美国加州大学伯克利分校的一位匿名历史教授（他自己说自己是有色人种）写了一封公开信，反对当前BLM运动和正在进行的乔治-弗洛伊德之死的抗议活动对种族不公正的观点。
其真实性得到了肯塔基州立大学政治学助理教授威尔弗雷德-雷利的证实，他说，他和斯坦福大学经济学家托马斯-索维尔一起收到了这封信的副本。
（这两位学者都是黑人）
麦教授把这封信翻译出来（原文在最后），不添加任何自己的观点，给大家做独立思考。麦教授不研究这个题目，只希望更多的人看到正反两面的信息，而不是头脑发热的要闹革命毁灭一切。
加州大学伯克利分校历史教授公开信反对BLM、警察暴力（police brutality）和文化正统主义（Cultural Orthodoxy）（麦教授注：其实这封信是copy了回复给伯克利历史系的一封邮件）
尊敬的X、Y、Z教授
我是你们在加州大学伯克利分校的同事之一。我见过你们两个人，但与你们并不熟识，所以我以匿名方式与你们联系，并表示歉意。我担心公开写这封邮件可能会导致我丢掉工作，很可能会丢掉我这个领域未来的所有工作。
在伯克利历史系最近的邮件中提到了我们对多样性的承诺，但我越来越感到震惊，因为在最近的抗议活动和我们社区对这些活动的反应上，缺乏多样性的意见。
在邮件提供的延伸链接和资源中，我找不到任何一个实质性的反驳或替代性的说法来解释黑人在学术界的代表性不足或在刑事司法系统中的代表性过高。邮件的文件中提供的解释，几乎排除了所有其他的解释，是单变量的：黑人社区的问题是由白人造成的，或者，当白人不在场时，是由白人至上主义和白人系统性种族主义渗透到美国人的大脑、灵魂和机构中造成的。
许多清醒的声音，包括来自黑人社区本身的声音，如托马斯-索维尔和威尔弗雷德-雷利，都对这个论题提出了许多有说服力的反对意见。这些人不是种族主义者，也不是 "汤姆叔叔"。他们是聪明的学者，他们拒绝接受剥夺黑人代理权，并系统性地将黑人社区的问题外化到外人身上的说法。他们的观点完全没有出现在部门和伯克利的公报中。
黑人社区所面临的困难完全由白人系统性种族主义、白人至上主义和其他形式的白人歧视等外在因素来解释的说法，仍然是一个有问题的假说，应该受到历史学家的有力挑战。相反，它被当作一个公理和可操作的真理，而没有认真考虑它的深刻缺陷，或它令人担忧的黑人完全无能的暗示。这种假说正在改变我们的制度和文化，在严密的监控和狭隘的话语之外，没有任何异议和讨论的空间。
一个反叙事存在。如果你有时间，请考虑研究一下我在这封邮件最后附上的一些文件。绝大多数情况下，由BLM和盟友提供的推理主要是轶事（如与Ta-Nehisi Coates的不可否认的动人文章的大部分情况下）或它是透明的动机。作为后一个问题的例子，考虑美国黑人被监禁的比例。这个比例经常被用来描述刑事司法系统是反黑人的。然而，如果我们使用完全相同的方法，我们将不得不得出结论，刑事司法系统甚至比反黑人更反男性。（麦教授解读：他说的是不能只看黑人被监禁的比例，如果只看比例，男性有绝对高的比例比女性被监禁，就会得出一个错误的结论：司法系统歧视男性）
我们是否会将刑事司法定性为针对无辜美国人的系统性的反黑人阴谋？我希望你能看到，这种推理是有缺陷的。黑人被监禁的比例并没有比他们参与暴力犯罪的比例高。这个事实已经在多个国家的多个司法管辖区被多次证明。
然而，我看到我们系的邮件中不加批判地重现了这种说法，这种解释表达了伯克利历史系邮件明显的愿望：以承担 "白人的负担"，并支持白人有罪的说法。
如果我们声称刑事司法系统是白人至上主义的，为什么亚裔美国人，印度裔美国人和尼日利亚裔美国人被监禁的比例远远低于美国白人？这是一种有趣的白人至上主义。即使是犹太裔美国人被监禁的比例也比外邦白人低。我想可以说，一般的白人至上主义者都不赞成犹太人。然而，这些所谓的白人至上主义者监禁外邦人的比例却远远高于犹太人。你们的文献中没有提到这些。除了凭空乱说和自相矛盾之外，没有任何解释。"这些都是种族主义的狗屁"。"模范少数派的神话是白人至上主义"。"只有法西斯主义者才会谈论黑对黑的犯罪"，无休止。
这些类型的言论并不等于反驳：它们只是武断的攻击性分类，旨在压制思想和压制话语。任何严肃的历史学家都会认识到这些是压制正统的策略，在整个时间和空间的镇压政权、学说和宗教中是常见的。它们的目的是粉碎真正的多样性，并永久地将强有力的思辨文化从我们的历史系驱逐出去。
越来越多地，我们被要求遵守和同意这个有问题的BLM历史观，我们系也装作大家都认同BLM这一观点。特别是，少数族群被赋予了一个单一的形象。所有人认同这一形象时就没事，而不同意见几乎可以肯定导致我们被开除或惹上大麻烦。
我个人不敢大声反对BLM的说法，而这种所谓的团结正在由管理层: 终身教授，加州大学行政部门，美国公司和媒体大规模生产。不认同的人面临在这个脆弱经济环境下的巨大的失业危险。我确信，如果我的名字附在这封电子邮件上，我将失去我的工作和所有未来的工作，尽管我相信并能愿意承担我打的每一个字。
绝大多数黑人社区的暴力事件都是由黑人实施的。几乎没有为这些看不见的受害者举行游行，没有公开的沉默，没有来自加州大学的管理者、院长和部门负责人的心声信。信息很明确：只有当白人夺走黑人的生命时，黑人的生命才是重要的。黑人的暴力是意料之中的，是无解的，而白人的暴力则需要解释，需要解决。请扪心自问，看看这种表述到底有多畸形偏激。
