The white race is a historically constructed
social formation – historically constructed because (like royalty)
it is a product of some people’s responses to historical circumstances;
a social formation because it is a fact of society corresponding
to no classification recognized by natural science.
The white race cuts across ethnic and
class lines. It is not coextensive with that portion of the population
of European descent, since many of those classified as “colored”
can trace some of their ancestry to Europe, while African, Asian,
or American Indian blood flows through the veins of many considered
white. Nor does membership in the white race imply wealth, since
there are plenty of poor whites, as well as some people of wealth
and comfort who are not white.
The white race consists of those who partake
of the privileges of the white skin in this society. Its most
wretched members share a status higher, in certain respects,
than that of the most exalted persons excluded from it, in return
for which they give their support to the system that degrades
The key to solving the social problems
of our age is to abolish the white race. Until that task is accomplished,
even partial reform will prove elusive, because white influence
permeates every issue in U.S. society, whether domestic or foreign.
Advocating the abolition of the white
race is distinct from what is called “anti-racism.”
The term “racism” has come to be applied to a variety
of attitudes, some of which are mutually incompatible, and has
been devalued to mean little more than a tendency to dislike
some people for the color of their skin. Moreover, anti-racism
admits the natural existence of “races” even while
opposing social distinctions among them. The abolitionists maintain,
on the contrary, that people were not favored socially because
they were white; rather they were defined as “white”
because they were favored. Race itself is a product of social
discrimination; so long as the white race exists, all movements
against racism are doomed to fail.
The existence of the white race depends
on the willingness of those assigned to it to place their racial
interests above class, gender or any other interests they hold.
The defection of enough of its members to make it unreliable
as a determinant of behavior will set off tremors that will lead
to its collapse.
RACE TRAITOR aims to serve as an intellectual
center for those seeking to abolish the white race. It will encourage
dissent from the conformity that maintains it and popularize
examples of defection from its ranks, analyze the forces that
hold it together and those which promise to tear it apart. Part
of its task will be to promote debate among abolitionists. When
possible, it will support practical measures, guided by the principle,
Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity. Dissolve the club
The white race is a club, which enrolls
certain people at birth, without their consent, and brings them
up according to its rules. For the most part the members go through
life accepting the benefits of membership, without thinking about
the costs. When individuals question the rules, the officers
are quick to remind them of all they owe to the club, and warn
them of the dangers they will face if they leave it.
RACE TRAITOR aims to dissolve the club,
to break it apart, to explode it. Some people who sympathize
with our aim have asked us how we intend to win over the majority
of so-called whites to anti-racism. Others, usually less friendly,
have asked if we plan to exterminate physically millions, perhaps
hundreds of millions, of people. Neither of these plans is what
we have in mind. The weak point of the club is its need for unanimity.
Just as the South, on launching the Civil War, declared that
it needed its entire territory and would have it, the white race
must have the support of all those it has designated as its constituency,
or it ceases to exist.
Elsewhere in this number, readers will
find an account of John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry and some
of the events it set in motion. Before the Civil War, the leading
spokesmen for the slaveholders acknowledged that the majority
of white northerners, swayed above all by the presence of the
fugitive slave, considered slavery unjust. The Southerners also
understood that the opposition was ineffective; however much
the white people of the north disapproved of the slave system,
the majority went along with it rather than risk the ordinary
comforts of their lives, meager as they were in many cases.
When John Brown attacked Harpers Ferry,
Southern pro- slavery leaders reacted with fury: they imposed
a boycott on northern manufactures, demanded new concessions
from the government in Washington, and began to prepare for war.
When they sought to portray John Brown as a representative of
northern opinion, Southern leaders were wrong; he represented
only a small and isolated minority. But they were also right,
for he expressed the hopes that still persisted in the northern
population despite decades of cringing before the slaveholders.
Virginia did not fear John Brown and his small band of followers,
but his soul that would go marching on, though his body lay a-mould’rin’
in the grave.
When the South, in retaliation for Harpers
Ferry, sought to further bully northern opinion, it did so not
out of paranoia but out of the realistic assessment that only
a renewal of the national pro-slavery vows could save a system
whose proud facade concealed a fragile foundation. By the arrogance
of their demands, the Southern leaders compelled the people of
the north to resist. Not ideas but events were in command. Each
step led inexorably to the next: Southern land-greed, Lincoln’s
victory, secession, war, blacks as laborers, soldiers, citizens,
voters. And so the war that began with not one person in a hundred
foreseeing the end of slavery was transformed within two years
into an anti-slavery war.
