The End of Racism

Rating:
Summary: Excellent on the little questions, dubious on the big ones
Review: It's ironic that liberal critics dumped so heavily on D'Souza, because he built his book around a series of assumptions about race that are straight from the liberal conventional wisdom on the subject. In fact, the parts of his book that liberals objected to most vehemently stem logically from his application of politically correct principles. Here are the disastrous assumptions that drained much of the value from a book so chock-full of information and intelligence about minor matters (e.g., his discussion of rational discrimination by cab-drivers is excellent). D'Souza's assumptions:

1. The word "racism" is still a useful and meaningful term. In contrast, I would suggest that "racism" has become to the 90's what "unAmericanism" was to the 50's: a smear word intended to shut off logical thought.

2. That whites invented racism. In contrast, I would suggest that favoring those who are genetically related to you, and disfavoring those who aren't is a human universal. Its origin lies in a form of natural selection called kinship selection, which encourages us to favor the reproductive success of our genes not only within our own bodies, but within the bodies of people we share those genes with. See William Hamilton or Richard Dawkins [The Selfish Gene] for the math.

3. That the definition of a "racist" is someone who believes there are genetic differences among the races. This is the exact equivalent of a 19th century bishop saying that the definition of a "sinner" is someone who believes humans are descended from apes. The question of genetic differences is an empirical issue, not a matter of faith. That people who are married to a member of another race very often believe in the importance of genetic differences should give anybody pause who tries to glibly equate racist and hereditarian.

4. That behavioral differences among races stem solely from cultural differences. Obviously, this culture-only dogma begs the question of where cultural differences came from. Also obviously, the evidence for genetic differences among races is overwhelming, as any honest man who watches sports on TV can testify. In fact, D'Souza provides an excellent summary of some of the evidence for the reality and significance of genetic differences ... then simply rejects it all with no more explanation that that it's "too suspect to count."

5. That because genetics counts for nothing, everything that's wrong with black society today is the result of black culture. This is what drove so many blacks and white liberals into frothing rages over the book. In contrast, a realist perspective would suggest a much more positive perspective on African-American culture. Much of what's distinctive about African-American culture is descended from West African culture, which is, from the Darwinian point of view of reproductive success, a rational adjustment to conditions prevailing in West Africa in ages past. Unlike in the cold north, where male hunters provided most of the food to survive the winter and thus wives were expensive, in West Africa most women could gather enough to feed themselves and their children year-round, making husbands into expensive luxuries, who had to justify themselves by being sexy. This economic fact of life allowed men to have more wives than was affordable in hunting-dependent climes. The affordability of having many wives increases the competition among men, which manifested itself both in fighting among men and in wooing of women via talk, song, dance, etc. (The African-American pimp-ho relationship is an extreme version of this.) The male losers in these struggles failed to pass on their genes, while the winners had lots of kids who would carry onward their genes for muscularity (useful in fighting other men), handsomeness, charisma and improvisational ability (useful both in becoming a leader of men, and in attracting women).

Thus, the economic situation inherent in West Africa became embedded over time in the genes, producing a race that's especially talented at physically competing against other men for women and in charming women. Thus, African-American culture is hardly the all-around bleak failure described by D'Souza, but is outstanding at producing personalities to fill many of the most popular roles in American society: athlete, entertainer, Army general, politician, preacher, plaintiff's attorney, etc. It's failings are largely the flip side of its successes. The high crime rate, for example, stems from the same high degree of masculinity, which makes African-Americans good soldiers and great athletes.

This is not to say that, for instance, today's high crime rate among blacks is permanent. It suggests, however, that solutions will have to be crafted that take into account black's higher degree of masculinity, and try to direct that potent energy into socially positive directions. That's why the highly masculine Army, for example, succeeds better at giving blacks the values they need to succeed than do do-gooder programs. Similarly, the black advantage over whites at mental improvisation (so visible in basketball, jazz, preaching, rap, etc.) suggests that blacks would tend to do best at jobs like sales where improvisatory ability and male charisma are most valuable.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent scholastic work!
Review: This book has more pages of footnotes than the entire body of Andrew Hacker's "Two Nations", yet it won't be as popular because it contradicts the establishment.

