Browsing the news and social media this week, I noticed a recurring theme of ethnic and cultural rifts. (1) A school district tries to increase racial integration, which often spurs affluent white parents to take their kids out of the public school system and opt for more exclusive private education. (2) The harrowing assault of a young girl turns into fodder for the immigration debate because the suspected perpetrator is an Ecuadorian, feeding the narrative that “these people” are inherently vicious and a grave threat to Americans, even though violent crimes by immigrants are statistically very rare, except for gang and cartel-related incidents having little impact on anyone outside the illegal drug trade. (3) An exposé about hiring or promotion practices at Disney alleges that the company blatantly discriminates against white applicants. (4) An Indian man is charged with attempting to murder an Indian American man, allegedly because of the latter’s advocacy of an ethno-religious separatist movement in India, which, by definition, is undergirded by cultural hostilities, real or perceived. (5) A clash between two top stars in women’s professional basketball is immediately interpreted by thousands of social media users as being motivated by anti-white racial sentiment on the part of a black athlete, which is ironic given that a quick scan of their timelines shows these same commentators routinely dismiss such suggestions as “woke” and oversensitive (“snowflake”) when the races of the purported aggressor and aggrieved are reversed.
To those of us who came of age at the end of the 20th century, the current era’s fever pitch of racial and ethnic tension feels false and anachronistic, and frankly, shocking. We were raised to value tolerance, colour blindness, unity and multiculturalism.
But now, tribalism is ascendant. And it’s not limited to the rough and tumble of current affairs. The trend is to recast ALL human history through factious and unapologetically biassed lenses.
On one side, there is a new mythology whose chief antagonist is “whiteness”; which condemns anything perceived to be “western” as inherently “colonial” and oppressive; which makes exaggerated—and sometimes utterly unfounded—claims about the achievements of non-western civilisations, and overlooks any imperialism, violence, or cruelty by those perceived to be “people of colour.” The preachers of this mythology demand collective retribution for and against entire races for offences committed by and against long-dead people. Some of it is downright petty. For example, there is a dinner-discussion series called “Race to Dinner” conducted by a duo of activists, an Indian American woman (from a highly privileged background) and an African American woman. This entails groups of white women paying these two ladies (and one white woman hosting the event in her home) to yell at them for being white and therefore inherently, inescapably, unconsciously (yet still culpably) “racist.”
On the flip side, the reaction to this upsurge of anti-whiteness has been the resurrection of the most pernicious western colonial propaganda—downplaying the achievements of eastern civilisations, exaggerating any cruel cultural practices, falsely claiming credit for “civilising” the world, etc.
These myths had been largely debunked in the mid-late 20th century by scholars working with integrity towards objective discovery, something that’s dismissed as naïve and misguided by today’s “activist” academics. It’s especially astonishing that the proponents of western exceptionalism would uncritically accept centuries-old, unverifiable imperial claims, given that many of them tend to be highly suspicious of any government or otherwise “official” narrative encountered in their own era. I don’t fault them for their scepticism, but I do fault them for failing to apply the same standards to the one-sided “historical” accounts, almost certainly motivated by glaring imperial political interests.
Perhaps the most striking feature of this kind of revisionism is how much cherry-picking goes into these tortured readings of history. For example, if you’re a proponent of Western exceptionalism, what cultural roots do you claim? Can you square your ethnic chauvinism with the rationalist and universal values of the Enlightenment age? Would your scientific accomplishments exist without the mathematics that originated in India and Arabia? Can you divorce European art and culture of the High Middle Ages and Renaissance (or ANY time in the last 1,500 years) from Christianity, imported from the Middle East? If you want to bypass all that and harken back to classical Greece and Rome, do you realise that Greeks and Romans were part of a cross-pollinating regional civilisation that included North Africa, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia and Persia? And that ancient Greeks and Romans would have seen most other Europeans as savages? Also, did you know that written language, astronomical observations, public water and sanitation systems existed in parts of India some millennia before they did in Europe? Have you heard of the bard Kalidas, who lived a thousand years before Shakespeare? Can you tell us exactly what period of history it was that you’re invoking—that glorious golden age when Europeans were minding their own business and creating their miraculous civilisation (not living as nomadic hordes or rough villagers) but NOT yet influenced by non-Europeans and NOT dealing with non-Europeans (by trade or conquest)? You can’t, because no such era ever existed. Yes, western civilisation rose to spectacular heights. No, it didn’t do so in isolation. Indeed, insular societies NEVER create “civilization”; only outgoing ones do. A society can engage with others in battle and conquest, or it can engage in peaceful trade and cultural exchange. But it must engage. Otherwise, it doesn’t grow beyond a point.
But this reality is not acceptable to western exceptionalists. They need to parse the history and geography of Europe and “white people” in different ways for different purposes, as needed for their entire worldview to hold.
I call this “historical gerrymandering” (after the practice of redrawing an electoral district in such a way that it strengthens a favoured party’s voter block and dilutes that of an opposing party. The term “gerrymander” is a portmanteau of “Gerry” and “Salamander”, referring to the jagged, highly irregular, salamander-like shapes of the maps of these manipulated districts and the 19th-century politician Elbridge Gerry, the earliest official to be associated with this practice).
On the other side of the rift, if you’re among those still trying to avenge European colonialism over the last half-millennium, can you show me any mature civilisation that does NOT have any history of imperialism? Are your ancestral lines completely free of any imperial taint? In fact, can you say confidently that you don’t share substantial ancestry with the people you are charging as the descendants of your ancestors’ oppressors? It should be noted, despite my framing of these questions the way I have, that this “side” is currently dominant in academia and the media (and is espoused by most white liberals, not just people of colour). In academia, it is reportedly common to be pressured to publicly avow “anti-racist” sentiments and policies and even sign specific declarations. I’ve read strangely forced statements in nonfiction books and scientific papers that sound like ritual affirmations.
Much of what passes for historical literature now is an incessant battle of competing tribal mythologies and revisionism. For those who are still committed to truth and good-faith communication, there are now some additional hurdles. To confront either side of the problem, one must now devote considerable time and energy to dispelling the perception that one is shilling for the other camp.
The author is a lawyer, writer and editor based in Manhattan, New York