Survey of Anti-White Attitudes

Aporia Magazine commissioned two Penn State professors, Eric Silver and Prof John Iceland, to survey anti-White and anti-Black attitudes.

The way we talk about racism has changed. Over the past decade or so, words like “bigot” and “extremist” have been overshadowed by words like “white privilege,” “white supremacy,” and “white fragility.” The new words portray a new kind of racist. Instead of wearing a hood and spewing hate speech, the “new racist” is an ordinary white person whose socialization into “whiteness” causes them to undermine people of color, whether they know it or not.

It’s not hard to see why well-meaning people might be drawn to this image of the new racist. Racial disparities persist. More than a century after Emancipation and 50 years after Civil Rights, blacks continue to lag behind whites in virtually all areas of success. To attribute these disparities to anything other than racism might seem like blaming the victim. Condemning the “new racist” avoids this problem. [It avoids the problem of persistent disparities that have not disappeared despite massive expenses over at least 5 decades by creating “causes” that are unmeasurable and therefore immune from rational criticism. White racism as a cause has become an axiom, a statement that is accepted without controversy or question, like a tautology. Such a statement is supposed to be so obvious that there is no need to try to prove it.]

Not everyone, however, agrees. Parents protest at school board meetings. State universities quietly soften their antiracism agendas. Individuals take defiant stands, sometimes at great cost to themselves, to combat what they perceive as the spread of anti-whiteness. And then, of course, there’s Florida, where “woke goes to die.”

These actions are motivated in part by concern over the antiracism movement’s use of morally charged language that depicts contemporary whites as racists and blames them for past and present racial injustices. They are also motivated by a fear that if left unchecked, the movement will succeed in normalizing a culture of anti-whiteness, with devastating effects not just for whites but for the country as a whole.

Are such worries warranted? How much of a problem is anti-whiteness, really?

To investigate this, in 2021, we hired YouGov, one of the world’s leading survey research firms, to ask a nationally representative sample of 1,125 US adults whether they agreed or disagreed with five statements designed to measure their “anti-whiteness.”

The statements were:

●     Most white people in this country believe that whites are better than other groups.

●     Most white people in this country just don’t get it when it comes to understanding the hardships of other race groups.

●     Most white people in this country would rather keep society as it is rather than make changes that would benefit other groups.

●     Most white people in this country don’t care about the hardships experienced by other race groups.

●     Most white people in this country are reluctant to give up their white privilege even though doing so would make society more equal.

We found there’s a lot of anti-whiteness out there, including among whites! Blacks were the most anti-white (69-79 percent), followed by Latinos (47- 62 percent), whites (40-53 percent), and other race groups (33-39 percent). Anti-whiteness, it seems, is far from rare, making concerns about its effects on society far from unreasonable.

These results may come as a surprise to those who view the US as a hopelessly white supremacist society where whites are universally admired and put on a pedestal. The data suggest this is far from the truth.

What’s most depressing is that between 30 and 40 percent of White people agree with these statements. These are the people prone to voting for leftist policies along with their non-White coalition partners, an increasingly unbeatable coalition given current demographics and the continuing deluge of non-White immigration, legal and illegal.

The results for Blacks are the opposite. In general, they don’t blame themselves for their problems, trying harder is not the answer, they are not responsible for racial tension, and they don’t think they have too much influence on politics.

The authors propose that diversity training should focus on common values, “shared values that transcend race”— like “liberty, and progress, values that have been a source of unity in the American context for centuries.” However, the problem with that is that it’s not going to change the disparities, and Blacks and Latinos can’t get stuff like affirmative action in education, job preference, and a lenient criminal justice system. by endorsing them. So we’re back where we started.

6 replies
  1. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    I interpreted the link to Aporia that Kevin provided as an invitation to read the entire article, and so that is what I did. Having survived the experience, the news I bring to all who have better things to do with their time is that the unexcerpted portion does not improve upon what is found above.

    It would be fair, I think, to say that an eight-year-old would detect the blatant tendentiousness* in the pseudo-scholarly “study” itself, as well as in the morally preening article that presents the “study” to what its two authors have plainly persuaded themselves is a world waiting with bated breath for them to enlighten it. Had the authors been even a smidgen more modest or self-aware, they might have seen that they could have reduced the number of questions to two—one question for whites,

    “Are you still beating your wife/husband/significant other?”

    and another for everyone else,

    “Are white people still beating their wife/husband/significant other?”

    Indeed, these two questions, in that they do not attempt to disguise tendentiousness as scientific insight, are far less leading than the ones the “study” employs.
    *Like “hypocrisy,” “tendentiousness” is a phenomenon that is far more widely and intuitively recognized than the word that synopsizes it.

  2. Captainchaos
    Captainchaos says:

    What percentage of the 18-34 year old demographic does Kevin MacDonald believe would be willing to fight and die to preserve the union of 50 American states? If this percentage is low there is no reason not press forward with Red State secession. Obviously when push comes to shove the boomerwaffen won’t be deciding a damn thing, young fighting men will.

  3. Chris Geel
    Chris Geel says:

    “Whiteness” or “anti-whiteness” are traps. White people don’t have “whiteness” which sounds like something you need a fortnight off work for with a prescription and a sick note.
    Once again the oligarchs of J*wry coin an antihite slur and get everyone saying it!
    Now I could understand if the words “semiteness” and “semiticness” were in general use in public discourse similarly, but they’re not as the ADL would explodes saying that semiteness/semiticness sound appalling.
    So we have a choice. We either stop using the J*w*sh created slur “whiteness” OR start saying “semiteness” and “semiticness” similarly and get those terms into everyday usage.

  4. What’s up Skip
    What’s up Skip says:

    It’s an odd questionnaire, open to interpretation and full of unfounded moral assumptions about these positions being evil is some way.

    I agree at least moderately with all five statements because I prefer a homogeneous society, I’m not that interested in the fate of non-Whites in America or any other European country and I don’t think Whites should be lifting a finger to help any of these people, unless they need a one-way ticket.

Comments are closed.