It is our faith – and with those who do
not share it we shall not argue – that the majority of so-called
whites in this country are neither deeply nor consciously committed
to white supremacy; like most human beings in most times and
places, they would do the right thing if it were convenient.
As did their counterparts before the Civil War, most go along
with a system that disturbs them, because the consequences of
challenging it are terrifying. They close their eyes to what
is happening around them, because it is easier not to know.
At rare moments their nervous peace is
shattered, their certainty is shaken, and they are compelled
to question the common sense by which they normally live. One
such moment was in the days immediately following the Rodney
King verdict, when a majority of white Americans were willing
to admit to polltakers that black people had good reasons to
rebel, and some joined them. Ordinarily the moments are brief,
as the guns and reform programs are moved up to restore order
and, more important, the confidence that matters are in good
hands and they can go back to sleep. Both the guns and the reform
programs are aimed at whites as well as blacks – the guns as
a warning and the reform programs as a salve to their consciences.
Recently, one of our editors, unfamiliar
with New York City traffic laws, made an illegal right turn there
on a red light. He was stopped by two cops in a patrol car. After
examining his license, they released him with a courteous admonition.
Had he been black, they probably would have ticketed him, and
might even have taken him down to the station. A lot of history
was embodied in that small exchange: the cops treated the miscreant
leniently at least in part because they assumed, looking at him,
that he was white and therefore loyal. Their courtesy was a habit
meant both to reward good conduct and induce future cooperation.
Had the driver cursed them, or displayed
a bumper sticker that said, “Avenge Rodney King,” the
cops might have reacted differently. We admit that neither gesture
on the part of a single individual would in all likelihood be
of much consequence. But if enough of those who looked white
broke the rules of the club to make the cops doubt their ability
to recognize a white person merely by looking at him or her,
how would it affect the cops’ behavior? And if the police, the
courts, and the authorities in general were to start spreading
around indiscriminately the treatment they normally reserve for
people of color, how would the rest of the so-called whites react?
How many dissident so-called whites would
it take to unsettle the nerves of the white executive board?
It is impossible to know. One John Brown – against a background
of slave resistance – was enough for Virginia. Yet it was not
the abolitionists, not even the transcendent John Brown, who
brought about the mass shifts in consciousness of the Civil War
period. At most, their heroic deeds were part of a chain of events
that involved mutual actions and reactions on a scale beyond
anything they could have anticipated – until a war that began
with both sides fighting for slavery (the South to take it out
of the Union, the north to keep it in) ended with a great army
marching through the land singing, “As He died to make men
holy, let us fight to make men free.”
The moments when the routine assumptions
of race break down are the seismic promise that somewhere in
the tectonic flow a new fault is building up pressure, a new
Harpers Ferry is being prepared. Its nature and timing cannot
be predicted, but of its coming we have no doubt. When it comes,
it will set off a series of tremors that will lead to the disintegration
of the white race. We want to be ready, walking in Jerusalem
just like John. What kind of journal is this?
RACE TRAITOR exists, not to make converts,
but to reach out to those who are dissatisfied with the terms
of membership in the white club. Its primary intended audience
will be those people commonly called whites who, in one way or
another, understand whiteness to be a problem that perpetuates
injustice and prevents even the well-disposed among them from
joining unequivocally in the struggle for human freedom. By engaging
these dissidents in a journey of discovery into whiteness and
its discontents, we hope to take part, together with others,
in the process of defining a new human community. We wish neither
to minimize the complicity of even the most downtrodden of whites
with the system of white supremacy nor to exaggerate the significance
of momentary departures from white rules.
We should say that there are some articles
we are not interested in publishing. Since we are not seeking
converts, we probably will not publish articles which lecture
various organizations about their racial opportunism. Also we
probably will not publish articles promoting inter-racial harmony,
because that approach too often leaves intact differential treatment
of whites and blacks and provides subtle confirmation of the
idea that different races exist independently of social distinctions.
In the original film version of ROBIN
HOOD (starring Errol Flynn), the Sheriff of Nottingham says to
Robin, “You speak treason.” Robin replies, “Fluently.”
We hope to do the same.
From Race Traitor no. 1 (Winter 1993)