Stalking the Wild Taboo - Partition -Michael H. Hart - Racial Partition of the US

RACIAL PARTITION OF THE UNITED STATES

I. THE NEED FOR PARTITION

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. In the course of talking about partition of the United States, I will often be using the words "nation" and "state," so perhaps I should define those words right now.

The word nation refers to ethnicity. One dictionary defines a nation as: "a body of people marked off by common descent, language, culture, or historical tradition"

By contrast, the word state denotes a sovereign, independent country. I will use the words "country" and "state" interchangeably. Here are some examples:

The Norwegians are a nation, and they have their own state, Norway.
The Kurds are a nation, but they do not have their own independent state.
Rwanda, in Africa, is a state containing two national groups, the Hutu and the Tutsi.
India, Nigeria, the former Soviet Union, and the former Yugoslavia are or were multinational states.

Now what should be the relationship between nations and states? Most people accept (at least in theory) the principle of self-determination, the idea that each nation or people should be allowed to choose their government, and in particular should be allowed to have their own independent country or state if they want it.

The principle of self-determination is closely related to the notion of democracy. Both are special cases of the general principle that, "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," which is perhaps the central notion of our Declaration of Independence.

Aside from the principle involved, there is the pragmatic consideration that most binational and multinational states do not work very well, but are beset by endless ethnic strife, often quite bloody. For example:

In Yugoslavia over the last few years, at least 300,000 people have died in fighting between the Serbs, the Croats, and the Bosnian Muslims.
In Rwanda, during the past three years, more than 500,000 people were massacred in Hutu-Tutsi strife.
In Turkey, in 1915, about 1,000,000 Armenians were massacred.
A few years ago the Soviet Union -- perhaps the largest and strongest multinational state in all of history -- fell apart completely.
Canada, which has a much less violent history than ours is nevertheless close to breakup.
The case of Cyprus is instructive: For years, there was constant fighting there between Turks and Greeks. Then, in 1974, Cyprus was invaded by Turkey, who partitioned the country into two separate states, with a more-or-less forcible exchange of populations. A drastic solution, but it did end the killing.

Among the many other examples of multinational states which have undergone bloody ethnic strife, I might mention India, Iraq, and Indonesia.

Now, why do I mention the sorry history of those multinational states? Because American blacks constitute a separate nation, which means that we ourselves are living in a multinational state. That statement may sound controversial. easiest way to see that it is correct is by going back to the definition of a nation. American blacks are a body of people with a common language, common descent, and a common historical tradition.

Their common language is English, which they often speak with a distinctive accent. Indeed, many of them employ a distinctive dialect (called "Black English").

As for common descent, they often refer to themselves as "brothers" or as "Afro-Americans", or as "African-Americans" Indeed, they all do have African ancestors, mostly from sub-Saharan Africa, and specifically from West Africa.

Their common historical tradition is widely shared and deeply felt. Virtually all American blacks are familiar with the story that:

Their ancestors were forcibly brought to this country, where they were enslaved for centuries.
They were freed by the Civil War, but then suffered a century of terrible oppression under the Jim Crow laws;- and
Led by their national hero, Martin Luther King, there was a struggle for liberation in the 1960s, a struggle which was partly (but not completely) successful.

It is worth noting that, although every nation has a historical tradition, few nations have a tradition which is as universally known and as emotionally powerful as this one is.

Aside from the definition, there are many other ways in which American blacks behave as if they comprise a separate national group. (Since so many examples are given in the excellent book by Jared Taylor, I shall just mention a few examples here.)

Frequent demands for quotas in hiring, promotions, college admissions, etc.
Self-segregation of blacks on campuses, including requests for separate dormitories.
Formation of specifically black subgroups within most large organizations, including the American Bar Association, the American Anthropological Association, the American Museum Association, and many others.
Extreme block voting: It is common for more than 90% of blacks to vote for the same candidate in an election.
There is a separate black holiday (Kwanzaa), which was invented primarily to emphasize black separateness.
There is an (unofficial) black national anthem;
And an (unofficial) black national flag.
Many all-black private schools have adopted an extreme black nationalist, even separatist curriculum. For example: In one such school, the Fourth of July is not a holiday, but Emancipation Proclamation day is. In another, instead of reciting the "Pledge of Allegiance," the children recite a "Pledge to African People." At the Shule Mandela Academy (in East Pale Alto, California), the students pledge each morning to "think black, act black, speak black, buy black, pray black, love black, and live black."

