Review: Blood and Politics

Zeskind, Leonard. Blood and Politics, A History of White Nationalism, from the Margins to the Mainstream.


Overall, this was quite a good book. It starts in the late 60s (roughly 1965, but with some material from after Brown v. Board) and moves up to around 2004-05. I was made familiar with a number of names I hadn’t heard of. It was also interesting to see where, when, and to what extent, the crazier wing of the white nationalists intersected with broader conservative politics. Answer: it is less that a lot of liberals might believe, but certainly more than the average conservative should be comfortable with.

There are some particular strengths to the book. Given the controversial nature of the material, the book is surprisingly even-handed and non-polemical in its tone The author’s feelings are obvious, but he manages to stand at enough of a distance to give a more-or-less accurate view of things. Even more startling is his treatment of the religious aspects of the movement, which have taught some truly ludicrous things. The author fairly represents what they taught, doesn’t engage in unnecessary mud-slinging, but it is still abundantly clear how disastrously wrong these particular people are.

The author is also willing to acknowledge when the government mishandled events the movement was involved in. His coverage of Ruby Ridge was, at least to someone who is only somewhat familiar with the incident, both honest and fair.

That said, its biggest flaw is to occasionally elide the differences between white nationalism and the conservative movement more than is warranted. In particular, his treatment of Pat Buchanan is, if not totally unfair, at least uncharitable. As well, his treatment of the Bell Curve may be the sloppiest part of the book. He treats it as nothing more than a long tome trying to prove the superiority of White IQ, offhandedly mentions that its findings have been refuted, and moves on. It is well-established that the Bell Curve was not primarily about this subject and not intended by its authors to be controversial, but this author did not appreciate that context.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Rule of Men: The Basic Flaw in CREC Polity

It is a popular pastime among certain Reformed sectors and, on the other hand, “deconstructing” Christians to criticize the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches, and Douglas Wilson in particular. As a long time reader of Wilson, and attender of a flagship CREC church for some time, I have my own criticisms of Wilson and the CREC. But, as an attorney, there is a central flaw not with Wilson or with Crec pastors generally, but with the CREC’s political structure. This problem, furthermore, has gone largely unrecognized, because it arises out of the basic governing documents of the denomination which, if you aren’t a lawyer or enthusiastic about ecclesiastical politics, are not exactly stimulating to read. That central problem—and I believe it is the problem behind a lot of the more obvious issues in the CREC—is that the denomination is fundamentally characterized by the rule of men and not the rule of law. In secular governments and most ecclesiastical governments, the governme...
Read more

Signs You are in a Church You should Leave

In the last few months, I have been thinking a lot about what the Bible requires for "official" accusations, whether in a church or in a secular court. I have posted on this recently. That has led to a related question: how can you tell if you're in an ecclesiastical environment where such Biblical requirements may not be respected?  (This assumes you have no significant ability to reform the situation—for example, you are not an elder, or have no significant positive influence over the elders, or, more cynically, have no significant monetary influence over what goes on in the church). The internet has many articles on this. I want to focus on two signs that are easy to spot for the average person. These are not so much particular actions, but rather long-term trends you should be able to spot if you attend a church long enough. 1. The first is an environment of secrecy. One major sign of secrecy is a reluctance or refusal to answer questions about certain topics, or to j...
Read more

The Law of Evidence in Seven Verses

Over approximately the past decade and a half, the idea of churches exercising more significant discipline over their members has gained traction among certain groups of Evangelicals. The most mainstream example is Jonathan Leeman, formerly of 9Marks, who has probably done the most to revitalize the topic in print in the last decade and a half. But church discipline has always been exercised in one form or another, particularly by small churches with well-defined and rigid boundaries. The locus classicus for church discipline is, of course, Matthew 18, which lays out a three step process for how church discipline ought be carried out. But Matthew 18, even if it is where we begin, cannot be where we end. For it is perfectly possible to “follow Matthew 18” while railroading an innocent party to a completely unjust result. Where can we go to discover what makes the process of church discipline a just one, worthy of acceptation? Another requirement that is often cited, but that is ...
Read more