The END OF RACISM: Principles for a Multiracial Society

Rating:
Summary: A slanderous book, even if does have a few good insights
Review: Having come from a culture not very different from D'Souza's, I can understand and empathize with him. There is no doubt in my mind that for me the United States is the best country in the world to live in. I have a degree of freedom I never had in my old country. But how well do I know this country? I've never lived in some crumbling project in the Bronx and I've never had to work minimum wage in multiple deadbeat jobs just so I could earn enough to send my kids to college. I look at America from the perspective of an outsider, considering the things it gives me as much more than I could expect back home, but can I be sure that the same opportunities are afforded to everyone?

But on the question of racism, I think I understand his mind. Indian society is quite racist, and blacks are viewed pretty much as subhuman. Every Indian comes to this country expecting to have a run-in with an armed black guy who wants his money. Call it tradition, culture if you will. In Hindu mythology the Rakshas, the demon, is almost always black. D' Souza may be a Christian, but a rakshas is something every South Asian understands.

And South Asians have carried their prejudices into the New World with even more vigor.Indian immigrants are perhaps the least likely people to venture into black neighborhoods, because you are told back home to avoid those areas as much as you can. Stories of blacks going about with infected HIV syringes and attacking white people are not uncommon in South Asia.But while most of his fellow immigrants from that part of the world are content to experess their racism by merely avoiding contact with blacks or noting how worthless they are in the security of their homes, D'Souza has decided to address the issue openly.

So yes, he does come from a certain cultural background that makes racism relatively easy to indulge in. As for blacks so to for whites however. The cultural legacy of the British in India makes it easy for many Indians to believe that Europeans are simply superior to other races. Many Indians look at the chaos and unpredictability of modern India and wonder if it really was a good thing their country was de-colonized so early. Of course India is a supremely complex country and there are infinite points of view but it is a fact that Anglophiles are still quite common there.

There are many immigrant South Asians who sympathize with blacks however. Many feel a kinship with a people that was subject to domination just like they were. Many come to the United States knowing that while it offers much, it has not always been fair to everyone. Many realize that their cultural upbringing does not have to be taken too literally and projected into a country they really do not know much about. Many realize that they can make a good living without slandering a whole race. And most important, many realize that they are simply ignorant of what America really is to make unqualified assumptions. None of these people would want to live anywhere else, but they wouldn't assume that everybody felt the same way either.

I should have given this book one star, given the ugly racism displayed in it, but since there were some pretty good counterarguments, I give it two. Or maybe the extra star is on account of his being a South Asian and I wouldn't want to squash anyone who comes from my part of the world, no matter how repulsive his views are.

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: Puts the Race Baiters Sharpton and Jackson out of business
Review: After reading this book again it conviced me to write a proper review,D'sousa who couldn't write if his life depeneded on it and the only books that makes money and a splash are the books on race and the only reason he has a career,and just like 50 cent and other rappers that white people will buy anything saying that black people are inferior and should be done away with. ( and who wrote the MOST insipid of the reagan bios)wrote a book about racism in amerikka, basically his third such book it goes to prove my point that immirgrants know nothing about amerikkkan racism they are just here to make money and bring their own country's class and color biases with them. After using various stats( as i say you can use them for anything even proving that white amerikkkans are among the most violent people on earth)and interviewing radical white racialists like Jared Taylor and Black separtist Micheal McGee. D'sousa goes on tangents saying that slavery was not so bad, ( so i think after watching HBO'S slavery series with those suriviors that those former slaves are liars) and after various racist insinuations throughout his book here's the real kicker to his solutions for the race divide, he concludes that amerikka should repel the 1964 civil rights act, and repel every other piece of progressive legislation intended to prevent discrimination to go back to the good old days of lynchings seperate but equal and the like. Two promiment black (glenn loury and robert woodson)conservatives left becuase AEI (american enterprise institute)endorsed this racist polemic piece of cowdung and the book is at best terrible writing and shoddy scholarship at it's worse a political manifesto for white and their minority allies who think that racism is a good idea for make black people behave. I have news and a warning for you conservatives who think that people like D'Sousa, Howoritz, Limbaugh , O'Reilly and Savage that their words on race are so great you are playing with fire and will get burned. There are black folks (not jesse or al or the gangbangers) but silent black folks who work hard and want the amerikkkan dream who getting tired of this type of racial rhetoric coming from your "RACE HUSTLERS".

p.s. if you conservatives want to pontificate about your racism join the klan, reading this book justs makes you look like a bigger idiot at least their racism has a point not just elitist [junk.]