不允许讨论黑人暴力的非黑人受害者，因为非黑人暴力的受害者比例超过黑人。这一点在湾区尤其令人痛心，在那里，亚裔被黑人袭击者伤害的情况已经达到了见怪不怪的程度，以至于旧金山警察局长已经建议亚裔不要再在门上挂好运符，因为这会吸引（绝大多数是黑人）入室者的注意。像乔治-弗洛伊德这样的家庭入侵者。对于美国这种真实的、活生生的、亲身经历过的暴力现实，没有游行，没有学校负责人含泪的邮件，没有麦当劳和沃尔玛的支持。对于历史系来说，我们的沉默不仅仅是放弃了我们揭示真相的责任：更是对真相的拒绝。
黑人内部暴力是奴隶制和其他不公正的产物，这种说法主要是一种历史性的说法。因此，要由历史学家来解释，为什么日本人的收容或欧洲犹太人的屠杀没有分别导致日本人和犹太裔美国人的功能障碍和低社会经济地位表现的同等比例。自911事件以来，阿拉伯裔美国人一直被恶意妖魔化，最近的华裔美国人也是如此。然而，这两个群体在几乎所有社会经济地位指数上的表现都优于美国白人--尼日利亚裔美国人也是如此，即便他们拥有黑色的皮肤。历史学家应该指出并讨论这些异常现象。然而，在我们系目前的气氛下，不可能进行真正的讨论。解释是上面管理层提供给我们的，不同意它的解释就是种族主义。历史学家的工作是进一步探索解释另外正确的方式，这种强加的解释是对历史专业的嘲讽。
最令人不安的是，我们的部门似乎已经完全被民主党全国代表大会，以及更广泛的民主党的利益所俘虏。为了解释我的意思，考虑一下如果你选择捐赠给Black Lives Matter会发生什么，伯克利历史系在其最近的邮件中明确促进了一个组织。所有对BLM官方网站的捐款都会立即重定向到ActBlue慈善机构，该组织主要关注为民主党候选人的选举活动提供资金。今天捐赠给BLM是间接捐赠给乔-拜登的2020年竞选。鉴于美国黑人对黑人暴力和警察对黑人暴力发生率最严重的城市绝大多数都是民主党人管理的，这就很怪异了。明尼阿波利斯本身50多年来完全掌握在民主党人手中；那里的'系统性种族主义'是由历届民主党政府建立的。
民主党领导人对黑人社区的高高在上和居高临下的态度，几乎在拜登关于黑人种族的每一次发言中都得到了体现，这一切都保证了痛苦、怨恨、贫穷以及随之而来的怨恨政治的永久状态，这些都在同时消灭美国的政治话语和黑人的生活。然而，捐赠给BLM是资助像弗雷市长这样的人的选举活动，而恰恰是他们的城市陷入暴力。这是一个由一个政党来怪异的绑架一个善意的运动，绑架必要的警察改革，绑架我们的系。更糟糕的是，在学术界几乎没有异议的渠道。我拒绝为党服务，你也应该如此。
参与人类剥削的大公司与BLM的完全联盟应该是我们的一面警告旗帜，然而这种致命的证据却没有被注意到，故意被忽略，或者反常地被庆祝。支持LM的亚马逊的杰夫-贝佐斯是代表富有阶级的真实的、现代的奴隶主。支持BLM的星巴克，仍然在使用黑奴在其咖啡种植园工作。索尼，使用钴矿雇佣黑奴（其中许多是儿童） 是支持BLM。
也存在一个巨大的群体，我只能称其为'种族骗子'：所有颜色的骗子都会受益于煽动种族冲突的火，以确保自己的行政工作，慈善管理职位，学术工作和进步，或个人政治创业。
鉴于我们历史系的发展方向似乎与对真理的承诺相去甚远，我们可以把自己看作是这一品牌的推销员的培训机构。这次的活动具有腐蚀性，摧毁了我们国家种族和谐共处的任何希望，并使我们的政治和体制生活殖民化。他们中的许多人的声音具有讽刺性的隔离主义色彩。
如果马丁路德金今天在我们的校园里讲话，他很可能会被称为汤姆叔叔。我们正在培训那些明确打算摧毁现代历史上唯一真正成功的种族多元化社会之一的领导人。
最后一点，我们的大学和系已经发表了多份声明，庆祝和讴歌乔治-弗洛伊德。弗洛伊德是一个多次重刑犯，他曾经用枪指着一个怀孕的黑人妇女。他带着一帮人闯进她的家，用枪指着她怀孕的肚子。他恐吓社区里的妇女。他生下并遗弃了多个孩子，没有参与他们的抚养和教育，没有一个人最基本的人格。他是一个吸毒者，有时也是毒贩子，是一个诈骗犯，他掠夺他的诚实和勤劳的邻居。
然而，加州大学的执政官和历史系的历史学家们却在讴歌这个暴力罪犯，把他的名字提升到了虚拟的圣人。一个伤害女性的男人 一个伤害黑人妇女的男人。在历史系、美国企业、大多数主流媒体以及美国一些最富有、最有特权的舆论塑造精英的通力合作下，他成了文化英雄，被埋在金棺材里，他的（公认的）家人受到礼物和赞美。美国人正在受到社会压力，为这个暴力、虐待妇女的厌恶者下跪。一代黑人男子被胁迫认同乔治-弗洛伊德，我们种族和物种中最糟糕的标本。
我为我的系感到羞耻。我想说的是，我为你们两个感到羞耻，但也许你们同意我的观点，只是和我一样，害怕说出真相后的后果。为了保住自己的饭碗，不得不下跪，人在下跪的时候很难知道什么叫下跪。
声明一下，我是有色人种。我的家人都曾被弗洛伊德这样的人亲手害过。我们知道民主党对我们种族的傲慢掠夺。他们对黑人有羞辱性的假设，认为我们太笨了，不适合做STEM，我们需要特殊的帮助和较低的要求才能在生活中取得进步，这对我们来说是非常熟悉的。我有时会想，如果对付开放的法西斯主义者，他们至少会直截了当地称我为二等人。
一直存在的低期望值的软性偏执，以及长期声称解决我国人民困境的办法完全依靠白人的善意，而不是依靠我们自己的辛勤工作，这在心理上是毁灭性的。在美国，没有任何其他群体被其所谓的盟友以这种方式系统地挫伤士气。整整一代黑人儿童被教导，只有通过乞讨、哭泣和尖叫，他们才能得到充满罪恶感的白人的施舍。
没有什么比BLM会更肯定地摧毁他们的未来。如果对日裔美国人，或者犹太裔美国人，或者华裔美国人这样做，那么唐人街和日本城肯定会和今天巴尔的摩和东圣路易斯最粗糙的地方没什么区别。UCB的历史系现在是一个完整的对黑人种族的破坏性和诋毁性谬论的机构颁布者。
