The Verdict and its Consequences
O.J. Simpson is free and
blacks are jubilant.
Whites are sadder . . .
by Jared Taylor
On the day of the
verdict, the AR office received the following message from a main-stream
conservative who is not a subscriber: "Today I moved a little further to
the right. Tomorrow I will go shopping for a good rifle and a good handgun.
Never before have I felt so alienated from blacks or so doubtful of their
ability ever to participate as equals in our society." This man, like so
many others, was chilled at the sight of blacks celebrating the acquittal
of the man who killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Television captured some of the festivities. At Howard University Law
School, black future lawyers staged an impromptu Mardi Gras, howling and
whooping like drunks. At Morehouse College in Atlanta, also "historically
black," hundreds of students gathered to watch the verdict on television.
At the words "not guilty" the room erupted in cheers that lasted five
In New York City, five or six teen-aged girls walked onto a subway car,
chanting "not guilty, not guilty." As they got off, one turned to the whites
and said, "Now he's free and will assassinate someone else." In St. Louis,
as many as 30 black high school students celebrated the verdict by beating
and kicking a white student and shouting "black power."
If any of these celebrants had joined the ten blacks, two whites, and
one Hispanic on the jury, they would have voted the same way. They would
have ignored the evidence and voted to free a man who killed two whites.
If the verdict had gone the other way, there would have been riots. Los
Angeles gangs tried to rule out any doubt about this when they covered
walls with the message "O.J., you owe us your life." They claimed that
it was fear of their violent reaction that made the jury ignore the evidence
and acquit Mr. Simpson.
The Fatal Mistake
Of course the prosecution made mistakes, as everyone keeps pointing
out. But the fatal mistake was to let so many blacks on the jury. Prosecutor
Marcia Clark and her black assistant, Christopher Darden, were no doubt
convinced they were going to vindicate the good name of blacks and the
integrity of the jury system when they declined to dismiss blacks. They
left ten peremptory challenges unused. One of the jurors they let slip
through, the man who gave Mr. Simpson the black power salute after the
verdict, was a former black panther.
It is not the legal
system that failed. It is multi-racialism that failed.
Miss Clark is not likely to make that mistake again. "[A] majority black
jury won't convict in a case like this," she now says; "They won't bring
justice." For Mr. Darden, there is no consolation. He is a decent man,
who knew Mr. Simpson was guilty, and who believed that black jurors could
be fair jurors. He has been called every possible variant of "Uncle Tom,"
and received so many death threats he hired body guards. At a post-verdict
press conference, he left the podium in mid-sentence and doubled over,
This is hardly the first time blacks have shown that race solidarity,
even "pay-back," is so paramount in their minds that evidence and justice
are distant concerns. Many AR readers confidently predicted precisely
the outcome that shocked the millions of whites who believe what the media
tell them to believe. Fortunately, that number has now grown appreciably
One reader reports that on his New England college campus whites were
staggered by the news. Since this was an (ex-) wife-killing, women have
been especially shocked to see a murderer go free. White women, God bless
their gentle hearts, are ordinarily the last to understand the significance
of race. They are awakening to it as never before.
Heretofore, it was only prosecutors who knew that blacks often refuse
to convict other blacks. It was only racialists who knew that for most
blacks race comes first. For the rest of white America, no better education
could have been arranged than the trial of Orenthal James Simpson. No legal
case has ever had such publicity. Never have so many people thanks to
television had as good a look at the evidence as the jury itself.
The verdict and its aftermath show what so many whites refuse to understand:
that blacks and whites can look at the same thing but see something completely
different, that whites and blacks live in different worlds, separated by
an unbridegable chasm. The verdict and the celebrations were a nakedly
anti-white message that even the most dewy-eyed could not fail to understand.
Mr. Simpson faces wrongful-death civil suits brought by the families
of the two victims. The parents of Ronald Goldman have vowed not to settle.
They say they will force Mr. Simpson to testify and we hope they will.
Another well-publicized trial this time in Santa Monica, where jurors
are likely to be white will only remind the country of the racial lesson
it is so reluctant to learn.
Although the generic media are filled with pious editorials about how
"the legal system failed," and whether "reforms" are needed, it is no longer
just a handful of whites who now understand what the verdict really means:
that multi-racialism has failed.
BACK TO TOP
The End of Racism?
An attack on racism that
is really a defense.
reviewed by Thomas Jackson
preface to The End of Racism, Dinesh D'Souza writes that he wrote
the book to "enable the crusade against racism to recover the moral high
ground it has lost." This is a curious claim for someone who then attacks
virtually every assumption that underlies current racial orthodoxy. In
the end, Mr. D'Souza does the obligatory double back flip and affirms the
dogmas he has discredited, but the book is so consistently inegalitarian
it could be the basis for a segregationist manifesto.
Mr. D'Souza's central thesis is one of those obvious truths that throw
liberals into a frenzy: that "racism" cannot possibly account for all the
woes of blacks. Mr. D'Souza devotes many workman-like pages to this proposition
and to a swarm of corollaries: That compensatory programs based on combating
"racism" will fail; that if white "racism" disappeared overnight little
would change; that black "race merchants" need underclass degeneracy because
it keeps whites feeling guilty; that affirmative action and "civil rights"
are largely shake-downs; that it is rational for whites to fear and avoid
blacks; and that even white liberals are beginning to give up on integration
and equality. These things are worth saying and not said often enough,
but this is well-plowed ground.
Dat Ol' Debil
Rather more interesting are Mr. D'Souza's arguments designed to show
that whites, far from being the cancer of the planet, have been quite decent
chaps. His account of slavery makes this point very clearly. He notes that
virtually all peoples have practiced slavery, and that what makes whites
unique is that they voluntarily abolished it. In the 19th century,
when France and Britain outlawed the practice in their territories, African
chiefs who had grown fat on the slave trade sent protest delegations to
Paris and London. As Mr. D'Souza explains, Africans never developed a principled
opposition to slavery; they denounced it when they were slaves but practiced
it happily when they could. Slavery can still be found in Africa.
slavery in the United States quite the starkly one-sided business it is
usually said to be. Blacks owned black slaves from as early as the 1640s,
and some authorities credit a black man with first establishing perpetual
servitude in the colonies. By 1830, some 3,500 free blacks in the South
owned approximately 10,000 slaves. Most owned only a few, and some bought
their spouses out of slavery and thus were technically their owners, but
some blacks ran large plantations with dozens of slaves. They branded their
property, advertised for runaways, and broke up families. William Ellison,
a black South Carolina planter, was known to keep the worst fed, worst
clothed slaves in the area. Black planters welcomed secession and supported
As Mr. D'Souza points out, whites did not reserve slavery only for blacks.
They first tried it out on Indians, but Indians could not be made to do
farm work, and many escaped. Also, it was awkward to take slaves from nearby
tribes that might send out rescue and revenge parties.
Of course, American Indians enslaved each other long before Columbus, and
once blacks were made available to them, the Choctaws, Chickasaws, Cherokees,
Creeks and Seminoles all become enthusiastic slave owners. Cherokees were
good trackers and hired themselves out as slave-catchers, but had a reputation
for killing slaves when they caught them.