Rating:
Summary: D'Souza has no Idea what he is talking about
Review: As usual D'Souza has written a book that is yery well "researched" and coherent, however it is simply untrue. He compares constantly the experience of the black American with the immigrant, constantly asking the common ignorant conservative question "If I can, how come blacks cannot?" His opinions on Black America seem to be based on his viewpoint as a millionaire looking at Black America from the penthouse of a luxurious high rise, about as far away from the ghetto as you can possibly get. D'Souza has entered the lucrative buisness that many other "house negroes" as Malcolm X would say, have; that is telling conservative whites that everything is OK in black America. Nothing could be further from the truth. In order for a book to be written about the end of racism by any conservative, one should first go to the ghettos in their respective cities before denouncing and insulting the residents that live there. D'Souza's criticism of Black America is highly insulting and incorrect. His book is filled with many racist assertions that are completely incorrect. If one really wants to learn about race relations in the US one should read the autobiography of Malcolm X, or a book by Manning Marable.

D'Souza offers his opinions on just a sliver of the whole truth, which is insulting to real social scientists. He draws the completely wrong conclusions from facts that for the most part have a shred of truth. D'Souza is a product of Right wing, racist America; Rich, ignorant, and afraid of change. Read this book if you want to get a poorly painted picture of Black American life today.

If you want to see how D'Souza stands up to real facts, I highly reccomend you do an internet search on his debate with Dr. Manning Marable. Marable mops the floor with him on nearly every point, and all D'Souza is able to do is ramble incoherently.

Before reading this book, I had no notions of who this man was, however, since I've finished it I have realized I have absolutely no respect for this man.

Rating:
Summary: the usual stereotyping , more covered up insensibility lol!
Review: Dinesh dedicates this book to "My darling wife Dixie, who makes my life complete." Dinesh is wedded to Dixie in more ways than one.

Rating:
Summary: One of the worst books ever written.
Review: First, let me say that I am a libertarian (an ideology whose adherents generally seem to agree with the principles D'souza espouses). Second, let me add that while I am not a racist ( a term I find misleading, because it implies a defining character trait as opposed to one that may manifest in certain situations), I hold the uncommon viewpoint that racism is just as legitimate of an ideology as any other, and that discrimination CAN be rational. However, this book is so pathetic that it ranks lower than whatever deconstructionist, multiculturalist, Marxist book is popular.

Let us first look at the meat of D'souza's work, which I will sum up in three points.

1. Slavery has nothing to do with current black poverty.
2. Black poverty is caused by black culture.
3. The pathologies of black culture are a result of slavery.

While not making any link, D'souza explains that blacks' condition is a result of the fact that black individuals are more likely to be lazy, criminal, etc... than whites. He then (actually, he does this earlier in the book) explains convincingly how slave culture obviously lends itself to laziness and theft. Both of these points are probably true, but they contradict the central thesis of the book which is that past oppression has little to do with current black poverty.

The secondary thesis of this book is that Western Culture is superior to that of any other. Let us now look at his claim of Western Moral superiority. He claims that modern western cultures were the first to ever voluntarily abolish slavery, and he cites a study which attempted to complete the difficult task of researching every culture that ever existed and the way they dealt with slavery. However, it is a known fact that slavery was outlawed in Ancient India.

Another problem with this book is that it supports the neocon claim that Martin Luther King supported black and white equality and colorblindness. D'Souza avoids the many things king wrote explicitly in favor of reparations for slavery, affirmative action, separatism, and black economic protectionism such as:

"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis."

"No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries...Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law." (MLK's 1964 book "Why we cant wait")

D'Souza attacks a straw man about how while king believed in equal results by claiming that he felt the way to accomplish
this was through equal rights, and that if he had lived longer, he would have seen his error.

D'souza's account of Christopher Columbus is terrible History. (For an equally shoddy, but opposite point of view, read anything by Howard Zinn) He simply selects certain quotes by explorers that support his conclusion, while eschewing others that may serve to contradict it.

Most of the early part of the book, which focuses on a time in a more distant past, is made up of anecdotes from contemporary figures, which he uses as "proof" of the way the world was. If someone did that to describe present day America, they would be laughed at, why don't people do this for ancient history?

Rating:
Summary: Disagree with this scary book
Review: I thought "End of Racism" would be about how to *end* the very real phenomena of racism that is based on the inexistent concept of 'race' (see any encyclopaedia). Instead, the book seems to continue the disease, but in a new form. For what? So it can take us another few centuries to identify the problem in its mutated form before we actually try to solve it? As for stupid and dangerous ideas like different peoples being more inferior/superior than others - what nonsense! Such lies leave an awful taste in my mouth. I find that the book just perpetuates ignorance and it might do worse if taken seriously: cause new troubles.

