It’s All About The…White Male Ego

by John Hawkins | April 28, 2003 11:59 pm

It’s All About The…White Male Ego: You know, I’ve seen a lot of whacked out theories from leftists that supposedly explain what the war in Iraq is “really about[1]“…

The theories range from the ever popular, “war for oil”, & “revenge for Saddam’s attempt to Assassinate Bush 41”, to “colonialism”, “protecting Israel”, to a “war against Islam”, to even far out stuff like, “weapons testing” & capturing a “Stargate”. But somehow Norman Mailer’s theory[2] that it’s all about “boost(ing) the white male ego” strikes me as bizarre as any of them. I mean it’s one thing to be some kook claiming that we want to get hold of alien technology. But, on the other hand, to be someone like Norman Mailer who is respected on the left writing this sort of inane gibberish in a newspaper editorial somehow strikes me as just plain old strange. Just read some of this bunkum…

“With their dominance in sport, at work and at home eroded, Bush thought white American men needed to know they were still good at something. That’s where Iraq came in…

…There were, however, even better reasons for using our military skills, but these reasons return us to the ongoing malaise of the white American male. He had been taking a daily drubbing over the past 30 years. For better or worse, the women’s movement had its breakthrough successes and the old, easy white male ego had withered in the glare. Even the mighty consolations of rooting for your team on TV had been skewed. There was now less reward in watching sports than there used to be, a clear and declarable loss. The great white stars of yesteryear were for the most part gone, gone in football, in basketball, in boxing, and half-gone in baseball. Black genius now prevailed in all these sports (and the Hispanics were coming up fast; even the Asians were beginning to make their mark). We white men were now left with half of tennis (at least its male half), and might also point to ice-hockey, skiing, soccer, golf, (with the notable exception of the Tiger) as well as lacrosse, swimming, and the World-Wide Wrestling Federation – remnants and orts of a once-great and glorious centrality.

On the other hand, the good white American male still had the Armed Forces. If blacks and Hispanics were numerous there, still they were not a majority, and the officer corps, (if the TV was a reliable witness), suggested that the percentage of white men increased as one rose in rank to the higher officers. Moreover, we had knock-out tank echelons, Super-Marines, and-one magical ace in the hole – the best air force that ever existed. If we cannot find our machismo anywhere else, we can certainly settle in on the interface between combat and technology. Let me then advance the offensive suggestion that this may have been one of the cardinal reasons we went looking for war.”

So we went to war with Iraq to counteract feminism and success of black athletes in professional sports? This is so ludicrous and off-the-wall that you almost wonder if Mailer wrote this column on a bet. I’m amazed that even someone as out of it as Mailer could write something this silly and I’m even more surprised that the Times Online[3] published it.

I know, I know, “you’re not refuting what he said!!!” It’s almost like being asked to counter the argument that the moon is made of green cheese. Is it really necessary? I mean, do I have to point out that there’s no evidence to support this theory, that we’re in a war against terrorism and Saddam was the leader of a terrorist supporting nation, & that many white males didn’t support the war in Iraq (Mailer included)? Come on, even the lefties out there have to admit that this is just silly…

  1. really about:
  2. Norman Mailer’s theory:,,482-662789,00.html
  3. Times Online:,,482-662789,00.html

Source URL: