This editorial is set in the United Kingdom, not in the United States, but it is still worth reading because we face similar issues. Allison Pearson writes,
I wish I were more surprised to learn that a new British Social Attitudes survey has found that more than a third of Britons admit they are racially prejudiced. Prejudice fell to an all-time low in 2001, but the latest figures show that the problem has returned to the level of 30 years ago. More than 90 per cent of those who say they are racist want to see immigration halted. More interestingly, 72 per cent of those who do not consider themselves racist also want to see immigration cut drastically.
As shell-shocked politicians from the main parties struggle to discern the causes of Ukip’s deafening electoral success, here’s a tip: look in the mirror, chaps! It is politicians, not the British people, who are to blame for a resurgence in racism; politicians who have ignored public opinion and created the conditions in which resentments fester and grow. Specifically, though not exclusively, it is New Labour who welcomed workers from the new, accession countries of the EU at a time when countries such as France and Germany wisely exercised their right to keep them out for another seven years. According to Jack Straw, this was a “spectacular” error. And Jack should know, because he was Home Secretary at the time. The plan of Tony Blair’s government, as laid bare by Andrew Neather, then a Blair speechwriter, was to banish that old, hideously white, retrograde England and usher in a new, vibrant, multicultural country which, rather conveniently, would vote Labour. Mr Blair now works in international conflict resolution, having stored up enough conflict in his homeland to keep future generations busy for centuries.
Encouraging immigration in order to gain political votes? Does that sound at all familiar?
Four years ago in Rochdale, when Gillian Duffy challenged Gordon Brown on immigration, the affronted prime minister shied away and muttered darkly about that “bigoted woman”. It is quite clear now who was the bigot. Brown was typical of a political class that became shamefully biased against its own people. In thrall to a post-war European ideal, they had scant interest in the difficulties and discomfort it caused ordinary people on the ground. If anyone complained, simply shut them up by hissing “bigot” or “racist”.
A teacher hounded from a school by Islamist hardliners who want girls and boys segregated and treated in a way that is anathema to British values? Racist!
Disgusted at countless male, Muslim grooming gangs treating vulnerable white girls like “chewing gum thrown in the street”? Racist!
Fed up with being required to show cultural sensitivity to customs we find morally repugnant, and getting no cultural sensitivity in return? Racist!
Obviously, what we are talking about here is not people who judge others by their race, but rather people who believe that women should be treated as human beings.
But what is going to be the cumulative effect of castigating those who hold such beliefs as “racist”? Maybe they will start to believe their accusers.
In my opinion, this is all possibly intentional. By promoting racism the government turns society into warring camps. That allows the government to step in as the peace-maker.