Slavery is usually portrayed as constant torment, but Mr. D'Souza finds
that "slaves were, in material terms of diet, health, and shelter, slightly
better off than northern industrial workers, and far better off than workers
in much of Europe." As he points out, "no free workers enjoyed a comparable
social security system from birth until death." Moreover, life expectancy
for slaves was only slightly lower than that of their owners. When slave
owners had really dangerous work to do, they hired Irish navvies rather
than risk their valuable property. Mr. D'Souza notes that when Frederick
Douglass visited Ireland in the 1840s he was appalled at conditions there
and wrote that he was almost "ashamed to lift my voice against American
slavery." Mr. D'Souza concludes: "In summary, the American slave was
treated like property, which is to say, pretty well."
That Southern slave owners devised elaborate biological and theological
justifications for slavery was, in Mr. D'Souza's view, a sign of the high
moral character of whites. As he points out, in no other society did slavery
require moral justification, because its legitimacy was never challenged.
He notes that slavery was much more brutal in Latin America, since the
continuing slave trade ensured a steady supply of men to be worked to death.
Slaves were kept in large, all-black gangs rather than taken into families
as they often were in the United States. African voodoo and witchcraft
were thus able to persist into the present day.
As for today's blacks, Mr. D'Souza suggests that rather than nurse endless
grudges they should be glad their ancestors were sold to whites who introduced
them to the culture of the West. He quotes the black poetess from the 1930s,
Zora Neal Hurston: "Slavery is the price I paid for civilization . . .
." On balance, says Mr. D'Souza, whites owe blacks nothing on account of
Having downgraded black America's favorite grievance to a distant irritant
for which it might reasonably feel grateful, Mr. D'Souza takes aim at current
black thinking. He has nothing but scorn for the rapidity with which blacks
abandoned color-blindness as soon as color-consciousness began to work
in their favor.
Thurgood Marshall was one of the worst hypocrites. As a lawyer, he made
a career of echoing Justice John Harlan's famous dissent in the 1896 case
v. Ferguson: "Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor
tolerates classes among citizens." By 1986, when Justice Marshall was,
himself, interpreting the Constitution and was in a position to enforce
special favors for blacks, his view had changed: "We must remember . .
. that the principle that the Constitution is color-blind appeared only
in the opinion of the lone dissenter."
Whites naively think they can make a strong case for race neutrality
by appealing to Martin Luther King's plea that a man be judged by the content
of his character rather than the color of his skin. Jesse Jackson now calls
that sort of talk "intellectual terrorism" and Eleanor Holmes Norton says
"Stop quoting dead saints." As Mr. D'Souza points out, blacks invoke King's
moral aura but ignore his principles. "It is no exaggeration," he writes,
"to say that a rejection of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s vision . . . is a
virtual job qualification for leadership in the civil rights movement today."
Liberal whites have likewise convinced themselves that race-neutrality
is wrong. In 1993, the New York Times took the position that "the
struggle to achieve a healthy race-consciousness in our politics has been
an ennobling part of our system." Liberals have provided essential support
for the campaign to lower standards, ban free speech, pervert justice,
and demonize whites in the name of racial progress.
One of Mr. D'Souza's most interesting defenses of the white man is his
inquiry into what is usually thought to be his greatest crime of all: racism.
He starts with a definition, asserting that "racism is an ideology of intellectual
or moral superiority based upon the biological characteristics of race."
Unfortunately, this means that Arthur Jensen and Linda Gottfredson are
racists but Eldridge Cleaver and Colin Ferguson are not. Unless Mr. Cleaver
raped white women in the name of black superiority, he was merely being
"ethnocentric," as was Mr. Ferguson when he started killing white people
on the Long Island Rail Road.
"Slavery is the price
I paid for civilization . . . ."
Zora Neal Hurston
Blacks cannot be authentic "racists" unless, like the Muslims, they
believe whites are inferior freak creations, or, like melanin theorists,
they think whites are "albino mutants." This definition is so strained
that occasionally even Mr. D'souza slips up, calling the wilder blacks
"racists" without noting the subtleties of their thinking.
What is the purpose of this definition? There are two, one useful one
not. Mr. D'Souza's account of the origins of biologically-based racism
permits him to show how foolish are the liberals to argue that racism grows
out of ignorance. The standard view is that since the races are equal,
only whites who have not met and mixed with blacks are likely to be racists.
On the contrary, scientific racism arose in the 18th century because whites
encounter nonwhites and were astonished by their barbarity.
The meager attainments of pre-contact black Africans are well known.
Mr. D'Souza tells us that according to contemporary accounts, Australian
aborigines were even more primitive. They had "no property, no money .
. . no farming, no houses, clothes, pottery, or metal. . . . They had no
idea of stock raising. They saved nothing, lived entirely in the present."
The most common Tasmanian medical treatment was "slashing the patient with
deep cuts until the victim was covered with blood."
Racism, says Mr. D'Souza, "was devoted to investigating the intuition
that these two phenomena barbarism and racial difference were closely
therefore "began as part of a rational project to understand human differences,"
and was "a bold intellectual enterprise to dispel ignorance." "Far from
being ignorant and fearful," writes Mr. D'Souza, "the early European racists
were the most learned and adventurous men of the age . . . ." He notes
that the subtitle to Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was "The
Survival of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life" and that Darwin predicted
blacks and indigenous Australians would be exterminated by superior races.
Mr. D'Souza reminds us that all sorts of famous, well-regarded people,
from Hume and Berkeley to presidents of the United States were "racists."
The founder of Planned Parenthood and hero of the women's movement, Margaret
Sanger, was the worst of the lot. She said blacks were "human weeds" and
established a "Negro Project" to promote sterilization, but wrote to a
colleague in 1939: "We don't want word to get out that we want to exterminate
the Negro population."
Mr. D'Souza might, at this point, have been able to escape the Eumenides
if he had obediently written that modern science has now proven Darwin,
Hume, Sanger, and all the other racists wrong. But no. "Racism is [today]
what it always was:" he writes, "an opinion that recognizes real civilizational
differences and attributes them to biology." Integration is today's version
of the voyages of discovery: "One of the risks of increased exposure to
blacks is that it has also placed whites in a position to discover which
of their preconceived views about blacks are true." He then slips his leash
completely and writes: "Increasingly it appears that it is liberal antiracism
that is based on ignorance and fear; ignorance of the true nature of racism,
and fear that the racist point of view better explains the world than its
In the first few pages of the book, Mr. D'Souza assures us that biology
does not explain racial differences in achievement and that he feels an
"obligation to distinguish my principled positions from the ground occupied
by bigots, and to attack racism no matter what its source." Nevertheless,
his defense of the environmental explanation for racial differences comes
hundreds of pages after his admiring account of the European invention
of "racism" and not until he has taken the reader on a tour of black neighborhoods
where "the streets are irrigated with alcohol, urine, and blood." His attempt
to discredit the Jensen-Shockley-Herrnstein position is then so feeble,
one wonders if his heart is really in it. Irate reviewers are on to something
when they complain that this book is a defense of racism.
Mr. D'Souza's second reason for defining racism as something that originated
in the 18th century is that he can claim that "it remains profoundly consoling
to know that racism had a beginning, because then it becomes possible to
envision its end." Racism, as Mr. D'Souza defines it, came about as close
to ending as it ever will from about 1965 to 1985. Since then, it has staged
a remarkable comeback. Mr. D'Souza himself concedes that most specialists
now take the biological bases for IQ differences for granted. Even Robert
Plomin and Leon Kamin, who once promoted the environmental view, have recanted,
and Steven Jay Gould has shifted from dogmatic opposition to agnosticism.
In any case, since Mr. D'Souza concedes that ethnocentrism is universal,
eternal, and is sufficient grounds for genocide, what difference would
the disappearance of his narrowly-defined "racism" make anyway?
If biology is not the problem for blacks, and racism is not holding
them back, something else must have gone badly wrong for them. The problem,
we learn, is cultural relativism. Readers therefore get a good tour of
the Franz Boas school of anthropology, with its dogma that all races, cultures,
and civilizations are precisely, mathematically equal. We meet Boas' disciples,
mooncalves like Margaret Mead and her lesbian lover Ruth Benedict; Melville
Herskovits, Kenneth Clark, and Gunnar Myrdal.
As Mr. D'Souza explains, cultural relativism was ideally crafted to
discredit scientific racism. The Boas view was that there really were no
soaring differences in civilizational achievement after all (if anything,
primitive societies were superior to our own), so there was nothing for
racism to explain. Adolph Hitler and the Second World War were probably
the best possible gifts to this view, since racial nationalism became firmly
associated with war and carnage. Soon, anyone who talked about superior
and inferior cultures was the barbarian, and anyone who discussed race
and IQ was an assistant fuhrer.
This is all quite interesting, but Mr. D'Souza makes it the basis for
a weak argument: a defective "culture" and a relativist unwillingness
to criticize it account for black failure. If it explains what is going
on in the ghetto, black culture must be a vicious thing indeed, and Mr.
D'Souza spits on his hands and goes to work on it: "black culture also
has a vicious, self-defeating, and repellent underside that it is no longer
possible to ignore or euphemise."
He writes of the disappearance of marriage and the resulting "bastardization
of black America," of "racial paranoia a reflexive tendency to blame
racism for every failure," and that "much of the black community is parasitic
on government for its basic livelihood." Even many middle-class blacks
are so consumed with anti-white rage, their minds barely stay on their
hinges. Blacks are furious at the successes of other groups: "Whites and
Asians . . . are hated for the human qualities that enable them to earn
what they have. Black racism is a worldview built on frustration and jealousy."
He cites the usual statistics of black failure and deviance but often
he just lets underclass blacks paint their own portrait:
"We put him in the car and went over to a field and put a rope over
the thing you hook a trailer on with. We tied him on it and drag him in
the field. He got skinned up all bad, tore his scalp half off. Got all
dirt and gravel and stuff stuck in the blood. Then we put him back in the
car and drove him over to where one of the homies had two pit bulls in
the back yard, and we threw him in there with them. Man, they chewed him
up big ole chunks of meat comin' off his arms and legs, blood pourin'
out, and him just screaming and cryin' for us to take him on outta there.
After we let him out the yard we made him kneel down and say stuff like:
I'll suck your dicks."
Whether or not this really happened, we believe it could have
happened. "For many whites," Mr. D'Souza concludes, "the criminal and irresponsible
black underclass represents a revival of barbarism in the midst of Western
How did this awful black culture arise, and what can be done about it?
According to Mr. D'Souza, cultural relativism prevented whites (and blacks)
from criticizing even the worst horrors of black behavior. Now that relativism
and liberalism are on the wane, and we are free to say that degeneracy
is not culturally neutral after all, blacks can begin the mighty work of
"cultural reconstruction." They can now patch up their culture, reject
Afro-centrism, and "act white." In a flourish of heroic implausibility,
Mr. D'Souza's final words are that if they manage this, "it will be blacks
themselves who will finally discredit racism, solve the American dilemma,
and become the truest and noblest exemplars of Western civilization."
What if they don't? What if blacks continue as everything in The
End of Racism suggests they will to act black rather than white?
Mr. D'Souza never says. However, in "the emerging café au lait
society" that he tells us intermarriage is bringing, most of us will
be part black anyway.
"For many whites
the criminal and irresponsible black underclass represents a revival of
barbarism in the midst of Western civilization."
Does Mr. D'Souza really think blacks will ever be the "noblest exemplars
of Western civilization"? His book reads like "secret writing," the technique
Leo Strauss describes in Persecution and the Art of Writing, by
which an author asserts conventional conclusions but makes strong arguments
for heresy. Maybe Mr. D'Souza really does believe in "culture," environment,
and integration, but his book is a splendid gift to those who do not.
BACK TO TOP
The "Tainted" Sources
The End of Racism
A contemptible streak
runs through this book.
by Jared Taylor
In writing the book that he did, Dinesh D'Souza
took a considerable risk. His facts and arguments are the kind that always
prompt cries of "racism," and a reputation as a racist is difficult to
live down. The uproar that has greeted this book has surely confirmed Mr.
D'Souza's worst fears. In addition to the expected torrent of printed abuse,
two reasonably sensible black "conservatives," Glen Loury and Robert Woodson,
have severed ties with the American Enterprise Institute where Mr. D'Souza
is a fellow. Time magazine was so furious about the book that it
urged a boycott.
knew he was likely to be treated as a moral inferior; how, then, to deflect
liberal wrath? The traditional strategy of the pusillanimous right is to
point the finger at people further to the right and say, "No, no, I'm not
a bigot; those are the real bigots. I'm merely a bold thinker." This is
what Mr. D'Souza has done, and his primary targets have been me and American
Renaissance. It is not my practice to write about myself or recount
the fortunes of AR, but this regrettable incident requires an exception.
The tenth chapter of Mr. D'Souza's book is called "Bigotry in Black
and White." The first five pages are an account of the 1994 AR conference
in Atlanta, which Mr. D'Souza attended. Mr. D'Souza had been aware of AR
since at least February, 1994, when he became a subscriber and ordered
every back issue. His subscription, renewed this year, is entirely up to
In making AR and the conference appear to be a swamp of wickedness,
Mr. D'Souza faced a serious problem: all but a few pages of his book
are entirely compatible with AR. How does one make a bogeyman out of
someone with whom one largely agrees? Shamelessly misrepresent what he
says. This Mr. D'Souza did. His distorted account of the conference begins
just two sentences after he writes that "students should learn ways to
seek to distinguish truth from falsehood, beauty from vulgarity, right
Fortunately, a copy of the galleys of The End of Racism fell
into my hands before the book was distributed. I was amazed to find, among
other misrepresentations, deliberate misquotations from American
Renaissance. In an attempt to show just how vile a publication it is,
Mr. D'Souza combed through his back issues and selected ten passages with
which to shock the reader. Amazingly, he managed to transcribe only three
accurately, and he deliberately changed several to make them sound especially
provocative. Here is one example: "There are no mantras to numb the brain
like: All men are created equal."
In the galleys I
was amazed to find deliberate misquotations from American Renaissance.
The sentence I actually wrote was: "There are no racialist or even conservative
mantras to numb the brain like 'All men are created equal,' 'We are a nation
of immigrants,' or 'Diversity is our strength.' " This is not so much an
attack on the idea of equality though it is also that as an attack
on the mantra-like thinking of liberals. Since one of the mantras is from
the Declaration of Independence, Mr. D'Souza appeared to feel justified
in going on to write that AR stands for "rejection of the principles
of the American founding."
Authors with any hope of credibility do not falsify someone's written
text and pass it off as a direct quotation. This trick is too hard to conceal
and too obviously dishonest. Yet Mr. D'Souza did this several times (see
sidebar). At least the words he selectively chose to print were, for the
most part, words I had used. This was not the case in his account of my
speech at the AR conference.
Mr. D'Souza wrote in the book's galleys that I had said immigrants were
"malodorous and unsanitary." Because the speech was recorded it is easy
to show that I said nothing of the kind. He wrote that I called Asians
"people utterly unlike ourselves," whereas I did not talk about Asians
Mr. D'Souza's worst offense was his account of a conversation he had
with me during the conference: "Taylor described himself as a lapsed Protestant
who has become a kind of Nietzschean. 'I believe in tribalism, in shared
historical memory, and in an assertion of power.' " I did say I was reared
in a Protestant Christian family, but the rest is about as close to pure
fiction as journalism ever gets.
About the conference in general, Mr. D'Souza expressed the views that
"will suggest to many that the Klan is making a comeback in
conveys "the new spirit of white bigotry."
promoted an ideology "formulated explicitly on the model of
was "organized by activists seeking to articulate a politics
of white power."
He also noted that "there were no confederate battle insignia or swastikas
in sight," implying that there somehow should have been. Needless to say,
he did not mention that of the ten speakers, four held doctorate degrees,
two were nationally-syndicated columnists, one was a Jesuit priest, and
four including an orthodox rabbi were Jews.
Just in case the reader still wasn't convinced that the conference was
a nest of vipers, Mr. D'Souza wrote: "Here were people who were by all
appearances urbane and educated, yet they did not flinch from terms like
'chink' or 'nigger.' " I never heard anyone speak that way at the conference,
nor did any of the half-dozen people I have since asked about it. I think
this is just another invention.
Mr. D'Souza's mind must have slipped into a special gear when he wrote
about us. In 556 pages of text, he mentions the names of hundreds of people,
many of whom he has met in person. The only people whom he describes physically
(always unflatteringly) are speakers at the conference and only in connection
with the conference. For example, there is a serious treatment of Prof.
Michael Levin's justifications for rational discrimination, and in a footnote
Mr. D'Souza expresses gratitude to Prof. Levin for having sent him an unpublished
book manuscript. But as soon as Prof. Levin shows up at the AR conference,
he becomes "a bespectacled academic with a nasal voice." Likewise, I am
"a gaunt Southern man." Also, although Mr. D'Souza goes to some trouble
to define terms like "racism" and "ethnocentrism," he calls the conference
participants "bigots," a term he does not define and uses in almost no
I wrote to Mr. D'Souza's editor at the Free Press, Adam Bellow, threatening
legal action if these falsifications were not corrected. Lawrence Auster
and Samuel Francis, who also spoke at the conference, joined me in protesting
distortions of their remarks as well. As it happens, by this time, the
first run of bound books
was already being delivered. Mr. Bellow referred our letters to the company's
lawyers. The result was that changes were hurriedly made to the text and,
as far as we can gather, the entire first press run was destroyed. The
book in stores now is largely free of deliberate or merely sloppy misquotations.
Some have been "corrected" by use of ellipses. That is to say, sentences
that are already out of context have been tortured into small fragments.
Mr. D'Souza no longer notes the absence of battle flags or swastikas, but
he still claims that the people at the conference were "bigots" and used
The final version shows other signs of dare we say it? bigotry.
In his book, Mr. D'Souza makes many of the same arguments about the follies
of race relations that I do in Paved With Good Intentions and he
often uses the same examples to support them. In a book that bristles with
thousands of footnotes, as his does, it is at the very least odd that my
book not be referenced even once.
In fact, there is an amusing indication that this is deliberate. When
Mr. D'Souza cites a magazine article his rule is to include the name of
the author in the footnote. In a reference to an article I wrote for National
Review, the name of the author does not appear. Mr. D'Souza
seems to have been so determined to keep my name out of the footnotes that
he broke his own bibliographic rules. Since he had decided to offer me
up as a prominent bigot, he could hardly give the impression that he might
have learned something from me.
Mr. D'Souza's contemptible tactics did not even work. He has been pelted
with absurd charges of racism, and there is no reason to think the accusations
would have been any wilder if he had not savaged the AR conference.
One newspaper has actually seen through his ruse. Writing in the Oct. 1
issue of the Washington Post, a book reviewer who is black writes
that although Mr. D'Souza claims to be unbiased, he has obviously learned
a great deal from his "mentors," Samuel Jared Taylor and Michael Levin!
The real pity is that Mr. D'Souza's dishonesty was completely unnecessary.
He has written an impressively researched and bravely argued book. He has
shown a firm grasp of many slippery issues. There is no reason why he could
not have presented AR and the people who write for it as a reasoned
response to the racial madness of our times a madness he describes more
thoroughly and more persuasively than virtually any other writer in America.
BACK TO TOP
Those Pesky Facts
As a writer during his college days, Dinesh D'Souza reportedly earned
the nick-name Distort D'Newsa because of his carelessness. Here are examples
from his later years.
Misquotation from American Renaissance: "An acceptance of racial
inferiority might be good for blacks. The assumption of inferiority
makes it easier to accept meager circumstances."
Actual Text of AR (note "differences" rather than "inferiority"
in first sentence): "If anything, an acceptance of racial differences
might be good for blacks. The nineteenth century free person of
color was certainly not 'devastated' by general assumptions about black
inferiority. Not even slaves showed signs of the degeneracy that freedom
subsequently brought to some of their descendants. Surely, the assumption
of inferiority made it easier to accept meager circumstances. Surely,
a great deal of today's black hatred stems from the belief that blacks
are being cheated out of success that should by rights be theirs."
from AR: "Nelson Mandela is now president of South Africa. The grisly
gods of 'democracy' have now been satisfied."
Actual Text of AR: "Nelson Mandela is now president of South
Africa, and all liberals are rejoicing. No matter how much of a mess blacks
make of the only properly functioning economy in Africa or how much cruelty
they mete out to whites, the grisly gods of 'democracy' have now been satisfied."
Misquotation attributed to me: "The alternative to slavery was Negro
pandemonium, which is basically what we have now."
In fact, I explained to Mr. D'Souza that I do not approve of slavery,
and that even many ante-bellum slave-holders thought that slavery was immoral.
However, they were not abolitionists because they feared that large numbers
of suddenly-freed slaves would create, in their words, "Negro pandemonium."
I added that their fears may have been justified. By putting the words
"Negro pandemonium" in my mouth, Mr. D'Souza tried to make me an advocate
Mr. D'Souza also quoted from the speech by Lawrence Auster, author of
The Path to National Suicide (Mr. D'Souza managed to get the title
wrong): "Intermarriage, he [Mr. Auster] warned, would lead 'not just to
the dilution of white America but to its complete elimination.' "
In fact, Mr. Auster was making the point that a number of main-stream
liberals have suggested that the only way to overcome racial conflict and
inequality is to get rid of racial distinctions by merging all races into
one that they are proposing the complete elimination of white
BACK TO TOP
Has Been Fired
The ax has fallen
on the best and bravest syndicated columnist in America. Already under
a cloud because of his iconoclastic views, Samuel Francis was finally fired
from the Washington Times because of a column written by Dinesh
D'Souza in the Sept. 24 issue of the Washington Post. Mr. Francis'
syndicated column continues to run in 80 or 90 newspapers but it remains
to be seen whether the Washington Times will continue to publish
Among the sentiments the Times appears
to have found unacceptable was a quotation in Mr. D'Souza's article from
a speech that Mr. Francis delivered at the American Renaissance
conference in May, 1994:
"The civilization that we as whites
created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic
endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that
the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people."
This is not merely a defensible statement;
it is overwhelmingly likely to be true. Mr. Francis did not write it in
the Washington Times, which was free to edit or reject it if he
Mr. Francis is therefore being punished
for expressing, on in his own time, views with which his employer may disagree.
This is a chilling commentary on how narrow a view the Washington Times
takes of the bounds of permissible discourse. To refuse to publish a point
of view is one thing. To forbid employees even to express a point
of view is something else entirely. It is a sure sign of how desperate
the defenders of orthodoxy have become when they are so afraid of certain
ideas that they must prohibit their very expression.
Ironically, the Washington Times
is a "conservative" newspaper, which prides itself on bold, principled
positions. For readers who wish to express themselves to Mr. Francis' former
employer, he is Wesley Pruden, Editor in Chief, Washington Times, 3600
New York Ave. N.E., Washington, DC 20002.
BACK TO TOP
O Tempora, O Mores!
More Black Justice
Another mostly-black jury has delivered a curious verdict. Earl Williams
of South Carolina, a 22-year-old black, was accused of shooting a police
officer who was trying to recover a stolen car. The officer, also black,
survived the attack and identified Mr. Williams, whose fingerprints were
found in the car. Another witness also identified Mr. Williams, who admitted
to relatives that he shot the officer. In court, however, he changed his
story and claimed that he had admitted to the shootings because he was
covering for the real shooter, his accomplice, Rafer Jones. He said he
had no choice but to take the blame because Mr. Jones has voodoo powers
and would turn Mr. Williams into a wolf if he did not do as ordered.
The jury acquitted Mr. Williams. Its members appear to think that the
accomplice, Mr. Jones, is guilty. However, there is not enough evidence
to indict him because all witnesses except Mr. Williams himself say
that Mr. Williams was the gunman. [Lisa Green, Man didn't shoot cop, jury
says, The State (Columbia, SC), 9/30/95, p. 1.]
On September 13, 1993, a British tourist was shot to death at a freeway
rest stop in Florida. It has taken three trials to nail him, but the killer,
a teen-aged black named John Crumitie, has finally been convicted. He managed
to hang two mixed-race juries by claiming that every prosecution witness
was lying. In the first trial, a single black held out for acquittal, and
in the second, two blacks did. The third jury, which finally convicted
him, was composed of ten whites and two blacks.
Mr. Crumitie grew up in rural Monticello, Florida, which state juvenile
authorities thought was such a wholesome place they sent three black Tallahassee
delinquents there to live in the hope that they would reform. Instead,
they befriended Mr. Crumite, who had never been in trouble before. A few
months later Mr. Crumitie was a murderer. [Michael Browning, City hoodlums
sent to country: a deadly error, Miami Herald, 9/17/95, p. 1B.]
shopkeepers keep money at home rather than use banks, which they do not
trust. Immigrants of the same ethnicity have taken to invading their homes
to steal the cash. Often they torture members of the household to extract
information about where the swag is hidden. Criminals and victims tend
to be Hispanics or Asians.
Perpetrators are well-organized gangs whose members deliberately use
false names even with each other so that if one is arrested he cannot identify
the others. Recent illegals who have not yet been arrested and whose fingerprints
are not on file make the best operatives. It is even better if they cannot
speak English and are unable to talk to the police.
During the first nine months of 1995, more than 750 such robberies were
reported in New York City alone. Police estimate that the real number is
much higher; the cash that many immigrant shopkeepers keep at home is unreported
to the IRS, and victims do not want to call attention to their shady practices.
[Clifford Krauss, Gangs find shop owners easy prey at home, NYT, 9/15/95.]
Of the 24,361 cases of tuberculosis in the United States in 1994, 7,627
were reported by patients who were foreign-born. That was 32 percent of
all cases, up from 22 percent in 1986. Most of the sick foreigners were
from Mexico, the Philippines and Vietnam. In Los Angeles County 64 percent
of the TB cases were foreign-born people and in Hawaii the figure was 82
percent. It is not known how many Americans caught the disease from foreigners.
[Reuters, Atlanta, Sept. 28, 1995.]
Snow White or Coal Black?
Traditional fairy tales have only white characters. The cable network,
HBO has corrected this defect by recasting 13 of the most popular ones
into multi-racial cartoons. In "Jack and the Beanstalk," Jack is black
and the giant can rap. Rumplestiltskin is a dread-locked Jamaican. Hansel
and Gretel are Hispanic. Etc.
Now, when the giant works up an appetite for Jack, he says, "Fee Fi
Fo Fum, I smell the blood of an African a young one."
"You probably smell the bones of the Englishman you ate last night,"
his wife replies.
"Oh yeah, he was good," says the giant, "but a little bland." [Jennifer
Mangan, Ethnic magic transforms classic fairy tales, Chicago Tribune TV
Week, March 26-April 1, 1995, p. 5.]
Ivy League Confederates
With one important excepted category, Harvard University has erected
memorials to all alumni who died on the battlefield, including one who
fought for Nazi Germany. The university does not, however, honor Confederates,
even though one third of the Harvard men who died in the War Between the
States fought for the South. Yale and Princeton pay equal tribute to their
Confederate and Union dead. [Confederate memorial splits Harvard, Commercial
Appeal (Memphis), July 5, 1995.]
We Knew It All Along
Blacks are 10 percent of the civilian work force but are more than 18
percent of both state and federal work forces. Blacks
are therefore almost twice as likely to work for government than they are
to work for private employers. Since 43 percent of all black managers and
professionals work for government (as compared to 14 percent for whites),
if public employers hired as selectively as private ones, the black managerial
class would shrink by perhaps 20 percent.
For anyone whose eyes are not firmly shut, the reason for this concentration
in government is obvious: The public sector does not face competition and
can hire deadwood without going broke. [Jonathan Tilove, Minorities have
thrived in public sector jobs, Grand Rapids Press, July 30, 1995, p. A8.]
Besides helping to explain why government works so poorly, the over-representation
of blacks means something else "diversity" preferences should no longer
apply to black public-sector job seekers. No whites are likely to point
this out, but some day it will dawn on Hispanic or even Asian activists,
who will then start yelling about it.
School System Destroyed
Although Denver public schools are more segregated than ever, a federal
judge has ruled that the system can end its mandatory busing program. In
1968, public schools served 101,000 students, 63 percent of them white.
It now has 59,000 students, of whom only 30 percent are white. The largest
number, 48 percent, are Hispanic, and some schools are 95 percent nonwhite.
Everyone recognizes that a return to neighborhood schools means something
close to complete segregation. However, nonwhites now control the school
board, as well as the lavish, $7,300-per-student budget that goes with
it. Nonwhites appear to be content with segregation, so long as their schools
get as much money as white schools. Denver now spends as much on students
as the tuition at better private schools, but student performance is an
embarrassment. Only two thirds of students manage to graduate, despite
ever-lower standards. [James Brooke, Court says Denver can end forced busing,
A Boston lawyer has filed suit on behalf of his 12-year-old daughter,
who was not admitted to the prestigious Boston Latin School because she
is white. The school sets aside 35 percent of its places for blacks and
Hispanics, and officials admit that Julia McLaughlin would have been admitted
were it not for the quota. One hundred and three blacks and Hispanics with
qualifications inferior to hers were admitted. The judge hearing the case
is Arthur Garrity who, 20 years ago, started a program of forced busing
that has brought the school system close to collapse. [Michael Matza, Race
case has stung Boston, Houston Chron, 9/16/95, p. 20A.]
Touch of the Tar Brush
Betty Crocker the blue-eyed, creamy-skinned General Mills symbol of
all-American wholesomeness since 1921, is to have a makeover. Although
her hair style and costume have changed every decade or so, she is now
to be made into a product of miscegenation. General Mills plans to take
the photographs of 75 American women representing all races and "morph"
or merge their features and skin-tones into the new Betty Crocker. Russell
Adams, chairman of African American studies at Howard University says that
the new Miss Crocker "will be less white bread and more whole wheat." Her
face is to appear on packages early next year. [Rebecca Quick, Betty Crocker
plans to mix ethnic looks for her new face, WSJ, 9/11/95, p. 1.]
The British Commission for Racial Equality has mounted a campaign against
racism, called "All Different All Equal." It has unveiled "public service"
posters across Britain that show a row of four brains. Three are the same
size and are labeled "African," "Asian," and "European." The fourth brain,
much smaller, is
labeled "Racist." The poster has gone up in 29 sites in London alone. In
Wales the poster is in both English and Welsh. [Commission for Racial Equality
(all different all equal) press release No. 587, Sept. 21, 1995.]
Million Man March
Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam is hoping to organize a "million
man march" on Washington, DC. That would be three times as many participants
as in Martin Luther King's 1963 "March on Washington." Curiously, the event
is not being billed as a demand for handouts. "We have looked for too long
to the government to solve our problems," explains Minister Farrakhan.
He says the march will be "a day of atonement to accept our responsibility
for our women and our communities." Feminists are annoyed that women will
not be allowed to participate, and skeptics wonder whether black men will
bother to demonstrate if there are no women to meet. The national coordinator
for the march is Ben Chavis, former executive director of the NAACP, who
was fired when it was learned he had spent $322,400 of the association's
money to hush up a sexual harassment suit. The NAACP does not support the
march and predicts a poor turnout. [Edward Boyer, 'Million man' may end
up short, Houston Chron, 9/17/95, p. 29A.] The NAACP, itself, has not done
well lately. In September, fewer than 100 people turned out for an affirmative
action rally in Connecticut that was supposed to draw thousands. [Connecticut,
USA Today, sept. 11, 1995, p. 10A.]
His True Calling
A Haitian chiropractor has joined the list of immigrants who bilk American
society for false insurance charges. Joseph Douze of Palm Beach, Florida,
would send out "runners" to recruit people to stage false accidents for
whom he would then file insurance claims. In several years, Dr. Douze filed
some $5 million in claims. Nothing out-of-the-ordinary here, except that
Mr. Douze is a former candidate for the presidency of Haiti. [AP, Chiropractor
charged in insurance claim scan, Miami Herald, 9/19/95.]
Maggie Glover is a black senator in the South Carolina state house.
On Sept. 15th, she was clocked at 53 miles per hour in a zone marked for
30 and was pulled over. The officer discovered that her license had been
suspended and told her he would have to arrest her. Miss Glover locked
herself in her car and refused to come out. The officer, realizing he had
a difficult case on his hands, radioed for help. Eventually nine policemen
were on the scene, trying to persuade Miss Glover to give herself up. Finally,
another black state legislator was found to come give her a ride home.
Miss Glover now says she could not be sure whether the officers were
authentic policemen or were impersonators out to make trouble. "Rodney
King got out of his car, too," she told reporters. The state's top prosecutor
has decided to investigate the incident, a decision that another black
state senator welcomes. "[I]t will show stupidity, how far these guys will
go to target black elected officials, which is very, very far," he explains.
[Lee Bandy & Jim Davenport, State to investigate Glover incident, The
State (Columbia, SC) Sept. 30, 1995, p. B1.]
The number of prison inmates in the United States has tripled
to 1.5 million in the 15 years from 1980 to 1995. Half of all inmates have
committed violent crimes and 80 percent have prior convictions. Fifty percent
of the prison population is black. An additional 3.5 million convicted
criminals are out of prison on probation or parole, which means that about
three percent of the adult population is under the control of the criminal
justice system. In Texas, nearly 4 percent of the adult population is on
probation or parole.
One in every three black men in their 20s is either in jail, on probation
or on parole. Only five years ago, the figure was one in four. In a few
years half of all black men in their 20s are likely to be under supervision.
[Alan Miller, Prison, probation rolls soaring, Chi Sun-Times, 8/28/95,
p. 20. Fox Butterfield, More blacks in their 20's have trouble with the
law, NYT, 10/5/95, p. A8.]
Violent crime is not only becoming more common, its nature is changing.
In the 1960s, more than 90 percent of murders resulted in arrests. This
was because the vast majority of killers were acquainted with their victims.
Now, so-called "stranger murders" are the majority of homicides, and they
are much harder to solve. What's more, there are proportionately fewer
officers to solve them. Thirty years ago, there were three policemen for
every violent crime reported. Now there are three violent crimes for every
Another trend is increased violent crime among the very young. With
the surge of crack children and welfare-bred feral children, 14- to 17-year-olds
are vastly more dangerous than before. By the year 2005 this age group
will have increased by 23 percent. Adam Walinsky, who has studied crime
rates for many years, predicts that by then there will be 40,000 murders
a year, up from the 25,000 or so in the 1990s. [The Coming Crime Wave (editorial),
NY Post, Aug. 19, 1995.]
Forgive and be Forgotten
In July 1986, Steven McDonald was a 29-year-old New York City police
officer, following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather. Shavod
Jones was a 15-year-old thief. Mr. McDonald was investigating bicycle thefts
in Central Park and came across Mr. Jones and two friends. He asked a few
questions but was met with hostile stares. He bent down to pat a suspicious
bulge in the pants of one of the young black men. Mr. Jones pulled a gun
and shot Mr. McDonald three times, leaving him paralyzed from the neck
Mr. Jones went to prison for attempted murder. Mr. McDonald publicly
forgave him and dreamed of the day when the two would travel the country
speaking to school children about the futility of violence. He began a
correspondence with Mr. Jones, which ended when Mr. McDonald refused to
help the convict get parole, saying he did not know enough about his prison
As it happens, Mr. Jones' record was awful. He got into fights, refused
to obey direct orders, and was a chronic trouble-maker. Still, after only
nine years in jail, Mr. Jones was released. Mr.