If ever there was proof that what is "politically correct" is not always factually or historically correct... this is it!

Rating:
Summary: Dogma disguised as research
Review: Dinesh D'souza has some opinions which coincide with those of the far right, do away with affirmative action, blacks should get ahead in life and take responsibility for their own situation instead of blaming slavery which is long dead.These maybe valid in themselves, but D'Souza's cut and paste research and deliberately provocative one sided statements like this closing one blacks should "act white" , while they help catapult him to the center stage of controversy and hopefully get more people to buy his book do not in any way contribute to a meaningful race dialogue .And I cannot help wondering if the book's hidden agenda is to foster the great divide.In his preface he talks about his Asian Indian origin so as an Asian Indian I must add this, if the land of his birth had practised anything like what he preaches, and denied him access to special minority educational rights ,which Catholics like him are entitled to at the Spanish Jesuit schools he attended, he would probably have been one of the underclass blotting the beaches of Bombay or Goa, not the high priest of highhandedness.How's that for double talk?

Rating:
Summary: Courageous, Honest, Refreshing
Review: Dinesh says things no white man could ever say without getting lynched by the PC police. Yet who can logically argue with what he says? When's the last time the EEOC brought a complaint against professional basketball teams, saying they've got to hire more whites, that 80% black players simply isn't representative of the population at large? Unfortunately, he did neglect to mention the REALLY hurtful racism of the day... that perpetrated by our own government. No, I'm not talking "reverse discrimination"; that's on its way out, thanks to honest thinkers, writers, and voters like Dinesh. I'm talking about our racist drug war, which puts way, way too many young black men (who haven't hurt anyone else) in jail for drugs.

Rating:
Summary: D'Souza effectively shatters existing thinking on race
Review: D'Souza is the person to put into words what so many Americans had a sneaking suspicion was going on in the face of widely-promulgated 'truths' on American race relations. As D'Souza himself points out, many persons' fear of being labelled racist keeps them from voicing their true views, however innocently intended they may be. He asks, is it 'racist' to state that the 'racism'-cryers (Racism 'industry' as D'Souza more accurately calls it), have in their best interest the continuation of the status quo? The 'Industry' fears that success in eradicating racism will serve to erode the support (read dollars) they've garnered, D'Souza contends, and this will put them out of a job. D'Souza eloquently reveals this apparent paradox, defines 'racism', and puts it in historical context. He sites other countries' and cultures' racial problems, and responses, including the ages-old practice of the institution of slavery.

In reading this book, I found myself saying, "yea, that's true! Who is the man who wrote this?" I didn't know that he was an East Indian scholar who served on Reagan's staff and whose lucid thinking won him respect in academic circles. His thinking through the present race situation in the US intrigued, but also troubled me. I found myself questioning whether I was racist for seeing eye-to-eye with him on many issues. Or was this just another manifestation of my being 'brainwashed' over a lifetime to believe that to be 'black' is to be deserving of special treatment 'to make up for' past transgressions.

D'Souza rightly questions what IS 'black' in this age of interracial marriage. How many drops of 'black' blood makes one 'black', eligible for quotas and set-asides? Should 'black' scholars or successful black entrepenuers obtain this same special treatment? Where should the line be drawn? D'Souza says the line is effectively gone, and so should the treatment. He asks, in the absence of this line, how long can America support corrective measures where there is no longer a distinction among the 'races'? Are blacks just holding America hostage? These are explosive and thought-provoking questions that D'Souza asks and persuasively answers to convince one that it is time for America to adjust its course, finally without fear of being labeled evil (evil as the KKK, an organizaion that the 'Industry' paradoxically hopes will NOT go away).

The final paradox D'Souza dispels is that the US must use discrimination to fight discrimination. He uses the kind of lucid thinking that will upset those in the status-quo. This is an important book that you don't have to entirely agree with to benefit from.

Rating:
Summary: Things are not what they seem.
Review: I will not try in this limited space to comment on the entire content of this book although I found all of it extremely interesting. I only wish to comment on the authors expose of the double standards of the current civil rights leadership.

