It’s not that surprising to me when Ann Coulter drops another ridiculous bombshell, and this latest one reveals some extremely appalling racist tendencies. The concocting of the line that the proper response to September 11th was to forcibly Christianize — please count me out in the next Crusades — the Middle East was bad enough, but she unfortunately didn’t stop there.

To quote her:

In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner.

One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population

I have to wonder what American reality — past or present — that Coulter is familiar with, when I read a statement like “One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been.”

Has she forgotten about a not so insignificant phenomenon called slavery? And the subsequent horrors of Jim Crow or the present day mass incarceration of black males via The War on People Who Use Some Drugs. It’s true that the last example has included the enforcement of heinous drug laws by minority police officers, but the notion that the white establishment has been remotely compassionate is still entirely ahistorical. And no, any historical reformist measure like the reduction in daily slave beatings from 4 to 2 wouldn’t make up for the preservation of the institution itself.

She also compares the phenomenon of one racial group peacefully overtaking another in numbers with the very horrific phenomenon of genocide. I suspect that the rising numbers in minority populations has to do with higher birth rates and migration patterns — leaving aside the question of how genuinely voluntary a given individuals choice to migrate may be. This is a far cry from the mass deportation or targeted mass murder of white individuals that would merit the use of a word like genocide. If the amnesty policy constitutes genocide, then, I’ll have to conclude that there is such a thing as a good genocide.

In the end, what is most striking about Coulter’s column is that it reveals the silly tribalism that dominates her perspective on racial issues. Why should it matter, if minority individuals are becoming more numerous than white ones? I wouldn’t be troubled if I were the only white skinned individual left in my community. I am out to seek friendship and joy with people based on their individual character. The color of their skin has absolutely no importance to me. I urge that others try to think of human beings as individuals, rather than as stereotypes or caricatures of a given ethnic or racial group.

Also, let me give a thumbs up to Arthur Silber, for alerting me to this Coulter piece in a very passionate essay he wrote. It earned a spot on my insightful reads section :-)

Note: In a society dominated by violent racial tribalism, it may be wise to look upon one racial or ethnic group overtaking another as increasing physical danger or the likelihood of conflict, but this would just be a tragic necessity for physical survival. It doesn’t mean that the principle of racial tribalism is worthwhile.