Wyndham Lewis, Paleface: The Philosophy of the Melting Pot, Antelope Hill, 2024 (first published 1929)
Little remembered today, Wyndham Lewis (1882–1957) was an influential British painter, writer, and critic who still fascinates cultural historians. He developed a style of painting known as “Vorticism,” an attempt to combine cubism and futurism. His career was interrupted by the First World War, most of which he spent as an artillery officer. During the interwar years, he turned increasingly to writing satirical novels and stories as well as literary and cultural criticism.
Paleface was written in the late 1920s, near the end of the time when white men could freely express their views on race. A great variety of ideas were in circulation, including an early form of the “antiracism” that now strangles Western civilization. Debate was uninhibited and lively, and disagreement no cause for calling down curses on anyone. This alone makes revisiting those days a breath of fresh air.
Lewis was no scientific authority on race, and he was less concerned with racial differences as such than with the thinking of certain fashionable writers of his time. Having a strong satirical bent and no patience for any sort of sentimentality, Lewis was deeply suspicious of romantic primitivism or enthusiasm for the supposedly more authentic or natural ways of foreign races. He saw this in a then-recent piece of travel writing by D. H. Lawrence, Mornings in Mexico (1927). Lewis quotes from the work, mixing in his own commentary:
“The commonest entertainment among the Indians is singing round the drum, at evening.” There are fishermen in the Outer Hebrides, [Lawrence] says, who do something of this sort, “approaching the Indian way,” but of course, being mere Whites, they do not reach or equal it. Still, the Outer Hebrideans do succeed in suggesting to Mr. Lawrence a realm inhabited by “beasts that . . . stare through . . . vivid, mindless eyes.” They do manage to become mindless: though not so mindless as the Indian, therefore inferior. . . . The Hebridean still sees himself human, and outside the great naturalistic influences.
The important thing to note is the insistence upon mindlessness as an essential quality of what is admirable. The Hebridean is not to be admired so much as the Mexican Indian because he still deals in “conceptual”, “pictorial” things; whereas the Mexican Indian is purely emotional. . . . “Face lifted and sightless, eyes half closed and visionless, mouth open and speechless, the sounds arise in his chest, from the consciousness in the abdomen.” A “consciousness in the abdomen” or a visceral consciousness is what we commonly should call unconsciousness. [It] removes the vital center into the viscera and takes the privilege of leadership away from the hated mind or intellect, established up above in the head.
Lawrence’s admiration for the Indian is bound up with his deprecation not merely of reason, speech, and image, but even of human individuality. Describing an Indian returning from the hunt, he writes:
But the man coming home from the bear hunt is any man, all men, the bear is any bear, every bear, all bear. There is no individual, isolated experience. It is the hunting . . . demon of manhood which has won against the . . . demon of all bears. The experience is generic, non-individual.
Lewis notes the similarity between Lawrence’s romantic primitivism and the collectivism in this passage from a Bolshevik tract:
It is only by such external functions as the millions have in common, their uniform and simultaneous movements, that the many can be united in a higher unity: marching, keeping in step, shouting “hurrah” in unison, festal singing in chorus, united attacks on the enemy, these are the manifestations of life which are to give birth to the new and superior type of humanity. Everything that divides the many from each other, that fosters the illusion of the individual importance of man, especially the “soul,” hinders this higher evolution and must consequently be destroyed.
The “higher evolution” of the communist is hard to distinguish from Lawrence’s Indian:
The Indian song is non-individual. . . . It is an experience of the human blood stream, not of the mind or spirit. Hence the subtle incessant, insistent rhythm of the drum, which is pulsated like the heart, and soulless, and inescapable. Hence the strange blind unanimity of the . . . men’s voices. . . . It is the dark blood falling back from the mind, from sight and speech and knowing, back to the great central source where is rest and unspeakable renewal.
Lawrence notes that “the Indian way of consciousness is different from and fatal to our way of consciousness,” while “our way of consciousness is different from and fatal to the Indian.” One wonders how he managed to acquire his grasp of the metaphysics of Indian drumming, still more to communicate it to his presumably white reader, but no doubt that serves only to make his achievement all the more impressive.
Speaking for himself, Lewis writes:
I find the average White European often exceedingly ridiculous, no doubt, but much more interesting than the average Hopi or the average Negro. I would rather have the least man that thinks, than the average man that squats and drums and drums, with sightless, soulless eyes; I would rather have an ounce of human consciousness than a universe full of abdominal afflatus.
Lewis’s other major example of romantic primitivism is the American writer Sherwood Anderson, whose exemplary child of nature is the American black. “In any book of his that you pick up you will find, wherever Negroes occur, that they are used to score off the White . . . to take the White down a peg or two.” His is a message of “Black and White brotherhood, or rather of Black worship, and religious submission to the Black idea, as being a more primitive one than the white.”
Anderson’s most successful novel was Dark Laughter (1925). It is:
the story of a journalist who, having escaped from his wife in Chicago, gets employment in a small town in the South. He finds his employer’s wife attractive. She returns his love. She advertises for a gardener. He takes on the job. After what seems a very long time to the Negro woman watching from the kitchen, wife and hired man go up to the bedroom during [the husband’s] absence, and the “deed of darkness” is at last consummated.
The “dark laughter” of the title is the black servants’ laughter at how long it took the two whites to get down to business. The hero comes to share the black point of view, telling himself that he ought to “make less fuss, think about things less, act.”
Dark Laughter contains a passage in which a group of blacks lose their individuality: “The bodies of all the men running up and down the landing-stage were one body. One could not be distinguished from the other. Could the bodies of people be so lost in each other?”
Lewis finds Anderson’s romantic primitivism most plainly in his short story “I Want to Know Why,” which deals with a sixteen-year-old boy and three friends who run away from home to the horse races.
We got into Saratoga at night and went to the track. Bildad [a Negro] fed us up. He showed us a place to sleep in hay over a shed and promised to keep still. Niggers are all right about things like that. They won’t squeal on you. Often a white man you might meet, when you had run away from home like that, might appear to be alright, and give you a quarter of half dollar or something, and then go and give you away. White men will do that, but not a nigger. You can trust them. They are square with kids.
Lewis’s commentary:
Ah, the good kind nigger! Would that those hard unsympathetic White men were as good to kids as that! Give me a nigger every time — if you’re a little innocent kid (as I am for the moment, in misty-eyed memory) breaking the hard, cruel, White law, which forbids you to run away from home, and which imposes its disgusting White discipline on you. Ah, if the White Mommer and Pop only could understand! As the nigger understands! The child is a thing that requires understanding. He is a wild, Rousseauvian thing, a fragment of wild nature. He hates discipline! He wants to run wild! The nigger is nearer to nature: he understands the child. Up, the Nigger! Down, the White Momma! And especially, down the White Papa!”
Lewis suggests that Bildad may have been happy to help “the insurrectionary kid against his family” because he is “rather glad to cause a little anxiety and discomfort to the Adult white. All Bildads must have some sympathy with revolt in any form.”
Lewis acknowledges that:
the order of the White world was far from perfect, but it was nevertheless a form of order that should not utterly be allowed to decay. Discipline is the enemy of the ‘good time,’ certainly, whether it is discipline in a family, army, school, or state: but no good time ever was secured for very long by a studied neglect of disciplines.
Lewis characterizes this principle as one of the “elementary, universal, homely truths from which there is no escape . . . the first conditions of organization or ‘mind,’ as opposed to chaos or ‘sensation.’”
Sometimes, Paleface shifts to the white man himself. Lewis was no enthusiast for white rule over the colored races; at one point he speculates wistfully on how history might have been different if our ancestors had never bothered with exploration:
If the White world had kept more to itself and interfered less with other people, it would have remained politically intact, and no one would have molested it; the Negro would still be squatting outside a mud-hut on the banks of the Niger, the Delaware would still be chasing the buffalo.
But the great European expansion occurred, and we have no choice but to confront the resulting entanglements and resentments. As might be expected of a veteran of the Great War, Lewis saw European petty nationalism as one of the white man’s greatest weaknesses:
[A] Swiss peasant woman is in character and physical appearance often so identical with a Swedish, English, German, or French girl, that they might be twin sisters. It has always been fratricidal that these people should be taught to disembowel, blind and poison each other on the score of their quite imaginary “differences” of blood and mind, but today there is less excuse for it than ever before.
Lewis was American on his father’s side and free of the anti-American prejudices common to Europeans of his time. He saw America as a “melting pot” of European nationalities (and excluding non-whites). He thought the American race problem would be a warning for Europeans:
For what our White skin is worth, it is in America that its destinies are today most clearly foreshadowed: the essential universality of the problems provided for the Palefaces of America by the Indian factor in Latin America, by the Negro in North America and the West Indies, and by the proximity of Asia to the western shores of the United States, makes their attitude in face of them of some moment to Europeans. And though there is no White man’s burden in Europe at present, the isolation of Europe is rather artificial.
Lewis hoped for the eventual unity of European nations: “So why not a melting pot, instead of more and more intensive discouragement of such a fusion? Europe is not so very large: why should it not have one speech like China and acquire one government?”
Wyndham Lewis’s death in 1957 saved him from learning that his hoped-for European unity, when it arrived, was the triumph of every romantic racial notion he despised, and would be the replacement of “palefaces” by the dusky hoards glorified by Lawrence and Anderson.
Thanks for this article. This ancient author, Lewis, seems very interesting.
All this madness stems from Rousseau’s myth of the bon sauvage.
It is primitivism, regression to the inferior.
The gangrene in the domain of ideas goes back a long way.
Lewis would have have a lot of fun with you guys too. He was among approximately 15 billion people who pointed out DH Lawrence had a dumbass philosophy. And in Count Your Dead, his geopolitics was more sophisticated than you can conceive, even when exaggerated for dramatic effect.
He didn’t waste all his time fixating on race, so he’s not on your side.
Why don’t you have the courage to take a surname, even symbolic ? Like bitter non-white or Flying Pyramid ?
> Lewis notes the similarity between Lawrence’s romantic primitivism and the collectivism in this passage from a Bolshevik tract:
The statement in question did not come “from a Bolshevik tract.” It came from Rene Fulop-Miller in a book entitled The Mind and Face of Bolshevism. It’s an example of Lewis’s own childish ideological rants that he characterizes Fulop-Miller as “the latest European advocate of Bolshevism”:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Enemy/mYT5VBGthxQC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22It+is+only+by+such+external+functions+as+the+millions+have+in+common%22&pg=PA52&printsec=frontcover
In reality, Fulop-Miller charges that:
“Bolshevism aims at more than the confiscation of private property: it is trying to confiscate human dignity in order ultimately to turn all free reasonable beings into a horde of will-less slaves.”
— Fulop-Miller, p. 284.
So, not only is Lewis totally wrong in his characterization of Fulop-Miller, but there is no evidence of any authentic Soviet source ever describing the USSR in the way that Fulop-Miller does.
That there was ever a time when one could speak freely about race seems mythical. But it isn’t a myth. There was such a tme.
The age in which we live now might be called the ‘Eleanor Roosevelt Era,’ the Negrolaty Age. Any suvivor of the pre-Eleanor age—anyone older than, say, 60—should constantly remind himself that almost everyone he knows is a child of the Eleanor age.
American youth, anno 2024: “You’re over 60? You’re a dinosaur. You don’t understand anything. You’re dangerous!”
In his time Lawrence was a woman magnet. Women responded passionately to his call for moving our center-of-being from the cranium to the viscera.
The other day Anglin opined that the focus of a man’s life should not be women, but his work.
True?
Because fuck you with your dago name, dragoslav. All the krauts want to exterminate you fags.
He saw America as a “melting pot” of European nationalities (and excluding non-whites).
Before WWII maybe, but afterwards his view was rather different. See his America and Cosmic Man
As to Negro and white, that situation at present approaches a
bitter climax. If anyone believes that this huge population of
Africans is going to remain as it is, an insoluble black lump, they
will fairly soon be undeceived. The Negroes of the United States
cannot be shipped out, as once they were shipped in, nor do
even the most hostile suggest that. But they cannot remain
there and continue to be treated as animals, whom you could
no more marry than you could mate with a baboon.
That dark lump will melt, spread out, and color the entire
human contents of the States, until “American” will mean
somebody with that dusky intermixture. As the traditional
social supremacy of the “Nordic” dies out (and the instability
of American family-wealth and the violence of economic
change accelerate the disappearance of this social advantage)
all the other race-barriers will rapidly dissolve.
Devlin’s piece is somewhat weak. He says that “Paleface” was “written in the late 1920s, near the end of the time when white men could freely express their views on race.” This is nonsensical as even a middle school kid can tell. In the 1930s on into the 1970s there was no end of white people freely “expressing their views on race.” The KKK for example after a high point in the 1920s still had millions of sympathizers and hundreds of thousands of members in 1930. Black folk would be scratching their heads at these mysterious white people who were “muzzled” after 1929. Really?
.
Devlin also says “Debate was uninhibited and lively, and disagreement no cause for calling down curses on anyone. This alone makes revisiting those days a breath of fresh air.” What a crock of nonsense. The opposite was true actually, and many black people in the South who dared to candidly express their views on race, were marked for harassment, as bulging case files from state courts, the US Attorney General and even Supreme Court archives show, not to mention the on the ground testimony and experiences of thousands of blacks. Devlin is profoundly ignorant of even elementary US history.
.
Devlin quotes Lewis: “If the White world had kept more to itself and interfered less with other people, it would have remained politically intact, and no one would have molested it..”
The only thing wrong with this notion is that before the white expansion of the colonial era white people were busy killing one another with relish. I mean what’s several million white people killed here and there as in let’s see: The Hundred Years War? The Thirty Years War? And a whole lot more of “in house” massacres and wars during this “intact” period of supposed white sweetness and light..
.
And Lewis is quoted as condemning the petty nationalism of white people:
“It has always been fratricidal that these people should be taught to disembowel, blind and poison each other on the score of their quite imaginary “differences” of blood and mind, but today there is less excuse for it than ever before.”
Ironically, this sounds is part like arguments white liberals used and use to get white people to cease and desist and conduct themselves more ethically and rationally. Is it necessary for example, for white people to turn out in mobs of thousands to burn and destroy because 1 “colored” veteran buys a house in a “white” neighborhood as happened frequently in the 1950s, a time when white people were supposedly “muzzled” from expressing deyselves?
.
Devlin then makes the following dubious statement:
“Wyndham Lewis’s death in 1957 saved him from learning that his hoped-for European unity, when it arrived, was the triumph of every romantic racial notion he despised, and would be the replacement of “palefaces” by the dusky hoards glorified by Lawrence and Anderson.”
Actually the European Union” is not the product of “romantic racial notions.” It was the product of white chastisement and disappointment that they had spent 6 years, killing each other to the tune of about 50 millions white bodies in Europe. They realized that white culture, perhaps even white evolutionary lineages selected for violence, had brought the devastation upon themselves. And that’s not even accounting for the tens of millions of white people wiped out of existence by other white people BEFORE the devastation of WW2, by smiling white “role model” Joe Stalin. The European Union was supposed to put an end to white self-destruction. But then a jarring note. White people were not reproducing themselves fast enough, a pattern that continues today in white culture’s open allowances for easy divorce, homosexuality and transgenderism.
Lewis would not be spinning in his grave because of any “dusky hordes.” It’s the “paleface hordes” killing themselves off and, with typical white self-indulgence, not replacing themselves that are the problem.
Their membershp rolls collapsed after their leader in Indiana was convicted in 1925 of raping and murdering a white woman. That was not what they had signed up for! The 1920s Klan was mostly a money-making scam anyway, robes-for-rubes:
https://qz.com/806978/the-kkk-was-once-a-giant-pyramid-scheme-exploiting-racism-for-tons-of-money
“approximately 15 billion people who pointed out DH Lawrence had a dumbass philosophy.”
DH Lawrence didn’t have a philosophy strictly speaking, and he certainly didn’t need one. He was a poet, not a philosopher, and poets are not known for the coherence of their thought. Hell, Lawrence wasn’t even a novelist, not really.
But damn he was one hell of a poet. You should read him some time.