我希望你能体会到我这条消息背后的挫折感。我不支持BLM。我不支持民主党的申诉议程和民主党对我们系的绑架。我不支持民主党与我的种族合作，就像拜登最近在他令人不安的采访中所做的那样，声称投票给民主党和支持黑人是同构的。我谴责乔治-弗洛伊德的死亡方式，并与你一起呼吁加强警察问责制和警察改革。然而，我不会假装乔治-弗洛伊德是一个圣人。作为一个暴力的厌恶女人的人，一个残暴的人，他的结局可想而知是残酷的。
克里奥是古希腊的历史女神
我的目的也是想保护历史学的研究。克莱奥不是卑躬屈膝的政客和企业的奴仆。像我们一样，她是自由的。
UC Berkeley History Professor's Open Letter Against BLM, Police Brutality and Cultural Orthodoxy
Dear profs X, Y, Z
I am one of your colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley. I have met you both personally but do not know you closely, and am contacting you anonymously, with apologies. I am worried that writing this email publicly might lead to me losing my job, and likely all future jobs in my field.
In your recent departmental emails you mentioned our pledge to diversity, but I am increasingly alarmed by the absence of diversity of opinion on the topic of the recent protests and our community response to them.
In the extended links and resources you provided, I could not find a single instance of substantial counter-argument or alternative narrative to explain the under-representation of black individuals in academia or their over-representation in the criminal justice system. The explanation provided in your documentation, to the near exclusion of all others, is univariate: the problems of the black community are caused by whites, or, when whites are not physically present, by the infiltration of white supremacy and white systemic racism into American brains, souls, and institutions.
Many cogent objections to this thesis have been raised by sober voices, including from within the black community itself, such as Thomas Sowell and Wilfred Reilly. These people are not racists or 'Uncle Toms'. They are intelligent scholars who reject a narrative that strips black people of agency and systematically externalizes the problems of the black community onto outsiders. Their view is entirely absent from the departmental and UCB-wide communiques.
