Would America be better if it were all white ?


Would America be better if it were all white ?

I saw this theme presented in the form of a comment at another blog. I’ve departed from that blog thread as the owner is trying to retire and I’m busy elsewhere anyway but I was moved by it just the same.

The short answer, of course it would be.

Homogenous community is a solid positive more often than not but it does not assure tranquility and success. It is also to be said that where and what looks the same isn’t always a true picture of reality.

When one speaks of white people it is commonly understood to mean folks of European stock. Europe has many differences and divisions. Skin color and facial features come off as rather superficial omnipotent reasons for solidarity. Culture and all that entails seems to be far more credible. Skin color and facial features I imagine offer a quick reflexive emotional response and can be used to manipulate the masses. It doesn’t seem to last though and I’d say the two world wars,the Troubles and the Balkan conflicts bear me out.

Culture based homogeneity is the superior and deeper source for success. This is what came to North America and founded the land that would in part become the United States of America. Overwhelmingly white skinned,Christianity practicing and driven to make a life for themselves. It is undeniable that America experienced its best when it was rather singular in appearance,purpose and deeds.

North America offered a bounty to any peoples that came here though. I believe North America could clearly have fostered greatness among any people who embraced all the riches the continent offered. For as much as the land offered it actually demanded something too. I think that is where other cultures could have failed or followed the very same track the Euro-white stock did.

The United States of America has been experiencing the pains of being a democracy for some time now. The 20th century failure to recognize that American liberalism and socialism was a disease in dire need of eradication so as to assure our salvation is a lost opportunity. Setting forth that assimilation was no longer paramount Americans became irreversibly divided. No doubt the earlier mentioned emotional reflex over skin color and facial features helped to nurture the divisions. The continued emphasis on race has been a great crime committed against all Americans.




  1. Rutherford says:

    I’m a bit gobsmacked. Your mourning the lack of assimilation, which I understand intellectually, ignores two things.

    1) Few immigrant groups have EVER completely assimilated, e.g. Chinatown, Koreatown, Little Italy, etc. and few have escaped discrimination upon their initial arrival. So, I’d suggest the assimilation you long for has long been a myth.

    2) Talk of assimilation in black/white relations seems historically absurd. As you once wrote in a post years ago blacks were never “welcome” here. They were not only discouraged from assimilation, they were denied any chance at it.

    So, again i don’t quite know what to make of this. You correctly note that differences among people are not just skin deep yet you seem to mourn the absence of a solution (assimilation) that was never in the cards.

  2. Alfie says:

    @Rutherford first I obviously disagree with you on the assimilation front. The groups you mentioned did assimilate,inasmuch as they embraced the cultural principles,faith and capitalism being the primary drivers.
    I think you misread the post a tad though. It is a point of the post that other groups could’ve come to North America and experienced greatness secondary the bounty of resources and 200 years of being an island unto itself. Predominant culture being the rule. I would stipulate if Muslims came to North America instead of Baptists and Quakers etc. they would’ve had a great run as well.
    You are right in the position regards blacks though and you correctly remember an earlier post of mine too. That concession aside though that 12% of the population is a challenge,burden and sometimes strength is something to behold. In context of the post I think I would say if folks kept their Booker going instead of their W.E.B. there would be more positives present.
    Thanks for stopping by.

  3. Rutherford says:

    So I’d ask you one more thing before dropping the topic. As you rightly point out, other “types” of folks could have settled here and made as good a run of things as Christians did. What if no “outsiders”: had settled here? How good a run would Native Americans have made if left to their own devices?

    A friend of mine reminded me recently that when Europeans discovered the Mayan (I think it was Mayan) civilization, they found books and quite a sophisticated intellectual community – and they destroyed all of it.

    Our first settlers did not find a barren land ripe for acquisition and expansion and innovation. They found an already occupied land and they were less than friendly towards the previous owners.

  4. Rutherford says:

    Oh BTW — completely agree with the Booker comment.

  5. Alfie says:

    I don’t know if the natives would’ve shared the same trajectory due to the unknown variable of industrialization.
    Perhaps Japan’s history and China’s as well speaks on that. If pushed I can only offer a definite maybe😄 Would the tribes have”nationalized”? Many had diplomatic leanings.

    On a side note I should get my news tomorrow. Hope the stars are lining up for you.

  6. Huck says:

    This comment makes me think of Guns, Germs, and Steel. A great documentary series, and I suspect an equally great book.

  7. jonolan says:

    Well said, Alfie!

    Yes, of course America would be better off if all the other cultural adherents had adopted the core of our ways or, in the case of the Blacks, not created a culture for themselves over the last few decades that was deliberately antithetical to ours.

    As for the various “-towns” – those are anomalies, not the immigration norm. Even then they only last a generation or so before the residents assimilate…bringing those parts of their birth cultures with them and enriching our own.

  8. Emily Bronte says:

    “The 20th century failure to recognize that American liberalism and socialism was a disease in dire need of eradication “

    Would you please expound on your above statement ? Are you suggesting that the 21st century would be in a more favorable position if America had retained principles of conservatism such as hereditary privilege and monarchy which were rejected by Liberalism or are you referring to the fact that the establishment of social liberalism was a key component of the welfare state for example? Enlighten me as I cannot fathom that all principles of social liberalism are bad nor all conservative principles are good.

  9. Alfie says:

    EB you read as using the European definitions of liberalism and conservatism and if I’m misreading that I apologize.
    American left wing liberalism has in my opinion fostered division and exclusion at Jim Crow levels +.
    Early US flirtations with socialism in the late 1800’s early 20th century I believe fell far from being inclusive as well. In fact much of that was steeped in class but depended greatly on specific populations. German & Irish in the north and lower class whites in the south.
    Hope that helps and feel free to reply.

  10. Alfie says:

    Thanks for adding to the conversation. I agree as I hinted with the earlier Booker v WEB comment. Thx again

  11. Alfie says:

    Might have to chase the title down. Thanks!

  12. Emily Bronte says:

    Yes I was referring to the classical (European) definition of Liberalism. I appreciate your reply as it led me to research the difference. Your statement now makes more sense. Thanks

  13. Huck says:

    Pretty sure it’s on Netflix. The author’s thesis is that in a very long term sense, geography, and the natural resources that come with it, are responsible for today’s core/periphery world systems division. It’s not a flawless theory, but he makes a lot of sense.

Comments are closed.