I have never lived in or visited America, and must ascribe my knowledge of its social situations to just the local TV. But I feel the situation of African Americans to some extent has parallels in the unhappy state other peoples find themselves in: Native Americans, the Maori people of New Zealand, the indigenous peoples of South Africa, the Australian Aboriginals, the Gypsies etc. Although the symptoms are different in each case (in some communities, the reaction is violence or breaking the law, in others it is drinking or an unwillingness to conform), the causes might be similar. These are all peoples who have been been separated from their traditions, cultures, etc., most often in very violent and oppressive ways. Other cultures, foreign to theirs, have been imposed on them.

Isn't it possible, that like a grown-up still dealing with trauma endured in childhood, a community as a whole can be going through the same thing? Having only studied about the terrible centuries of slavery, I can but imagine its impact in making a community feel devalued. It can hardly be surprising that the past affects the present, the grown-up still trying to come to terms with his unfortunate youth. Different communities in such countries might live in the same present, but their pasts are different, and can be very influential in how each copes with current situations. Removing the centuries-long traumatic effects of slavery or other oppression in what is still a very short time would be hard. This would be even more difficult, if not impossible, if the wrong methods were used to try to heal the effects of past wrongs. As for positive discrimination, I don't see it working in most cases. Of course, I like the idea of special scholarships, funding and extra help in unfamiliar territory like `getting a job' for those who just finished school. But not positive discrimination on one side and pushing back the previously-favoured on the other. This only segregates current generations, and can lead to future resentment.

It would be good to look into whether the cause for present difficulties in these cases is *because of* human communities having been separated from their original cultures. In many countries, people have been robbed of their millennia-old wisdom and traditions, and so are now unable to go back to the teachings of their communities. Having their pasts erased, a feeling of not belonging or even resentment is only natural.
Once they were allowed to go back to their traditions, Maori in New Zealand have become much more accepting of and comfortable in the present society. They also have a better overall well-being, because of the support given by being part of their own ancestral form of society. Maybe in America, this could be the case as well? As more Native Americans go back to their spiritual roots and spend time in their communities, their overall well-being could also increase. They might not have the feeling of loss, of a robbed past, because they have a living present and future. And perhaps if there are African-Americans wishing to investigate their animist roots, they might find a peace and hope in their ancient philosophical beliefs and myths. I can very much believe that it is when people's traditions have been forcibly stolen, their past erased, their original communities violently disbanded, that they lose any chance of happiness and do not really have the ability to truly live for a future. (Unless they've found some other culture to replace it with, which they think equally-acceptable).
With former-colonies, it's slightly different. In my own country of India, people have been mistreated and oppressed for centuries. Eg. According to British records, 25 million Indians died between 1800 and 1900 (this is only a portion of the time that they were in charge), without the British caring much. Many of the deaths were because of famine, induced by the Crown taking away desperately needed provisions or hiking prices so that people couldn't afford them. India's people were able to move on after Independence, even if only just, because they were able to fall back on culture: they had managed to hang on to it. It's a slow process of healing, and one day we'll be fine.

If any other peoples had undergone the slavery and torments that African-American people suffered, the former would be in the plight that the latter are now in. As it is, I wonder that African-Americans have been diligently trying, and often succeeding, to reconcile the past with the present - in spite of past wrongs. I do believe that the solution to current difficulties lies in their hands themselves (although everyone else can help if so willing and able). They have to search for what kind of culture they need that can help them in the present, what kind of community they require to rebuild their confidence and support them with exorcising the difficulties they had faced. I don't mean a new form of segregation keeping sub-communities of America separate, I just mean a culture or traditions African-Americans can turn to for guidance, that understands them uniquely. Perhaps looking to their roots in African animism might provide starting points. Celebrating their far-off past, but also their current identity as Americans.

Unfortunately, in Africa at least, the end of racism is not in sight. Around the start of the 20th century, 80% of Africa was still animistic. In the 1980s/90s, this was only 30%. I shudder to guess what it might be now. Soon people with African ancestry can't even look back with love, admiration and pride at where they came from, what their ancestors knew, their heritage. No longer will *anyone* be able to look for inspiration at what had been there relatively unchanged for millennia.

And as for Sudan, for a long while now - much longer than the news has informed the masses of, a deadly war has been raging. Here, one religion is using unspeakable violence to punish 'incorrectly practising' followers and to force-convert the rest of the population. And another is using bribing and blackmail to get converts. The few animists remaining have the worst end of the deal.
The destruction of the ancient and peaceful animistic belief systems of the continent are just a perpetuation of that old disease of racism.