The claim that the difficulties that the black community faces are entirely causally explained by exogenous factors in the form of white systemic racism, white supremacy, and other forms of white discrimination remains a problematic hypothesis that should be vigorously challenged by historians. Instead, it is being treated as an axiomatic and actionable truth without serious consideration of its profound flaws, or its worrying implication of total black impotence. This hypothesis is transforming our institution and our culture, without any space for dissent outside of a tightly policed, narrow discourse.
A counternarrative exists. If you have time, please consider examining some of the documents I attach at the end of this email. Overwhelmingly, the reasoning provided by BLM and allies is either primarily anecdotal (as in the case with the bulk of Ta-Nehisi Coates' undeniably moving article) or it is transparently motivated. As an example of the latter problem, consider the proportion of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However, if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it is anti-black.
Would we characterize criminal justice as a systemically misandrist conspiracy against innocent American men? I hope you see that this type of reasoning is flawed, and requires a significant suspension of our rational faculties. Black people are not incarcerated at higher rates than their involvement in violent crime would predict. This fact has been demonstrated multiple times across multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries.
And yet, I see my department uncritically reproducing a narrative that diminishes black agency in favor of a white-centric explanation that appeals to the department's apparent desire to shoulder the 'white man's burden' and to promote a narrative of white guilt.
If we claim that the criminal justice system is white-supremacist, why is it that Asian Americans, Indian Americans, and Nigerian Americans are incarcerated at vastly lower rates than white Americans? This is a funny sort of white supremacy. Even Jewish Americans are incarcerated less than gentile whites. I think it's fair to say that your average white supremacist disapproves of Jews. And yet, these alleged white supremacists incarcerate gentiles at vastly higher rates than Jews. None of this is addressed in your literature. None of this is explained, beyond hand-waving and ad hominems. "Those are racist dogwhistles". "The model minority myth is white supremacist". "Only fascists talk about black-on-black crime", ad nauseam.