In addition, there is a long history of black support for movements which are explicitly separatist. For example:

Back in the 1920s, Marcus Garvey had a few hundred thousand followers. (He claimed 2,000,000, but that was probably an exaggeration.
Elijah Muhammad had many followers during his 40-year reign as head of the Black Muslims;
And Louis Farrakhan has an even larger following today.

Of course, many blacks have always been loyal to the United States. Many served bravely in World War II (and in other wars); many have white friends; many would like to live in an integrated society, fair to all; many feel genuine loyalty to United States.

But, overall, even those blacks who are most loyal to the United States feel a strong identification as blacks, and have divided loyalties. Some of them identify more as Americans than as blacks. But a larger number identify more as blacks than as Americans. Of course, many blacks do not have divided loyalties, because they have no loyalty at all to the United States! In fact, quite a few are outspokenly hostile to the United States and to the majority of its population.

Also revealing is the attitude of blacks to black criminals: As you well know, many black jurors are very reluctant to convict other blacks, especially if the victim is white. There are many examples in recent years of black jurors acquitting fellow blacks despite overwhelming evidence of guilt.

The most celebrated instance, of course, was the O.J. Simpson case: In some criminal trials the evidence is murky, hut this one was a no-brainer. Nevertheless, polls consistently showed that a large majority of blacks considered him not guilty, and a (largely black) jury acquitted him promptly.

In the aftermath of the O.J. case, many whites have referred US blacks as a separate nation. For example:

Robert Novak (a conservative columnist) wrote: "But in private, the politicians I contacted universally agreed that the Not Guilty verdict points up the nation's deepest internal problem: We are two countries, not divided between rich and poor (as Mario Cuomo has said), but between black and white."
Richard Cohen (who is an outspoken liberal Democrat) wrote: "We are two nations -- one black, one white. Yesterday, one celebrated Simpson's acquittal, the other did not."

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that that is true, and that the United States of America is indeed a multinational state.

What can be done to deal with these racial tensions? Aside from partition, there are two other plans which are often suggested. The first plan is often proposed by liberal Democrats. They suggest that whites should be more strongly urged to abandon their racist attitudes, and that we need stronger civil rights laws and stronger enforcement of existing laws.

A major problem with this plan is that most American whites think that our civil rights laws have already gone too far, and they are strongly opposed to pushing reverse discrimination even further. Furthermore, even if that program were adopted, it would be ineffective. After all, a combination of civil rights laws, affirmative action programs, and endless exhortation of whites to be "less racist" has been our policy for the last 30 years, and it has obviously failed to solve our racial problems.

The other plan is quite different. It consists of the suggestion that the country should revoke its present system of "reverse discrimination" (i.e. racial quotas, and racial set-asides), and should instead adopt a color-blind racial policy.

This plan seems much fairer, but (even if it were adopted) it would not work because of the intense resentment it would cause among blacks. After all, blacks are already bitterly resentful that they are "underrepresented" in colleges, in skilled occupations, and in high-paying jobs. If the present system of quotas were abandoned, blacks would hold many fewer of those jobs than they do now. This would make them even more resentful than they are now, and would result in increased black-on-white crime, including an endless series of riots by blacks. A thorough removal of quotas is therefore unlikely to occur.

It therefore appears that neither of those two plans can work; and in fact, it seems unlikely that any policy less drastic than partition can solve our racial problems.

One strong reason for accepting this melancholy conclusion is that the extensive reforms that we have made have during the past forty years have not come close to solving those problems. Indeed, since 1368 the situation has obviously deteriorated. Despite the elimination of all discriminatory laws against blacks, plus the adoption of numerous laws which give positive preferences to blacks, American blacks are more angry today than they were in 1968.