McDonald still believed he could redeem Mr. Jones and by joining forces
to help children turn away from crime, could make some sense of his own
shattered life. Mr. Jones never contacted Mr. McDonald. Three days after
his release, he got on the back of a powerful motorcycle driven by a friend
who was on parole for first-degree manslaughter. The man tried to do a
wheelie on Madison Avenue, lost control, and slammed into two cars. Mr.
Jones was killed. Mr. McDonald is still seeking redemption. [Dan Barry,
2 lives: attack, injury, hope, death, NYT, 9/19/95, p. B1.]
Insanity Reaches New Heights
A ten-year-old Long Island white boy has been put on trial for a hate
crime. Patrick, a 5th grader, got into an argument with a black boy named
Gary. He reportedly called Gary a "nigger" and threatened to kill him.
No punches were thrown, but the black child's mother promptly called the
police. Patrick's mother called Gary's mother to apologize, but police
charged Patrick with a hate crime.
Ordinarily, whites admit guilt, grovel, and are ordered to take therapy.
Patrick's parents refused. They said they had not taught him to use the
word "nigger" and insisted there was nothing wrong with him. Patrick went
on trial in juvenile court. Gary, the black child, also ten years old,
was a key witness, so he had to take the stand. He gave 45 minutes of terrified
testimony until, under cross-examination, the defense asked him if, in
his entire life, he had ever lied. Gary looked like he was about to cry.
The judge called a recess, and Gary's mother decided to drop the case.
Patrick is now a free boy. [Ellen Yan, LIers put bias charge on trial,
New York Newsday, July 14, 1995, p. A7.]
Gov. George Pataki of New York plans to fire 105 of the state's 131
affirmative action officers. These are essentially patronage jobs for Democrats,
and pay from $35,000 to $80,000 a year. Most affirmative action officers
are women and nonwhites. The new Republican governor plans to eliminate
most of the state's racial preference programs and thinks the officers
are worse than useless. [Fredric Dicker, Gov to ax 'quota cops,' NY Post
Gov. Pataki has also implemented a new state law that permits him to
deport criminal aliens before they have finished their sentences. Two hundred
thirteen non-violent offenders will be booted out, saving the state $7
million over the lives of their unserved prison terms. The first 86, all
Colombians, were to be flown home in August. The Colombian authorities
were to check if any are wanted for crimes in Colombia but will not imprison
them for the remainders of their terms. [Ian Fisher, Pataki announces aliens'
expulsion, NYT, 8/29/95, p. A1.]
Another Skirmish in the Undeclared War
In September, a gang of Los Angeles Hispanics attacked a family of whites
who took a wrong turn and drove down their alley. At first, they tried
to box the car in with garbage cans, but when the driver started frantically
to escape, they opened fire. A four-year-old girl was hit in the head and
killed, as she lay in her mother's arms in the back seat. Her two-year-old
brother was hit in the foot. The driver was hit in the back but managed
to drive the family to safety.
The family was on its way home after attending a birthday barbecue for
a friend. [Gate Holland, Tot slain in wrong turn onto 'Avenue of Killers,'
USA Today, 9/19/95.] It's only offense was to be white in a Hispanic part
of Los Angeles. This incident was briefly national news but quickly dropped
from sight. It is not hard to imagine the massive, saturation-coverage
manhunt that would ensue if white thugs had shot up a nonwhite family.
In September, Ryan Kieth Moody of Lubbock, Texas received a 99-year
sentence for shooting to death a white, 39-year-old stockbroker. According
to an FBI affidavit, an acquaintance quoted Mr. Moody as saying that he
and a friend were going to drive into the white part of town and kill the
first white man they found. They saw Randy Lawson sitting in his car in
a well-to-do neighborhood less than a block from his house, and shot him
with a rifle. Mr. Lawson's widow testified that she did not hate the killer
and that she would pray for him.
During the trial, Mr. Moody took the stand and testified that he had
been having breakfast with his girl friend at the time of the killing.
He was so obviously unconcerned about what had happened to the white man,
that the jury took less than an hour to convict him. There were no blacks
on the jury, which has resulted in an outcry from the usual quarters. [AP,
Man guilty in racial shooting, Sept. 13, 1995.]
Twenty-year-old Kimberly Antonakos' big mistake was to make friends
with Joshua Torres' girl friend. She let the couple and their infant child
use her Brooklyn apartment, which Mr. Torres noticed was nicely furnished.
Mr. Torres and two other Puerto Ricans,
Nicolas Libretti and Jose Negron, decided to kidnap Miss Antonakos. On
March 1st, they forced her into the trunk of her own car, drove her to
an abandoned building in Queens, and tied her up in the basement. They
left her in the unheated building for three days while they unsuccessfully
tried to leave a ransom message on her father's answering machine. They
did not have sense enough to wait for the beep, and never left a message.
The three then realized they were in over their heads and decided to
dispose of Miss Antonakos by burning her. She was alive but unconscious
when they poured gasoline over her and burnt the house down. Some time
later, Mr. Torres became convinced that Mr. Negron was going to talk to
the police, so he shot and killed him.
When the charred remains of Mr. Antonakos' only child were discovered
by firemen, he posted a $10,000 reward for information about her disappearance.
Someone who had overheard Mr. Torres and Mr. Libretti discussing the kidnapping
was tempted by the reward and came forward in September, leading to the
arrests. A Queens prosecutor has called the incident "one of the most brutal
and savage homicides" ever to occur in his district. [AP, 2 charged with
burning woman alive, Chi Trib, Sept. 9, 1995, p. 17.]
Richmond, Virginia's longest-serving city councilman has stepped down,
after he was video-taped selling heroin. Henry Richardson, who had served
for 18 years, was a hero to Richmond blacks, despite having a brush with
the law nearly every year. He has been convicted of assaulting a police
officer and for speeding and causing an accident in a city car. In 1988,
he was convicted of possession of cocaine and heroine, but did not go to
jail. He has since won reelection four times. "It must have been a setup,"
said a thirty-year-old welfare mother, who represents the core of Mr. Richardson's
constituency, "They don't want a good man to help us." [Richmond official
quits after drug charges, NYT, 9/19/95.]
Get Rich Quick
Two illegal aliens from Mexico, Gabriel Diaz and Luis Ramos have been
arrested for counterfeiting and selling identification papers. They were
the leaders of a group offering Chicago immigrants complete sets of documents,
including birth certificates, for $335 a set. Their ring was making profits
of $1 million a month. Demand was so high and the risk of arrest
so small that members of the group were stopping foreign-looking people
on the street, asking them if they needed papers. [Rebecca Carr, Arrests
break fake document ring, Chicago Sun-Times, 8/25/95, p. 9.]
