Letters

From the April 1996 issue

(Page 2 of 2)

Instead of acting indignant about D'Souza's articles and the magazines which published them, you should view the articles as merely a new contribution in a frank public dialogue about race and race relations--a dialogue which cannot be free of error or of giving offense because of human fallibility and the nature and complexity of the subject. Without the social liberty to p articipate in such an open and honest discussion, better long-run understanding cannot occur between the races, and a truly colorblind society in America will remain an elusive dream.

Carl L. Brodt
Columbus, OH

Virginia I. Postrel complains that the portions of Dinesh D'Souza's The End of Racism excerpted inNational Review and The American Spectator omit the "countervailing experience" found in the excerpt published in The Washington Post , which thoughtfully includes "critical portrayals of overt white racists." She rudely suggests that the readers of National Review and The American Spectator are racists by saying that the mention of white racists "would have undoubtedly disturbed their readers."

As a regular reader of both REASON and The American Spectator , I am offended by Ms. Postrel's comment. Although we Spectator readers may prefer bourbon to white wine, we are just as aware of racism (white, black, and otherwise) as she is. I read the excerpt published in the Spectator and did not find a single factual error or misstatement. Nor, apparently did Ms. Postrel, since her whole gripe seems to be based on the fact that D'Souza presents examples of black hoodlums without balancing them with examples of black actors, servicemen , or data processors.

Of course D'Souza shows only one side of the story: This short section of his article is concerned with the pathology of black criminals, not with the hagiography of black choirboys. Ms. Postrel seems to believe that the only proper discussion of race is one that places a nice smiley face beside each frowny face.

Harvey Click
Columbus, OH

Ms. Postrel replies:

I appreciate the comments of Peter Boettke and Abigail Thernstrom, both of whom restate nicely the main point of my article: that it is difficult, if not impossible, to advance the cause of individual treatment while reinforcing racial categories.

Mr. Auster's letter illustrates why I generally steer away from the term racism , which means related but different things to different people. I do think his requirement of acknowledged ill will goes beyond most people's use of the term, as does the leftist definition that requires political power (thereby absolving members of minori ty groups of racism). He also omits perhaps the most important components of racial bigotry: the assumption that the bigot is, by virtue of his or her race, superior to members of the inferior race.par Since I was not present at the conference in question, I cannot vouch for Mr. D'Souza's account of it (though subsequent quotes from Sam Francis in newspaper articles on his firing by The Washington Times convince me that he, at least, merits description as an overt white racist). At any rate, it was that account--and the absence of such acknowledgement of white racism from conservativ e discussions of race--that interested me. White racism, however defined, is not as pervasive as the left might have us believe. But it does exist, and not always in subtle forms.

Mr. Brodt's letter, while it contains some good points, also illustrates the problem of embracing racial stereotypes. In defending the rationality of stereotypes, Dinesh D'Souza not only suggests (as I mentioned in my editorial) that it's rational to think Jews are conspiring to take over the world--an idea I sincerely doubt he be lieves--but also that Hispanics (read: Mexicans, the actual stereotype) are lazy. This ancient stereotype defies any rational basis, since it is refuted by both statistical measures and casual observation; based on what anyone living in Southern California sees every day, "shared experience" would lead us to conclude that Hispanics are workaholics. Yet it is the laziness stereotype that Mr. D'Souza winds up defending, because the logic of his argument that essentially all stereotypes are grounded in reality leaves him with no alternative to doing so.

Clearly, something more complicated than simple experience is at work in producing stereotypes. History plays a role, as do group rivalries. How we generalize from our experience is warped by systematic biases, as a large body of work in social science hav ing nothing to do with race suggests. And the lopsided numbers of whites and blacks in America can skew experience. Yet conservative writers on race, of whom Mr. D'Souza is only one example, are rewarded for esc hewing any such complexities in favor of a simple defense of prejudice.

My point was not, as Mr. Brodt and Mr. Click suggest, that articles about race should be "balanced," in the ping-pong style so popular among newspaper journalists covering public issues. Rather, I would like to see the very distinctions Mr. Brodt himself m akes--that there is not a single black culture in America, that black Americans participate in and help shape our common culture, that social pathologies are not limited by race--not o nly nodded to but internalized by policy analysts who say they advocate a colorblind society.

It is, of course, wrong to conclude that graduating from Harvard is typical of any race. The point Leonce Gaiter, whom I quoted, was making is that his experience, which includes a Harvard degree, is as authentically "black" as that of the gangster Kody Scott, a popular black exemplar for both liberals and conservatives. In fact, neither man's experience is typical, but Scott's is very often portrayed so . And Gaiter rightly objects to being lumped in with criminals on the basis of his race. A "frank public dialogue" would not exclude his position, his experience, or the law-abiding--and quite ordinary--lives of Scott's siblings, the "black actors, servicemen, or data processors" to whom Mr. Click refers. Their lives, not encounters with white racists, constitute the "countervailing experience" omitted from too many conservative discussions of race.

The alternative to portraying blacks as criminals (or, to take another example, men as rapists) is not hagiography or smiley faces. It is subtlety, individuality, and a willingness to challenge comfortable assumptions. This last goal might have been served had Mr. D'Souza's Washington Post piece appeared in National Review , and his NR piece in the Post. Instead, each publication's readers simply had their prejudices confirmed, their political world view undisturbed. That's a good way to avoid angry letters to the editor, but it's not especially helpful in moving America toward an honest, as opposed to merely nasty, discussion of race.

Comments

nfl jerseys|11.16.10 @ 9:44PM|#

cjghjhcj

log in or register to reply

قبلة الوداع|8.16.11 @ 10:58PM|#

ThaNk U

log in or register to reply