming club in Philadelphia agreed to allow some inner city day camps to rent their facilities. After one day, the club terminated the agreement, and the race hustling usual suspects were piping mad that Philly’s swimming white community had closed yet another door to the teeming brown masses waiting to make another splash. Naturally, the swim club has relented. To avoid bad press and government goon squads, little Timmy and Jenny will just not go swimming on certain days, the club will hire far more crowd control and janitorial staff, and it will purchase more chlorine and insurance. Such is the requisite price that privileged, upper class whites must pay to maintain their untarnished commitments to racial blindness and to the value of diversity.
Sailer’s comments section is interesting because his readers are so manifestly indulgent in social taboos. In one thread, some commentators conjecture that the urbane “Stuff White People Like” types who wear diversity totems on their sleeves (literally and figuratively) often harbor the same “racist” attitudes as the “backwards” whites whom they despise. However, to maintain their sense of moral superiority, these “progressive” whites disavow such distasteful acknowledgements because they can afford to do so. They are able to live in posh communities, study in elite schools, and patronize trendy establishments where the only brown folks are the elite with whom they are commensurable—the same diverse friends whom they exploit as tokens of their progressive street cred—Leftist bling, so to speak.
I am not sure about this view or theories similar to it. For one thing, outside of Vermont, the S.W.P.L. crowd does have a lot of exposure to “typical” minority dysfunctionality. I have noticed such in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. There might be something to “Ivory Tower liberalism,” but our latter day young Leftists choose to live in communities where they are in close proximity to black ghettos. So, one may ask if they are simply blind to the dysfunction. Well, many S.W.P.L. people acknowledge reality enough to keep safe in unsafe areas, and they demonstrate the same degree of awareness when they move to the suburbs once they have children. I suspect that they acknowledge the blight of black culture but that they blame “institutionalized white racism” as the cause. I may notice that a student performs poorly at school, but I may excuse such performance because of his troubled home life. I think that a similar reaction proceeds from white, urban yuppies.
However, I have had the opportunity to know hundreds of privileged, white children from elite families who have not yet developed the finely tuned skill of masking their beliefs with socially acceptable doublespeak, and I have been quite surprised at their racial attitudes. These teenagers have Leftist political and social views, they support the Democratic candidates that their parents choose and fund, and yet they are inconsistently though flagrantly racist. In theory, they speak of racial equality and exhibit all the necessary trappings of privileged, white guilt. In practice, however, they view blacks as ignorant, stupid savages—as no more than servants and jesters for them at court. It is shocking, indeed, and I cannot explain the inconsistency. The reinforced and repeated experience of this does make me wonder if Sailer’s commentators are right.
But why, then, put on such a false parade? Is W.A.S.P. self-effacement merely a tactical move? I do not like conspiracy theories, and I am disinclined to believe such a view. Yet, the facts are confusing. How ought we to connect the dots?