In reading about the twisted logic, and double speak that has to be used in order to make affirmative action & proportional representation palatable I was reminded of my reading of George Orwell's Animal House when I was in high school. It seems like quite a few of the old eastern block countries had the word "Democratic" in their official title, even though none of their officials were fairly elected. You get the notion.

I also thought I saw a correlation between the idea that racism is the dominant theme in American life even though nobody can find much physical evidence of it , and the insistence by Fidel Castro that all of Cuba's economic problems are the USA's fault, in spite of the fact that they can trade with anyone else in the hemisphere. The tendency is to blame the dominant presence rather than seriously examine your own structural flaws.

Rating:
Summary: thorough, balanced, but most of all, MISREPRESENTED
Review: "Not since Gunnar Myrdal's 'An American Dilemma'" has any book looked so searchingly at the nature of race in America. This was a statement by Thomas Sowell regarding his review of The End of Racism. Regardless if you agreed or disagreed with D'Souza's conclusions, you can't objectively deny Sowell's assessment. Unfortunatly, those who find his logic and conclusions unpalatable have systematically reverted to misrepresenting his arguments rather than facing them squarely. I guess it is easier to knock down imaginary arguments rather than real ones. Some common misrepresentations include:

1. D'Souza questions whether slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination etc bear "any" responsibility for the state of Black America. Reality: D'Souza is very clear in saying that these factors are the VERY REASON that blacks are in their state today. These influences, according to D'Souza, gave blacks a unique experience in America through which a culture of resistance wa! s eventually fostered. It is this vestigial cultural orientation, D'Souza argues, which today most impedes black progress in a society that is quite different from the 19th and early 20th century.

2. D'Souza doesn't care about white racism, he only wants to abolish white guilt. Reality: D'Souza ultimately concludes that while racism is a problem, it is a minor problem. Shocking as this is to many, it is no less true. Civil rights activists committed to struggles of yesteryear have every incentive to beat the drum of "white racism" past the point of diminshing returns - particulary when they are dependent on such activities in order to maintain notoriety and to continue living such plush lifestyles. As for white guilt, D'Souza would probably have no problem with whites feeling as guilty as they want so long as that guilt has little role in policymaking. It is white guilt which has driven racial policy in America for the past 40 years and the black underclass is in ! worse condition than EVER.

3. D'Souza doesn't believe th! at racism exists anymore - just "rational discrimination" - which, as Ellis Cose said, is "to put not to fine a point on it, discrimination against people who ought to be discriminated against." Reality: D'Souza's argument here is not that complex. He clearly conceeds to the immorality of such behavior - especially as to its demoralizing and hurtful effect on law abiding black males who have PhD's and not a spot on their criminal record. Yet the act of discrimination (such as a taxicab not picking up black men) is occouring precicely because the taxicab driver, or store owner, or little-old lady, etc. does not have any information on that person. Taxicab drivers have had many blacks beat the fare or leave no tip (moreso than whites) or have had other drivers regail them with stories of the blacks that held them at gunpoint (again, at a higher rate than whites). Korean store owners have had similar experiences - including having to sit on the roof of their ! store with a rifle to ward off looting black teenage males. If you talk to any restaurant waiter, they will tell you that, on average, blacks tip much more poorly than whites. As such, many sigh a groan of frustration or despair when recieving a table of blacks. The point is that these actions are not "racism" in any conventional sense because they do not stem from any subjective animus towards blacks. These are simply people who are acting on what their, or another's experience has taught them. Some can argue that these generalizations are unfair - but they are exactly that - generalizations, not racism.

4. D'Souza asserts that because a few blacks owned slaves it was "not at all racially charged." Reality: D'Souza clearly says that slavery was fraught with undertones of race, but that the plane of causation was in reverse: that is, slavery caused racism - not that racism caused slavery. One only has to look that the history of slavery in the world to se! e that it certainly wasn't unique to Western Civilization. ! What was unique, however, were the philisophical priciples of Western civilization that ultimatley destroyed this most enduring institution in human history - that is, slavery. Thus, many rationales were used to justify the enslavement of blacks (who were, by the way, enslaved predominatley in the Americas because they were abundant in supply and easy to maintain as slaves - certainly in contrast to the indigenous American Indians). Most of these rationales, D'Souza argues, were founded on the principle that blacks were inferior - that is - "made to be slaves." Ultimately, racism was the rational many used to justify an activity that flatly contravened with America's most cherished principle of individual freedom.