Back in 1968, Malcolm X was a fringe figure, with little support even among blacks. Today, Louis Farrakhan has lots of support; in fact, his "Million-Man March" last year drew far more blacks than even the largest rally ever organized by Martin Luther King. Extreme anti-white rhetoric is far more prevalent today than it was 30 years ago, as is direct black-on-white violence.

Nor does the history of other multinational states provide much reason for optimism. quite the reverse: History shows that other countries which have tried to preserve unity by making large concessions to minority groups have failed to placate them. For example: In Canada, the numerous concessions made to the French speaking minority have failed to mollify them. The French Canadians were never slaves, never had to put up with "Jim Crow" laws, and have had full legal equality for well over a century. Nevertheless, in a recent vote in Quebec, 49% of the voters -- and a clear majority of the French-speaking inhabitants -- voted in favor of full independence for Quebec.

Another example: For most of the nineteenth century Norway and Sweden were ruled by the same king. The two nations are similar in race, language, and religion; indeed most outsiders can't even tell the difference between Norwegians and Swedes! The Norwegians were not persecuted in any way, and they had their own separate parliament and virtually complete autonomy. Still they were not satisfied, and in 1905 the Norwegians declared their complete independence. (Fortunately, the Swedish government was wise enough not to try to maintain unity by force.)

In view of the foregoing, it seems plain that many American blacks will not be satisfied by anything less than their own independent country.

Furthermore, perpetuation of the present binational state is harmful to the interests of American whites. It has caused an erosion of our traditional liberties:

By restrictions on our freedom of speech (by "speech codes" on college campuses, for example);
By the widespread use of quotas (in hiring, promotions, college admissions, etc);
And in various other ways.

In addition, we are victimized by high welfare costs, high taxes, and sky-high crime rates.

Partition of the United States is therefore necessary. First there is a better plan than dividing the United States into two countries.

II. OUTLINE OF THREE-WAY PARTITION PLAN

A far better scheme would be to divide the United States into three separate countries:

an independent Black state;
an independent non-Black state; and
an integrated state.

Let me refer to the independent Black state as the "Black Separatist State" (or BSS, for short). The Black Separatist State will include only those blacks who choose to become citizens of that country. It should be a fully independent country, carved out of the present territory of the United States. The size of the Black Separatist State (in value, not in area) will be proportional to the number of people who choose to live there. Let me stress again that no blacks will be forced to live in the BSS: Citizenship in the BSS will be an option which individual blacks can select.

Let s call the independent non-black state the "White Separatist State," or WSS (although it may well include some Asians and others.) The White Separatist State should include only those individuals who choose to become citizens of that country. It will be a fully independent country, carved out of the present territory of the United States. The size of the White Separatist State (in property value, not in area) will be proportional to number of persons who originally choose to live there. Again, I want to stress that citizenship in the WSS will be an option; nobody will be forced to live there.

The third country, the integrated state, will be a continuation of the present United States of America, but with a reduced area. All American citizens who do not explicitly choose to become citizens of the BSS or the WSS will remain members of the integrated USA. Therefore, just after the partition, the tangible wealth of the integrated USA will be proportional to the number of people who choose to remain its citizens.

III. ADVANTAGES OF A THREE-WAY PARTITION

Although a three-way partition is more complicated than a two-way plan, it has three great advantages:

It is more fair;
It is more advantageous for the white separatists than a two-way partition would be; and
It will be easier to get approved.

As for fairness, it is plain that partition is fairer to black separatists than the present system is. Many American blacks now feel aggrieved that they do not have their own country.

They feel that their ancestors were kidnapped and brought here by force, where they were enslaved and mistreated by the whites for many years. They know that blacks living here today are a minority -- probably a permanent minority -- and they therefore feel that they cannot control their own destiny. And they are right! Black Americans are one of the largest national groups in the whole world who do not have their own independent country.

Partition is also fairer to white separatists than the present system is. Many whites feel that their country is being taken away from them.