These types of statements do not amount to counterarguments: they are simply arbitrary offensive classifications, intended to silence and oppress discourse. Any serious historian will recognize these for the silencing orthodoxy tactics they are, common to suppressive regimes, doctrines, and religions throughout time and space. They are intended to crush real diversity and permanently exile the culture of robust criticism from our department.
Increasingly, we are being called upon to comply and subscribe to BLM's problematic view of history, and the department is being presented as unified on the matter. In particular, ethnic minorities are being aggressively marshaled into a single position. Any apparent unity is surely a function of the fact that dissent could almost certainly lead to expulsion or cancellation for those of us in a precarious position, which is no small number.
I personally don't dare speak out against the BLM narrative, and with this barrage of alleged unity being mass-produced by the administration, tenured professoriat, the UC administration, corporate America, and the media, the punishment for dissent is a clear danger at a time of widespread economic vulnerability. I am certain that if my name were attached to this email, I would lose my job and all future jobs, even though I believe in and can justify every word I type.
The vast majority of violence visited on the black community is committed by black people. There are virtually no marches for these invisible victims, no public silences, no heartfelt letters from the UC regents, deans, and departmental heads. The message is clear: Black lives only matter when whites take them. Black violence is expected and insoluble, while white violence requires explanation and demands solution. Please look into your hearts and see how monstrously bigoted this formulation truly is.
No discussion is permitted for nonblack victims of black violence, who proportionally outnumber black victims of nonblack violence. This is especially bitter in the Bay Area, where Asian victimization by black assailants has reached epidemic proportions, to the point that the SF police chief has advised Asians to stop hanging good-luck charms on their doors, as this attracts the attention of (overwhelmingly black) home invaders. Home invaders like George Floyd. For this actual, lived, physically experienced reality of violence in the USA, there are no marches, no tearful emails from departmental heads, no support from McDonald's and Wal-Mart. For the History department, our silence is not a mere abrogation of our duty to shed light on the truth: it is a rejection of it.
The claim that black intraracial violence is the product of redlining, slavery, and other injustices is a largely historical claim. It is for historians, therefore, to explain why Japanese internment or the massacre of European Jewry hasn't led to equivalent rates of dysfunction and low SES performance among Japanese and Jewish Americans respectively. Arab Americans have been viciously demonized since 9/11, as have Chinese Americans more recently. However, both groups outperform white Americans on nearly all SES indices - as do Nigerian Americans, who incidentally have black skin. It is for historians to point out and discuss these anomalies. However, no real discussion is possible in the current climate at our department. The explanation is provided to us, disagreement with it is racist, and the job of historians is to further explore additional ways in which the explanation is additionally correct. This is a mockery of the historical profession.
Most troublingly, our department appears to have been entirely captured by the interests of the Democratic National Convention, and the Democratic Party more broadly. To explain what I mean, consider what happens if you choose to donate to Black Lives Matter, an organization UCB History has explicitly promoted in its recent mailers. All donations to the official BLM website are immediately redirected to ActBlue Charities, an organization primarily concerned with bankrolling election campaigns for Democrat candidates. Donating to BLM today is to indirectly donate to Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. This is grotesque given the fact that the American cities with the worst rates of black-on-black violence and police-on-black violence are overwhelmingly Democrat-run. Minneapolis itself has been entirely in the hands of Democrats for over five decades; the 'systemic racism' there was built by successive Democrat administrations.
The patronizing and condescending attitudes of Democrat leaders towards the black community, exemplified by nearly every Biden statement on the black race, all but guarantee a perpetual state of misery, resentment, poverty, and the attendant grievance politics which are simultaneously annihilating American political discourse and black lives. And yet, donating to BLM is bankrolling the election campaigns of men like Mayor Frey, who saw their cities devolve into violence. This is a grotesque capture of a good-faith movement for necessary police reform, and of our department, by a political party. Even worse, there are virtually no avenues for dissent in academic circles. I refuse to serve the Party, and so should you.
