The Study of Racialism

Dinesh D'Souza, The End of Racism (New York: Free Press, 1995)

The Book’s Thesis (in its own words, pages xiii-xiv)

In brief, The End of Racism refutes the widely shared belief that racism is the primary explanation for black failure in the United States today. I argue that the main problem faced by blacks is neither deficient IQ, as suggested in The Bell Curve, nor racial discrimination, as alleged by Jesse Jackson and other civil rights activists. Rather, the book contends that African Americans have developed a culture that was an adaptation to historical oppression but is, in several important respects, dysfunctional today. I point out that some pathologies, such as extremely high African American crime rates, have the effect of legitimizing “rational discrimination,” as occurs in the case of the white woman who crosses they street when approached by a group of young black males.

The book exposes as fatally flawed two contemporary political remedies: multiculturalism and proportional representation. I argue that such liberal programs as affirmative action have little to do with fighting racism; rather, they are aimed at camouflaging the embarrassing reality of black failure to meet merit standards of academic achievement and economic performance. One of my main conclusions is that even though we now have substantial numbers of Hispanics, Asians, and Middle Easterners in this country, racism remains primarily a black-and-white problem. Many people may not like Korean or Mexican immigrants, but there is no systematic belief today that holds these groups to be inferior. Yet four centuries after blacks were brought to this country against their will, the suspicion of black inferiority persists. This suspicion helps to keep racism alive and so hinders progress toward a race-neutral society.

Only by recognizing and confronting cultural pathology and becoming fully competitive with other groups, I argue, can African Americans discredit racism and join whites and other ethnic groups in claiming the fruits of the American dream. If the main theses of The End of Racism is true, then it follows that many of the prevailing assumptions about racism are wrong, current policies for fighting racism are counterproductive, and a new approach is required.

Dinesh D'Souza, The End of Racism (New York: Free Press, 1995)

A Challenge to OneDropRule Members

I have read this book and find it to be a useful source of information. It is not primary material, of course, but it is thoroughly footnoted. This means that you can use the footnotes to track down the raw data. It was a best seller about a decade ago, and deservedly so. It deals with racism in America today and argues that current policies, far from reducing racism, are just making things worse, especially for the African-American community.

The book is severely criticized. Because it strives to suggest ways of reducing rather than worsening U.S. racism, you would have expected the book to attract criticism from those whose goal is to aggravate current U.S. “racial” polarization. But the shrill vehemence of criticism surprised even me (the administrator of a discussion group that is vilified on the web for being Afrocentrists who want to pollute the White “race,” while simultaneously being White racists who want to lynch Blacks). For example, David Nicholson’s review in the Washington Post said of The End of Racism, “I hear the tread of heavy jackboots, faint and far away, but steadily approaching.” This hideous accusation ignores the fact that the book contains nothing even approaching fascist or totalitarian ideology—just the opposite, in fact.

This leads to what puzzles me most; the harshest critics of the book have obviously never read a word of it. Like the people that Triguy quoted, they simply invent content in order to excoriate it. Why is that? Not “why is the book criticized?” I understand that, since anything that threatens hate-mongers and professional victims will be criticized. But why do critics make things up about it? It is an easy read, after all, and reasonable diligence should polish it off in a few days.

In order to explore this book, I invite members to post their comments about the book. I ask only two things over and above The Rules. First, please cite the actual page number of whatever you are talking about. I want to restrict participation to those who at least have a copy nearby. Second, I would be especially grateful for negative comments. This is because, with one or two exceptions, I find it to be reasonable and logical, even a bit too bland and cautious. So, I would dearly love to learn why some people dislike it so much. Again, though, please do not comment without citing a specific page number.

Dinesh D'Souza, The End of Racism (New York: Free Press, 1995)

The Book’s Outline

In order to make it easy for everyone to find things that they like or dislike in the book, herewith is the book’s outline in its entirety

1. The White Man’s Burden: The Collapse of Liberal Hope
Overview of the book’s thesis. The problem of racism in America today. Why current solutions are making things worse.

• Black Rage
• White Backlash
• Liberal Despair
• The Multicultural Solution

2. Ignoble Savages: The European Origins of Racism
History, from our species’ emergence to the 16th Century

• What is Racism?
• The Unkindness of Strangers
• Ethnocentrism versus Racism
• Racism and Slavery
• Were the Ancient Greeks Racist?
• The Civilization Gap
• The Embarrassment of Primitivism
• The Collapse of Environmentalism
• Who is the Fairest One of All?
• The Nature of Superiority

3. An American Dilemma: Was Slavery a Racist Institution?
History, from the 16th century to the 19th century.

• Kunta Kinte’s Story
• Of Human Bondage
• Who Owned Black Slaves?
• Why Racism?
• The Red and the Black]
• Taking Care of Business
• The Psychic Wound of Slavery
• Out of America
• Culture of Irresponsibility
• Who Killed Slavery?
• Wisdom and Consent
• Wolf by the Ears
• The Price of Freedom

4. The Invention of Prejudice: The Rise of Liberal Antiracism
History, the Jim Crow Era.

• What’s in a Name?
• One Species or Many?
• Our Arboreal Ancestors
• The Nativists are Restless
• Fighting Racism with Relativism
• Race and Culture
• Are All Cultures Equal?
• The Racist as Barbarian

5. A Dream Deferred: Who Betrayed Martin Luther King, Jr.?
History, the 1955-1965 civil rights movement.

• Second Thoughts About King
• Racism as a Form of Hate
• The Radical Racists
• The Paternalist Solution
• Why Streetcars Opposed Segregation
• Up From Dependency
• The NAACP’s Easy Victories
• Separate and Unequal
• How King Prevailed

6. The Race Merchants: How Civil Rights Became a Profession
History, the 1965-1975 black power movement and thereafter.

• Class Divisions
• By Any Means Necessary
• Progress and Pessimism
• The Advent of Racial Preferences
• Proportional Representation
• The Advent of Busing
• The Advent of Racial Redistricting
• Civil Rights and Wrongs
• The Rights Establishment
• The New Black Bourgeoisie
• Liberal Frustration, Black Rage

7. Is America a Racist Society? The Problem of Rational Discrimination
Crime and anti-social behavior in today’s African American community.

• Accusations of Racism
• Drive-By Racists
• The Code Language of Race
• Is Racism Here to Stay?
• The Black Male Stereotype
• Media Bias?
• Why Did the Woman Cross the Street?
• Prejudices and Conclusions
• Are Stereotypes Generally Accurate?
• Discrimination by Hiring
• Discrimination in Mortgage Lending
• Discrimination in Criminal Justice

8. Institutional Racism and Double Standards: Racial Preferences and Their Consequences
The labeling of equal merit standards in business hiring and promotion as “institutional racism.”

• Merit as a Racist Concept
• The Proportional Fallacy
• Why Blacks Earn Less
• The Merit Gap
• The Attack on Testing
• Predictive Validity
• Racial Bias
• The Revival of Nepotism
• The Patronage Industry
• Adverse Impact of Preferences
• Managing Diversity
• Diversity Inc.
• Diversity and Productivity
• Fair Rules

9. Is Eurocentrism a Racist Concept? The Search for an African Shakespeare
The labeling of equal merit standards in academic grading and graduation as “eurocentrism.”

• The Politics of Self-Esteem
• Multiculturalism 101
• Did Columbus Go Too Far?
• Western Cultural Superiority
• Bogus Multiculturalism
• Swahili Math and Other Remedies
• Pride and Prejudice
• A Black Thing: You Wouldn’t Understand
• Racial Pride, Racial Chauvinism
• Doubts About Relativism

10. Bigotry in Black and White: Can African Americans be Racist?
Violent racism today (murders, beatings, etc.)

• KKK, RIP
• Rebirth of a Nation
• The Unbearable Whiteness of Being
• Bigotry and Double Standards
• Prejudice and Power
• Jews and Koreans
• The Politics of Envy
• The Man Farthest Down
• All About Melanin
• Black Aryan Nation

11. The Content of Our Chromosomes: Race and the IQ Debate
How the bogus conflation of “race” with IQ stifles serious study of the B/W achievement gap.

• White Men Can’t Run
• Rumors of Inferiority
• Not in Our Genes
• The Meaning of Race
• Heredity vs. Environment
• Transracial Adoption
• The Socioeconomic Fallacy
• The Question of Cultural Bias
• Is IQ Testing Racist?
• The Iceman Cometh
• The Cultural Alternative

12. Uncle Tom’s Dilemma: Pathologies of Black Culture
The breakdown of civilization within the African-American community.

• An Oppositional Culture
• Racism as an Excuse
• The Rage of the Privileged Class
• Government as the Big House
• It’s a White Thing: You Wouldn’t Understand
• Cult of the “Bad Nigger”
• Rap Sheets
• Unmarried, with Children
• Taking Responsibility

13. The End of Racism: A New Vision for a Multiracial Society
If current solutions are just making racism worse, what is the answer?

• Rethinking Relativism
• Rethinking Racism
• Rethinking Multiculturalism
• The End of Racism

Sigh.

You're going to force me to read this book closely.

I'm biased against D'Souza based on his other works. I see him as a right wing propagandist. I wouldn't dispute the accuracy of his data. None of the reviews I've read fault him on accuracy. It's more the broader interpretation of the data, and the world view that inspires this interpretation that many critics have attacked.

One interesting issue is the dispute that EOR started with the openly racialist white intellectuals like Jared Taylor, with Taylor accusing D'Souza of plagiarism, and forcing D'Souza to make a few changes in the second edition of the book.

I'm inclined to say that I want nothing to do with anything that resembles Jared Taylor's books. I would sooner bed down with a cottonmouth than associate myself with Taylor's work. Still, even venomous snakes have their uses.

I'm trying to find econ prof Glenn Loury's critical review of the book. No luck yet.


http://www.dineshdsouza.com/books/endracism-intro.html


http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript225.html


http://www.amren.com/9511issue/9511issue.html#article1

Does Dinesh address the different social classes of Afro-American differently? Because their experiences are different. If you are doing the right thing morally and culturally, but you are still seen in a negative light because of another community, the problem is much harder to overcome.

In Introduction to Science-As-Process I explain that scientific reports comprise (1) findings or raw data and (2) conclusions or hypotheses. And I stress the importance of distinguishing between them. Findings are usually reliable in peer-reviewed work. Conclusions are always suspect, no matter who writes them.

But this is a political polemic, not a scientific report. Political polemics contain a third facet: (3) recommendations, deriving from conclusions. And, just as a scientific report's conclusions might not be supported by its own findings, a political polemic's recommendations might also not be supported by its own conclusions.

With that in mind, perhaps it might be useful for comments to distinguish among all three. Even before reading the book, just from knowing that it is a political polemic, you can anticipate that its findings are likely to be accurate (although perhaps cherry-picked), its conclusions might be unsupported by its findings (just like those of a scientific report), and as a third category unique to polemics, its recommendations might be unsupported by its conclusions. Keeping this in mind might make commenting easier.

If memory serves, he presents African-American archetypes and attributes different kinds of behavioral patterns to them. I have to look at the book again to list them here. The labels he affixes to some of these archetypes are outdated and considered offensive.

D’Souza’s main theme in the book, as I saw it, was that the black community in general was socially and culturally dysfunctional and this dysfunction has its genesis in behavioral patterns established during slavery. These patterns are the main obstacle to black achievement and not the racist behavior of whites. He also makes the argument that negative responses to the presence of blacks by whites and others, though lamentable, are understandable and “rational” (?) because of the very real social pathologies that some members of the black community exhibit.

I liked the first half of the book because it deals with the rise of racism in Europe and proto-racism in non-European cultures. He sees racism as an outgrowth of the Enlightenment. I believe I linked on this board to a site that posted an article by D’Souza about the origin of racism based on the first part of his book. In any case, I disagree, though, with what I see as his assessment that African American culture-as opposed to segments of the African-American population-is dysfunctional. I believe this was Glen Loury and Robert Woodson’s main problem with the book.

I’d be interested in reading what Taylor found inaccurate about D’Souza’s description of American Renaissance’s conferences, as well as Taylor and the rest of his cohorts . Having visited the site when I’m not at work, much of what he wrote about them seems to be accurate.

I am not sure how to answer this, since the book does not really try to describe African-American ethnic traits, much less how they vary by socioeconomic class (or age bracket, or region, etc.).

Obviously, my take on the book is affected by my own interests and experiences. With that in mind, here is what I think it is all about:

The past 25 years or so have seen a dramatic rightward shift in U.S. politics. This is evidenced by: (1) Spiraling inequality, now worse than that of any other Western industrialized nation. (2) A return to gilded age trigger-happy foreign policy based on military power. (3) Urban inner-city environments now approaching quality-of-life levels not seen in the West since medieval times. (4) The destruction of scientific research by political coercion. And (5) a steady erosion of the lot of African-Americans, including worsening segregation, income inequality, family net worth inequality, job inequality, lending inequality, criminal justice system inequality, etc.). In short, we have a problem that is quickly reducing the nation to impotent third-world status (do not be deceived by apparent technological superiority—technology springs from science with a 20-year lag and our government is killing U.S. science right now).

Many scholars see item 5 as merely one of the consequences of the rightward shift, but they then fail to explain the causes of the rightward shift itself. But, starting with Thomas Byrne Edsall and Mary D. Edsall, Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights and Taxes on American Politics (New York: Norton, 1991), increasing numbers of scholars are seeing cause and effect the other way around. Their thesis goes like this:

Starting with the violent Black Power movement of 1965-75, non-Black Americans became increasingly disgusted by what they saw as Black behavior. The non-Black fear/hatred of Blacks began when the Democratic Party abandoned their own blue-collar loyalists (who had fought and bled for the Party for generations) and turned the reins over to Black politicians who promptly cut the blue collars out of the decision-making loop. It worsened when race-based entitlements were instituted. The intent was to siphon tax money to people endorsed by Black politicians, in order to make up for slavery and Jim Crow. But the unintended consequence was to create an anti-Black backlash that has yet to peak, much less play itself out.

Non-Black revulsion with the racism and injustice of race-based entitlements spawned a search for leaders who would stop giving away their taxes to drug-pushers, thugs, and unwed mothers. The only politicians willing to consider this were conservatives. So the public voted for conservative leaders and their programs. As it turns out, conservatives have other goals beyond killing race-based entitlements. As so, items 1-4 got dragged along as an unintended result of the non-Black backlash that elected conservatives.

The response of liberals has been to become increasingly shrill in accusing everyone but Blacks of racism and to demand even more tax dollars siphoned from non-Blacks to Blacks (through race-based entitlements). The response of Blacks has been to create a socio-political ideology of victimization: everything bad is due to non-Black racism, and black thugs must not be held accountable because they are victims too. Although some non-Blacks continue to respond reflexively to such accusations, increasing numbers are fed up with Blacks and so vote for conservatives as soon as they realize that liberals are going to take away even more of their money in giveaways than wars do. Consequently, every measure of racism shows that non-Blacks are becoming increasingly hostile towards Blacks.

So much for the current thesis.

The central point of the book is to show that anti-Black hostility continues to worsen because fewer and fewer non-Blacks can be made to feel guilty about the distant past while more and more resent their money going to support Black criminals (again, through race-based entitlements).

The first half of D'Souza's book narrates pre-20th-century history. But this is merely a prelude. The rest of the book details step-by-step when, where, and how things went wrong starting around 1975, leading to worsening anti-Black hostility today. Only 30 pages of the 724-page book proposes recommendations for reversing, or at least stopping, or at the very least slowing, the current trend of increasing hostility that seems to be moving towards another Jim Crow era.

From the reviews that I have read, most people seem to approach the book seeking to learn whom D'Souza blames for the current ongoing plunge into the abyss. In my humble opinion, such a search for blame-laying is stupid beyond expression. D'Souza reveals that the ship of state is sinking. Non-Blacks say, "only the Black end of the ship is sinking." Blacks say, "yes, but it is the collective fault of non-blacks." Stupid.

I will check the book out from the library this weekend. I refuse to spend one red cent in support of D'Souza but I will give him a fair shot.

A larger question that I have is this: Has there ever been a time in American history when Blacks, collectively, were actually given a fair shot in the mainstream culture (whether regional or national)? This resentment of non-Blacks seems perpetual to me rather than an outgrowth of the Black Power movement or affirmative action. Am I wrong to say that, for some conservative and/or Southern Whites, the Civil Rights Act itself was a race-based entitlement that they wanted no part in supporting?

Looking back, I see two waves of acute resentment that follow federal legislation intended to re-balance the playing field: The white supremacy renaissance/Jim Crow period following Reconstruction, and the rise of conservatism and resentment towards Blacks (near hatred for some) after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.

If the answer to my question is "no," then it would take much to convince me that there are any circumstances under which non-Black Americans would cede social power to Blacks and not begrudge them their earned successes. If the answer is "yes," I would want to know under what conditions and seek to re-create them where feasible.