They are losing their rights.
They are losing their personal safety.
Their traditions are no longer respected and protected.
And, worst of all, if there is no change in immigration policy we will soon be a permanent minority in what used to be our country.

We therefore (quite naturally) want to preserve a separate country for us.

Now either a two-way partition of the United States or a three-way division would satisfy most separatists. However, a three-way division is fairer to integrationists than any two-way plan could possibly be.

Many whites really want to live in an integrated society. They would be horrified at the prospect of living in a white separatist state (which they would regard as "Fascist"). A two way partition plan would be unfair to them. It would also be unfair to those blacks who really want integration and do not want to live in a country dominated by Louis Farrakhan (or any similar leader)

We don't want integrationists to prevent us from choosing to live in a separate white state. In fairness, then, we should not deprive them of their choice to live in a racially integrated state (no matter how foolish we think their choice may be)

At present, integrationists are imposing their notion of fairness on everyone else. Question: Why should their desires be given preference to those of black separatists? Or of white separatists? In a two-way partition, separatists would be forcing their way on integrationists. But in a three-way partition, everyone gets to live in the country of their choice!

The second important reason why we should prefer a three-way partition plan is that we white separatists would be much better off in a three-way split than we would be if the United States were divided into only two countries, one white and one black.

If there were only two countries, then the white state would necessarily start off with a large disgruntled, embittered minority (consisting of those whites who were opposed to partition), which will cause tremendous internal problems Remember: Those who favor partition are in the minority right now, and no partition plan can be implemented until a majority of the American public is willing to accept it. We must therefore delay partition for 20 or 30 years while we gain more public support for the idea. Therefore, at the time partition is adopted (shortly after the proposal gains majority support) only 55% or 60% of the public will support the idea of partition.

Under those circumstances, if the country is partitioned into two states, the white state will start off bitterly divided into two factions, which is a recipe for disaster, especially since (one of those factions would be opposed to the very existence of that state. However, in a three-way division, the White Separatist State will start off with a population which is basically united on racial attitudes and on the desirability of partition, which will greatly increase its chances of functioning successfully.

There is another reason why whites will be better off with a three-way split: In a 3-way partition, the white state is likely to wind up with the lion's share of the most productive citizens.

This will come about because everyone will anticipate that the White Separatist State will have a basically conservative government. Therefore, most whites who favor the policies of the "liberal Democrats" (i.e., a generous welfare policy, "big government," and high taxes) will probably choose to remain citizens of the integrated state. Similarly, most people will anticipate that the integrated state will be dominated by liberal Democrats. Therefore, most whites who favor "conservative" policies (such as reduced welfare, "small government," and lower taxes) will probably choose to live in the White Separatist State.

People's expectations in this regard will probably become self-fulfilling prophecies. With more conservatives than liberals choosing the white state, those who remain behind in the integrated state will include a disproportionate number of liberals and welfare recipients. And with most liberals choosing the integrated state, the White Separatist State will indeed have a relatively conservative government, and will have attracted many entrepreneurs, professionals, skilled workers, and other highly productive citizens.

As a result, over a 30- to 50-year time span the integrated United States is likely to become an advanced "welfare state" (such as Sweden), and will probably stagnate economically. Whereas the white state will become a comparatively "laisser-faire," capitalist state (such as Singapore, Switzerland, Hong Kong, or the 19th-century United States, and is likely to become much more prosperous.

The third major advantage of a three-way partition plan is that it will be much easier to get a three-way division of the country approved than a two-way division. It is clear that those

people (of any race) who prefer to live in an integrated country will strenuously oppose any two-way partition plan; however, many of those people will agree to a three-way partition which, indeed, they might well think is an improvement on the present state of affairs.

After all, the way they look at it, their goal of a just, integrated society (with little or no racial tensions) is being thwarted by the opposition of die-hard white segregationists, and also by black extremists (such as the followers of Louis Farrakhan). Therefore (in their view), if the white and black extremists were to leave, the remaining population would consist of those persons (of both races) who favor integration, and are committed to it. Integrationists should therefore anticipate that the integrated state remaining after a three-way partition will have much lower racial tensions than today's United States does. It should therefore be much easier to gain their assent to a three-way plan than to a two-way division.

In addition, many people with a libertarian outlook are likely to support a three-way partition plan (because it maximizes the choices available to individuals), although they would probably oppose a two-way partition.

IV. SOME DETAILS OF THE PLAN

"Okay," you may say, "a three-way partition of the United States would be a good idea; but by what procedure can it be carried out? In particular, how will the boundaries of the three countries be decided on?"

As I said before, partition cannot be carried out now. More popular support is needed. Furthermore, the constitution as it now stands does not provide for (or even permit) the partition of the country. Therefore, a constitutional amendment will be needed, which will cause more delay.

Since partition is at least 20 years away, it is clearly premature to try to specify all the details of how it would be carried out. However, in order to make my discussion less abstract, I will outline one possible method by which a 3-way partition might be implemented. (I do not wish to imply that this is the only possible method, or necessarily the best method.)

In the plan I am suggesting, partition of the country will be implemented in four stages. In the first stage, each adult will tentatively choose which of the three countries he or she wishes whites could not choose to join Of course, whites could not choose to be a citizen of the black state, nor could blacks elect to join the White Separatist State; but anyone would be free to choose the integrated state.

In the second stage of the partition, a special committee will be formed which will draw up tentative boundaries for the three states. The members of this special committee -- lets call it the "Boundary Committee," (or BC, for short) -- will be selected by Congress. The BC will not draw those boundaries arbitrarily, but rather in accordance with specific criteria laid out by Congress. Possible criteria could include:

The BC should draw the boundaries so as to make the tangible wealth of the three countries proportional to their initial populations;
The BC should attempt to give each of the three countries a wide variety of resources (such as agricultural land, minerals, factories, roads, railways, ports, etc.)
As much as possible (consistent with the foregoing) the boundaries should be drawn so that the fewest people will have to move in order to be in the country of their choice.
And finally, if possible, the BC should try to make each country a single, connected, compact territory.

After drawing tentative boundaries based on the stage 1 voting, the Boundary Committee will then draw up sets of alternative boundary lines to be used if the relative populations of the three states change significantly in the next stage of the partition.

During the third stage of the partition (after the Boundary Committee has issued its report and published its maps) there will be a 6-month period during which each individual citizen will have the opportunity to revise the choice which he or she made during the first stage. At end of that 6-month period, the individual choices will become final, and the populations of the three states will be tallied. On the basis of that tally, the final boundaries of the three states will be announced (in accordance with the maps drawn by the Boundary Committee during stage 2)

Perhaps a concrete example will make it easier to visualize how stages 1 through 3 might work. Let me emphasize that the maps I am about to show are not intended as a suggestion for the final boundaries of the three countries, but are only intended to illustrate how the procedure might work. Also, in order to avoid making the arithmetic in this example needlessly difficult, I have rounded off all the population figures rather drastically.

Suppose that in the stage 1 voting: (a) 20 million blacks choose to join the Black Separatist State; (b) 50 million whites choose to join the White Separatist State; and (c) the other 190 million people choose to remain in the integrated United States. (I have rounded off the total U.S. population to 2~0 million for purposes of this illustration.)

Expressed as percentages, this means that in stage 1

8% of the total population choose the Black state;
20% of the total population choose the White state; and
72% of the total population choose to remain in the integrated state.

In stage 2 of the partition, the BC draws these tentative boundaries for the three states (see MAP 1) [all maps omitted from on-line version]: On this map, the pink represents the white state, the blue represents the black state, and the yellow is the integrated state.

The Boundary Committee also draws up a map showing what the boundaries will be in the event that, in stage 3, nine percent of the total population choose to join the black state (see MAP 2) !On this map, the blue represents the original territory of the BSS, and the green represents the territory they would gain if their share of the final vote goes up to nine percent.