What may be the best-preserved West African tribal community has been
found in the jungles of South America. In the 17th century, African slaves
were brought to work the plantations of Surinam. Many escaped and fled
into the wild interior to establish villages. Today, there are six tribes
of Maroons, so called from the Spanish word cimarron, which means a runaway
horse that has gone wild. Maroon villages are still unlinked by roads and
can be reached only by canoe.
Maroon society is matrilineal, as it is in Africa, and in the evening
parents tell their children spider fables from Ghana. The Maroons worship
snakes, and build thatched spirit houses for them along the forest paths.
Recently, the Maroons have decided to promote tourism. "We want to show
white people we are clever and smart, that we have a culture equal to theirs,"
explains a tribal leader. [Laurie Goering, 'Pure' African culture thrives
in S. America, Chi Trib, 9/11/95, p. 11.]
Felled by Freedom
South Africa's first black-owned bank, which flourished for 20 years
under apartheid, has closed its doors. African Bank, which had mostly black
customers, was dragged down by a mountain of bad debt. [S. Africa's 1st
Black-owned bank closes, Chi Sun-Times, Sept. 12, 1995, p. 30.]
Separate in Death
The funeral parlor business is one of the most segregated in the country.
In most parts of the country, undertakers handle clienteles that are either
exclusively white or exclusively black. Until 1985, funeral homes were
labeled "white" or "black" in state directories, and there are still separate,
black and white national undertakers' organizations. The business is actually
getting more segregated. Until recently, small towns supported only one
funeral director who buried everyone. Now, families are more likely to
drive to a nearby town to get service from someone of the same race.
second American Renaissance conference will be held next year over
Memorial Day weekend (May 25-27) in Louisville, Ken- tucky. Many of the best- received
speakers from last year's conference - Michael Levin, Samuel Francis,
Jared Taylor, Sam Dick- son, Lawrence Auster - will be returning, along
with some exciting, new people with whom we are still holding discussions.
The conference is likely to
take place in Louisville's most distinguished down- town location, the Seelbach.
We are negotiating special group rates at this elegant, four-star hotel,
which has recently added firstclass meeting facilities. Like the previous
conference in Atlanta, this will be an unforgettable gathering of sore
of the boldest, roost incisive thinkers of our tine. More details will
be forth- coming in the next issue. Please mark your calendars for May
You will not want
this extraordinary event!
Undertakers who still do handle both races say that traditions differ.
Whites like to put the body in the ground in two to four days, while blacks
often wait eight to ten days for family members to gather. White services
are reserved, while black funerals are boisterous and full of song. Whites
tend to show their sympathy for the bereaved during a visitation period,
while blacks like to attend the funeral itself. Nationally, in 1993, 21
percent of American corpses were cremated, but fewer than one percent of
black corpses were cremated. "Why burn twice?" is a common objection. [Suzi
Parker, Equal but separate, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 9/6/95, p. F1.]
Ethnic groups also differ in whether they want to be told they have
fatal diseases. Only 35 percent of Korean Americans think patients should
know the truth. The figure for Mexican-Americans is 48 percent; blacks,
63 percent; whites, 69 percent. [Lindsey Tanner, Truth not always best,
doctors told, Houston Chronicle, 9/13/95, p. 11A.]
BACK TO TOP
E T T E R S F R O M R E A D E
Sir As a prisoner, I found the October lead article, "White Man in
a Texas Prison" quite interesting. It should be noted that prison conditions
vary from state to state and from prison to prison within a state.
My understanding of the Hispanic situation is a little different from
that described by Mr. Zatukel. When their numbers are small, Hispanics
stick together, but as their numbers increase, Mexicans separate from Cubans
and Puerto Ricans, the former thinking themselves superior, based in part
on the claim that they do not have any black blood. In institutions where
their presence is minimal, Hispanics seem to side with blacks against whites.
This may be because of their common urban and drug experience, as well
as their "victim" status.
Mr. Zatukel writes about the noise blacks make during televised sports
programs. I am a bit surprised he did not mention the televised freak shows
like "Jenny Jones." Whenever a white racialist appears, or white parents
complain about their children's involvement with blacks, the noise is earsplitting.
Mr. Zatukel should be grateful that his facility does not get Black Entertainment
Television, with its constant rap music and ain't-whitey-horrible whining.
It is also worth noting that affirmative action means that prison staffs
often reflect the inmate population, not the surrounding population. For
example, the population of my state is only eight percent black and one
percent Hispanic-and-other. However, nonwhites make up more than half of
the prison population and account for more than half of the guards. "Brothers
take care of brothers" is a common refrain among black prisoners and guards.
Lest anyone be concerned about the plight of white prisoners, almost
all of them had white victims, and in more than 20 years of imprisonment
I have yet to meet anyone who was convicted of stealing food to feed his
family. My experience is that most young white prisoners can appropriately
be called "whiggers" (white niggers). Ninety-five percent of white prisoners
are as worthless as their nonwhite counterparts.
Sir Erik Peterson's "The War With Mexico" was a good overview, but
misses one of history's ironies: the failure of the United States to acquire
President Polk appointed the despicable Nicholas Trist to negotiate
the peace with Mexico, which had been soundly defeated. Trist was instructed
to get an outlet on the Gulf of California but he botched the negotiations.
Trist also quarreled with General Winfield Scott, delayed starting the
negotiations, and then compromised with the prostrate Mexicans. Polk eventually
noted in his diary that "Trist was contemptibly base," and regretted appointing
him to the job. However, in the end, Polk lacked backbone as did Congress
in accepting the deal.
John Kundrat, Lewiston, Id.
Sir I was disappointed to learn from Glynn Custred's letter that whites
"oppose racial preferences but refuse to stand up and be counted." If they
keep that up there will soon be nothing left to count.
Robert Briggs, Punta Gorda, Fla.
Sir I was glad to see your account of the follies of black congresswoman,
BarbaraRose Collins of Detroit. She recently held a press conference to
defend her record, saying "I give myself a good B-plus." By the standards
of Detroit public schools, she probably deserves a B-plus.
Naturally, she said that press attacks on her have been "racist." When
asked how they could be racist when the information about her incompetence
has come from former staffers who are black, she replied, "Racists have
always been able to find Uncle Toms. There are black people who will do
what white people want them du to." This, too, sounds like something she
learned in a Detroit school.
Susan Clegg, Pontiac, Mich.
Sir In your October "0 Tempora'' item, "No More Japanese?" you write
that 3.2 percent of all American births are to parents of different races.
In fact, according to the National Center for Health statistics, the 1992
figure was 3.9 percent. This does not include births in which one
parent was Hispanic and the other was not, since the U.S. government does
not treat Hispanics as a racial category.
How many American births are to mixed, white-Hispanic couples? It is
impossible to say. According to census data, 2.2 percent of all American
married couples are mixed, Hispanic-non-Hispanic but there is no breakdown
of the non-Hispanic partners by race. It is not necessarily true that most
of these couples included a white spouse. Hispanics are less educated than
whites, less skilled, more likely to be on welfare, and more likely to
live in the inner city. Many do not move in the same circles as whites
or have much in common with them, so are unlikely to marry whites.
In any case, the rate of mixed marriage is still remarkably low, given
the official and unofficial pressure to which European-
Americans have been subjected to deny their racial identity and to
Joseph Fallon, Rye, N.Y.
BACK TO TOP