The short answer is, "no, there never was such a time." The long answer is that ratio of Black-to-White wealth in British North America peaked in 1666 at 61 percent. Today it is at 12.6 percent and it has been steadily falling since the post-Jim Crow peak of 15.4 percent in 1980. For a description of the colonial Chesapeake, check out The Invention of the Color Line: 1691. British North America back then was similar to Latin America today. Some colorism, lots of routine intermarriage, but no color line.


The short answer is, "no, you are not wrong." The long answer is that the flaw in D'Souza's thesis is that it minutely examines the causes of the latest crash in a cyclical process that has been going on since Jamestown,


In the scale of centuries, I see those as one wave. There were similar waves of hatred and resentment leading to violence around the turn of the 18th century, the turn of the 19th century, and the turn of the 20th century.


The short answer is still "no." The long answer is, "how selfish are you?" There is evidence that Americans are becoming aware that they are multiracial now, and becoming even more multiracial as a result. Hence, the color line is becoming more aligned with socioeconomic class and phenotype and less aligned with who your grandmother was (to steal Caribj's phrasing). It seems possible that things will get worse and worse for fewer and fewer citizens--the poorest, the dumbest, and the darkest--while the middle-class, educated, and medium-brown will be accepted as White. Obviously this just makes things worse for those left out. That is why I said that the long answer depends upon how selfish you are.

http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Iss ... _005__.htm

D'Souza's origin of race argument can be found here.

You mean "origin of racism" not "origin of race."

That's what I was referring to...Thank you.

I just read this article in its entirety. I realize that it is dated (and would suggest keeping a copy of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel for a much needed sanity check while plowing through D'Souza's rhetoric), but I can see that getting through the book is going to be a struggle. D'Souza writes his explanation for the origins of racism (which I accept) as a starstruck fan of the folks who created it, with no recognition that they were extremely ignorant. How can one exhalt the "rationality" of Hume and Kant in 2001, when modern science had long debunked their boneheaded contentions about Africans/blacks on one hand and portray the equally boneheaded beliefs of pre-modern Africans as eternally "irrational" on the other? Sorry, as a modern person, I don't believe anyone searching for people with tails or fountains of youth is rational in the least. Maybe the were during their lifetimes, but not now.

Now I am very comfortable with the conclusion that people rationalize their reality and draw conclusions that make sense to them to the best of their ability. There are obvious differences in the quality of historical conclusions drawn when considered with modern eyes (and armed with modern science). The trap D'Souza sets for the reader is his portrayal of ignorant Europeans as rational and ignorant Africans as irrational due to technological and cultural differences.

I don't like it. I don't like it one bit. But I'll still read the damned book.

I have seen D'Souza speak live once and once on C-Span he is 100% convinced Western Culture as developed out of the Enlightenment is the best thing since sliced bread.

He is specifically 100% sold on America being near utopia. He was a HUGE fan of Reagan, who was Prez while he was in college.

Hell his wife is a blond named Dixy if that gives you any clue... He has bias like everyone else.

This thread is about a book, not about a man.

Yet he wrote the book.

Ultimately, this is Gordon's call, not mine. But IMHO, if you and DH want to discuss the personality of a celebrity who happened to write a book, you should do it in Tyrone's "Popular People" forum. This forum is intended for discussion of the books themselves. Furthermore, even if Gordon were to allow a personality thread in this forum, I would ask that it be a new thead titled "D'Souza's personality" or some such thing. I started this thread intending a book discussion among those who have read the book.

In another post,
I just realized that there might have been something between the lines in Maya's question that I missed. Between the lines, Maya may have also been asking, "If anti-Black hostility by non-Blacks is a long-standing problem going back centuries, then why should we even bother to study the current wave and try to stop (or at least mitigate) it?"

This reminds me of the global warming debate: "Since it is possible that global warming is a "natural" phenomenon, why should we try to do anything about it?"

In both cases, the one-word answer is: "survival."

Just quickly reading document on the link that Dragon Horse presented, there seem to be a lot of simplifications and logistical errors in this man's arguments.

A primary example:

"Nothing could be more ridiculous than to imagine such leading figures as David Hume or Immanuel Kant cowed and blinded by simple superstitious fright. They weren’t “threatened” by blacks."

He assumes that the emotion of fear that drives racism is a simple fear of different looking people. It's not. It's a very complicated internal fear. The fear of failure, of loss of control, of being oppressed, and of the risk involved in thinking outside of their comfort zones. Hume and Kant were not afraid people on the outside, they were afraid of the person on the inside. It originates from the inside out not the outside in.