5. D'Souza portrays Columbus as a humanitarian, slavery as benevolent, and segregation as a system intended to help blacks. Reality: In no way does D'Souza portray Columbus or any of the other European explorers as anything close to "humanitarian.&q! uot; D'Souza does use passages out of Columbus' journal to show that Columbus was indeed impressed with the Indians he first encountered whom he described as among the "most beautiful and gracious people he had ever seen" - but that's about as far as he discusses Columbus. Yet D'Souza fully conceeds the "occupation and brutality" of Western colonialism that followed in Columbus' wake but qualifies it by stating that there was not, in fact, anything unique about it other than the fact that it went against a still evolving Western thought concerning human and property rights. Ironically, these principles are used selectively by contemporary American Indian activists to condemn a the very civilization who actually put them into practice. In no way does D'Souza say that slavery was even close to benevolent - only that slaves were thought of as property. As such, they were expected to yield a return and could not do so if they were excessivly abused. The same si! mple logic prevented farmers from excessively beating a hor! se that pulls a carriage or an ox that pulls a plow. D'Soouza did say that segregation was, in part, designed to protect blacks in the sense that it was perceived by paternalistic Southerners to keep blacks away from a violent racist minority that would certainly do them harm.

D'Souza's arguments are coherent and easy to follow. His policy prescriptions (such as the abolition of affirmative action and repealing of anti-discrimination laws in the private sector) are debateable - yet they are also logical. This book and other books such as these are difficult for many modern day "race-merchant" liberals to come to terms with. It is easier to insinuate the author said something he did not, in fact, say - then to attack the insinuation. How hypocritical it is for anyone to condemn D'Souza for using extreme and moderate voices interchangeably in his text (although quoting them accurately)- and then to turn right around and compare him to Hitler or David Duke and call h! is a Social Darwinist. If liberals ever expect to win the intellectual battles, they had better get past the idea that their adversaires are "not in error, but in sin."

Rating:
Summary: A silly book that appeals to the extreme right.
Review: A silly book that appeals to the extreme right. D'Souza makes statement unsupported by fact concerning race in America, particularly regarding the lingering impact of slavery on African Americans. It is soothing salve for those who wish to continue the notion that a level playing field exists when it comes to race in America.

Rating:
Summary: you'll love it if you can see past the liberal dogmas
Review: Although brash, he doesn't worry about offending anybody, Dinesh sees through the liberal dogma of equality of races. He points out that MLK's dream was of equality of opportunity, not of results, and diffrent races will have diffrent results in various areas of life. Blacks will excell at some things, Asians in others... One thing that this book, and the subsequent uproar it caused, drove home to me is the lack of freedom of speech on the issue of race. People wanted to boycott the publisher, and ostracize the author. They discredited the sources, without facing the issues Dinesh raises using those sources. Although I may not agree with his final solutions, and I realize he knowingly offended the easily offended (fine with me!), if you open the book with an open mind, even liberals can learn from, if not enjoy, "the End of Racism". Note that Dinesh explores, and finally rejects, the "Bell Curve" theory. Blacks are not biologically inferior, their culture, or certain aspects of it, are. Even if you hate the book try to get your hands on the videotape of his debate with B.U. Professor Glen Lorry.

Rating:
Summary: A must read
Review: The End of Racism is a superb piece of work. It provides a superb historical introduction to race and prejudice, and identifies the real causes for the problems of the black community. A large number of reviewers have been made very uncomfortable by the conclusions the book draws. However, the pursuit of truth is not to be given up for the sake of our own comfort. A parallel may be drawn between the conclusions of Darwin and the discomfort of the creationists. This is the most objective analysis of race issues I have seen. Its superb arguments against affirmative action capture the very essence of the principles of justice and fair play. Racism is not an insurmountable problem like many people still believe.