In addition, the BC draws a map showing what the boundaries will be in case ten percent select the BSS in the final selection stage (see MAP 3). The BC also draws alternative boundaries to be used in case the BSS receives only seven percent of the vote in stage 3 (see MAP 4)

Similarly, the BC draws maps which show how the boundaries of the white state will be increased in the event that more than 20 percent of the population elects to join the WSS during stage 3. This map illustrates what the boundaries might be if 21 percent choose the White Separatist State in stage 3 (see MAP 5). (The area colored green shows the territory which would be added to the WSS in that case.)

This next map illustrates what the boundaries might be in case 25 percent choose the WSS in stage 3 (see MAP 6). While this slide indicates what maps the BC might draw for the intermediate cases (see MAP 7). Finally, here is a map the BC might draw to show how the territory of the WSS will be reduced in case they only get 19 percent of the total vote in the final selection stage (see MAP 8).

After the BC makes their decisions, and the maps they have drawn are published, there will be a 6-month interval (stage 3) during which people have a chance to change their minds. Assume that at the end of that final selection stage: (a) the number of people electing to become citizens of the black state has risen to 25 million (which is 10% of the total); (b) the number choosing the white state has risen to 62.5 million (which is 25% of the total); and the number choosing to remain in the Integrated state has fallen to 162.5 million (which is 65% of the total)

Then, in accordance with the maps already drawn up and published by the Boundary Committee, the final boundaries of the three states would be as shown in MAP 9.

The fourth (and final) stage of the partition involves the actual movement of people. This will take place over a one- or two-year interval.

Those people who move will be compensated by the government for their property, and for their relocation expenses. Each of the three governments will thereby acquire a lot of residential property, which it will then auction off to its own citizens.

It is plain that the citizens of the black state will gain financially in this process (since American blacks now own much less than their proportional share of the total wealth of the United States). Since the blacks will gain wealth in the process, and since the partition will not (in the short run) create any tangible wealth, it seems plain that the integrated state and the White Separatist State will each lose money during the partition process. It is probably best that they share this net expense proportionately.

At the end of the partition, the three states will be three completely independent countries. As independent countries they will not be required to accept immigrants from the others, nor to admit visitors from the others, nor to trade with the others. However, as a practical matter, I anticipate that each of the three states will permit ordinary trade and tourism with the others (although probably with some restrictions) and that the three states will probably join in a some sort of "common market" arrangement.

V. CLOSING COMMENTS

As you can see, a three-way partition is much more complicated than a two-way partition. Just solutions to problems usually are complicated, because life is complicated, and human relations are complicated. But it is much better to have a complicated plan than one which is simple, but unfair. And, furthermore, it will be more difficult to get an unfair plan accepted.

One other problem: As I pointed out before, a partition of the United States cannot be carried out right now. We will have to wait quite a few years before our goals are achieved.

That is a problem which always faces a political minority: Their ideas cannot be adopted immediately, unless they are able and willing to use violence to force their views on an unwilling majority, which I think is a terrible idea. Quite the contrary, we should do everything we can to avert violence.

Indeed, a major problem with the present situation is that it involves continual low-level racial violence, and the possibility that racial tensions will erupt into major violence cannot he ignored. Indeed, major violence between ethnic groups has occurred in many other binational or multinational states. We don't want it to happen here.

A race war in the United States would be a horrible disaster for everyone. My partition plan has been designed to avert bloodshed by giving everyone -- blacks and whites alike -- the opportunity to get most of what they want without violence.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I would be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Michael H. Hart

Michael Hart has worked for NASA and is currently a professor of astronomy and physics at a college in Maryland, USA. He holds degrees in physics, astronomy, and law and is the author of the best selling book, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influencial Persons in History, which has been translated into a number of languages, including Chinese. In addition, he has written and published widely in technical fields.

This essay is the text of a speech given by Professor Hart at the 1996 American Renaissance Conference held Memorial Day Weekend in Louisville, KY. It is used here with his permission. Audio and video tapes of his talk and the other eight addresses presented there are available.

[Return to Professor Hart's essay]