The total alliance of major corporations involved in human exploitation with BLM should be a warning flag to us, and yet this damning evidence goes unnoticed, purposefully ignored, or perversely celebrated. We are the useful idiots of the wealthiest classes, carrying water for Jeff Bezos and other actual, real, modern-day slavers. Starbucks, an organisation using literal black slaves in its coffee plantation suppliers, is in favor of BLM. Sony, an organisation using cobalt mined by yet more literal black slaves, many of whom are children, is in favor of BLM. And so, apparently, are we. The absence of counter-narrative enables this obscenity. Fiat lux, indeed.
There also exists a large constituency of what can only be called 'race hustlers': hucksters of all colors who benefit from stoking the fires of racial conflict to secure administrative jobs, charity management positions, academic jobs and advancement, or personal political entrepreneurship.
Given the direction our history department appears to be taking far from any commitment to truth, we can regard ourselves as a formative training institution for this brand of snake-oil salespeople. Their activities are corrosive, demolishing any hope at harmonious racial coexistence in our nation and colonizing our political and institutional life. Many of their voices are unironically segregationist.
MLK would likely be called an Uncle Tom if he spoke on our campus today. We are training leaders who intend, explicitly, to destroy one of the only truly successful ethnically diverse societies in modern history. As the PRC, an ethnonationalist and aggressively racially chauvinist national polity with null immigration and no concept of jus solis increasingly presents itself as the global political alternative to the US, I ask you: Is this wise? Are we really doing the right thing?
As a final point, our university and department has made multiple statements celebrating and eulogizing George Floyd. Floyd was a multiple felon who once held a pregnant black woman at gunpoint. He broke into her home with a gang of men and pointed a gun at her pregnant stomach. He terrorized the women in his community. He sired and abandoned multiple children, playing no part in their support or upbringing, failing one of the most basic tests of decency for a human being. He was a drug-addict and sometime drug-dealer, a swindler who preyed upon his honest and hard-working neighbors.
And yet, the regents of UC and the historians of the UCB History department are celebrating this violent criminal, elevating his name to virtual sainthood. A man who hurt women. A man who hurt black women. With the full collaboration of the UCB history department, corporate America, most mainstream media outlets, and some of the wealthiest and most privileged opinion-shaping elites of the USA, he has become a culture hero, buried in a golden casket, his (recognized) family showered with gifts and praise. Americans are being socially pressured into kneeling for this violent, abusive misogynist. A generation of black men are being coerced into identifying with George Floyd, the absolute worst specimen of our race and species.
I'm ashamed of my department. I would say that I'm ashamed of both of you, but perhaps you agree with me, and are simply afraid, as I am, of the backlash of speaking the truth. It's hard to know what kneeling means, when you have to kneel to keep your job.
It shouldn't affect the strength of my argument above, but for the record, I write as a person of color. My family have been personally victimized by men like Floyd. We are aware of the condescending depredations of the Democrat party against our race. The humiliating assumption that we are too stupid to do STEM, that we need special help and lower requirements to get ahead in life, is richly familiar to us. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be easier to deal with open fascists, who at least would be straightforward in calling me a subhuman, and who are unlikely to share my race.
The ever-present soft bigotry of low expectations and the permanent claim that the solutions to the plight of my people rest exclusively on the goodwill of whites rather than on our own hard work is psychologically devastating. No other group in America is systematically demoralized in this way by its alleged allies. A whole generation of black children are being taught that only by begging and weeping and screaming will they get handouts from guilt-ridden whites.
No message will more surely devastate their futures, especially if whites run out of guilt, or indeed if America runs out of whites. If this had been done to Japanese Americans, or Jewish Americans, or Chinese Americans, then Chinatown and Japantown would surely be no different to the roughest parts of Baltimore and East St. Louis today. The History department of UCB is now an integral institutional promulgator of a destructive and denigrating fallacy about the black race.
I hope you appreciate the frustration behind this message. I do not support BLM. I do not support the Democrat grievance agenda and the Party's uncontested capture of our department. I do not support the Party co-opting my race, as Biden recently did in his disturbing interview, claiming that voting Democrat and being black are isomorphic. I condemn the manner of George Floyd's death and join you in calling for greater police accountability and police reform. However, I will not pretend that George Floyd was anything other than a violent misogynist, a brutal man who met a predictably brutal end.
I also want to protect the practice of history. Cleo is no grovelling handmaiden to politicians and corporations. Like us, she is free.
