As you can imagine, I get a lot of email — a ton. Some of it is angry, rather blue, and can’t be shared here. But some is quite insightful, with the writer genuinely wanting to continue the discussion. I appreciate it when you ask thoughtful questions.
For example, I wrote a column recently about white separatist Richard Spencer, who opposes immigration and believes the white race will soon be a “hated minority.” He considers himself an “identitarian,” which he says is based on white people of European descent understanding who they are as a people and uniting along the lines of their shared historical experiences.
Ted M., of Chicago, wanted to know, among other things, how prevalent Spencer’s views are among young white people.
Ted asked me: Are his views shared by the next younger wave of whites who have fueled such turnarounds as acceptance of legalized pot and the LGBT community, and who are comfortable among people unlike themselves?
I would hope Spencer’s views wouldn’t be shared by that group of young white people or any others. Spencer, who’s 38, did tell me this:
“Most of my readers and the people I really resonate with and who get it immediately are almost all under age 40 because we grew up in an America that’s either George Bush’s America or Barack Obama’s America. Baby boomers say, ‘If we turn this knob, we can go back to the good old days of the 1950s.’ But we don’t have those days. Identitarianism is a younger man’s movement.”
Ted ended his email to me by writing:
Mr. Spencer may project a veneer of polish and gentlemanliness, but beneath it is the same old same old: Racism and tribal politics. Not to diminish the contributions that Europe has given the world, but to put them in perspective. Other civilizations Spencer would rank below European civilization have likewise made remarkable contributions to the rise and bequest of mankind in ages past. What he says politely is what the skinheads say vulgarly. We remain a long way from a race-neutral society.
Thanks for reminding your readers that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and mutual respect.
***
I wrote a column saying that, although the deaths of civilians at the hands of the police and the deaths of police officers at the hands of the bad civilians are equally tragic, they are fundamentally not the same. That’s true in part because we hold our officers to a higher standard. I also wrote that the reason the Black Lives Matter movement is necessary is because African-Americans face so much evidence to the contrary.
Mark M. sent me this email, which I edited for space:
I am a Chicago Police Officer. I have over 20 years on the job. I also happen to be white. Let me say your article today is well written. I agree with a lot of your points. I have worked the West and South Sides for years. There are a lot of wonderful people in the roughest areas of the city. I used to tell my wife all the time, ‘These poor folks are held hostage by thugs.’ So many of them want to help us, but they are terrified. One thing for sure, working those areas over the years is that it made me very appreciative of what I have. and to NOT take things for granted. However, I think the deluge of radicalism via the Internet and mass media have spread some hate and rage into our younger citizens. What in God’s holy name would make a kid want to join Isis, or kill a police officer? The leaders of the #blacklivesmatter movement need to condemn violence publicly and that will resonate with the general public.
Mark was referring to Black Lives Matter supporters who have been chanting, “Pigs in a blanket! Fry ’em like bacon” at, as far as I can tell, a handful of recent marches. I agree there’s no justification for this, and it’s disingenuous for folks advocating for peace and justice to promote violence in any form. I can’t speak for everyone, but I’d hope these are the comments from the fringe. Lastly, while the point of the Black Lives Matter movement is not to diminish the lives of others, the chant hardly makes that case.
***
I wrote a column about polyamory that got a tremendous response. It was about my introduction to the concept from a 29-year-old friend who told me she has engaged in polyamorous relationships. They are deeply intimate, monogamous-like relationships, but without exclusivity. Several readers said they were disappointed that my column hadn’t included more diverse viewpoints.
Here’s what Pamela R. had to say:
1) Poly is not a millennials thing… it’s not even a rich professional white thing.
a. I’m 46, my partner is 39, his wife is 42 and her partner is 23.
b. While my partner and his wife are white, I am black and her partner is Hispanic
c. We have seven children between us – two are mine with my previous husband and are biracial; my partner and his wife have four children (white); and my partner’s wife and her partner just gave birth to a beautiful mixed baby boy.
d. My partner and I are the breadwinners but we are by no means “rich”
2) Poly is not an answer to the witness of our parents’ unhappiness with monogamy.
a. My parents are still together and monogamous. While they don’t really understand our relationship structure, they’ve embraced my new family.
b. Our choice has nothing to do with our parents. Like… nothing.
c. Poly is not a string of monogamous-like unions.
Pamela R. asked me:
Did you not read or even attempt to find a real polyamorous individual, couple, or family? Did you not even seek out a blog, book or article (written by an informed journalist)?
As I said in the column, I talked to my friend, who really is polyamorous. I didn’t see the column as a definitive work on the subject. It was me wondering whether it was possible to invest emotionally and romantically with more than one person. As a reader emailed me, monogamous relationships are tough, and the thought of a polyamorous one is just unfathomable for many of us. As I said before, no judgment.
Thank you all for writing!