I wish to remark on Manish Gyawali's review from 9 Oct 2004. His review stated quote (1) "Rakshas, the demon, is almost always black" and (2) "every Indian comes to this country <America> expecting to have a run-in with an armed black guy who wants his money":

About (1) Rakshasas had long ago been translated as demons in English, but this is not appropriate as some are good and others bad. They come in a huge range of colours (which have nothing to do with their `good- or badness') incl. green, blue, yellow, purple, grey, black, white. These last 2 refer to the *actual* colours black and white, not any human shades. Rakshasas are *not* humans, but are seen as mythical antagonists to humans, and have magical powers. Indian Gods and other Hindu mythical beings also come in different colours. Eg. Indra is gold, Kali is black and her husband Rudra is white and as Shiva he is violet or ash-grey. Rama and Krishna are different shades of blue, Lakshmi is Pink, Meenakshi is green, etc. Many of these change colours or have different colours in different (versions of) stories. Also, the various Hindu characters and Gods, including Rakshasas, often have non-human numbers of arms, legs, heads and other parts. Some are huge giants and others are animals or mountains etc. in their natural state, but able to take on more human-like forms - with a few excessive limbs. Last time I checked, no human I've seen matched any or all of these criteria.
Christian schools in India, like the one I attended for a year, tend to teach selectively. So I've heard the `bad Rakshasa is black' and `good Deva is white' propaganda before. It's their way to divide and convert - sorry, conquer.
It doesn't occur to modern man that people from long ago *literally meant* different coloured non-human characters when they wrote/told their interesting myths by the fireside. Is it too hard to conceive that our human ancestors had an imagination and used it to make their tales more interesting and colourful by inventing new creatures? According to the way people nowadays dissect the workings of the minds of ancients, it would seem all the people living millennia back had little intelligence and no creativity
I visited a Marae, a set of spiritual community houses of the Maori people of New Zealand. One large wall had paintings that depicted Maori Gods who, like in Hindu mythology, were different coloured (green, black, blue, white, etc.) and giants. This also occurs in religions all over the world. Are we to accuse all of them of racism? Oh, please.
My parents, who are teachers, took me to Africa for 2 years to document some of the peoples' original religions and traditions. They later taught what they learnt to the children at the schools back in India. We stayed in a number of animist communities, all of which were very loving and accepting of us. Several of these animist traditions also had Gods that vary greatly in appearance (including Gods in various colours) and fascinatingly interesting myths concerning these. Will conversion-centric religions go and tell their children that their ancestors were racist too? Or maybe that's an honour reserved purely for Indians, because people from different parts of India look superficially different (with external forces hoping to create division based on appearance).

About (2) One can hardly speak for every Indian. The children at the interconnected set of Hindu schools (all over India) that my parents teach at, learn about many indigenous peoples and cultures of the world and are taught to see the unifying commonality in this interesting diversity. These children learn to appreciate differences in appearance and culture, as have their parents and communities who often studied at the same schools. That accounts for over 100,000 non-bigotted Indians over the last few decades who I can speak for.
My cousin went to work in the US. The only thing he was warned about was to check that all the food he bought was beef-free. The only impressions of America that the average Indian can gain comes from the American programming available in India. For instance, US police dramas at times stereotype, often showing African-Americans as using guns or committing crime. But I'd sooner blame the biased foreign programming, where this nonsense originates, than Indian society itself.

Rating:
Summary: Heartbreaking Exposé of Race and Culture in America
Review: This book is provocative and persuasively written. D'Souza carefully examines racism with a sober approach supporting and refuting positions with remarkable scholarship and revealing anecdotes. At times D'Souza's analysis is far too laborious than the subject matter deserves but you appreciate his sincere effort in making sense out of all the related issues.

This work is more than just a rendering of the role of race in America. It's a remarkable analysis of the philosophical foundations of Western society and how it corresponds with the liberal notions of proportional representation, cultural relativism and multiculturalism. D'Souza's painstaking study examines the historical and cultural roots of these ideologies and what the consequences have been for African-Americans and for America as it fulfills the vision of its creed: 'all men are created equal'.

This book is a must read for anyone thinks about race in America.

Rating:
Summary: Searingly, brutally honest and clear-minded,
Review: This is probably the most important and courageous book on race and racism in America written in the 1990s. It flies in the face of the comfortable shibboleths and easy answers that we've all heard so often in the last 30 years.

D'Souza genuinely believes in the cause of racial equality and harmony. But he refuses to flinch from looking at reality as it is--not just from the black perspective or the white liberal perspective, but from the average white person's perspective, and from the perspective of minorities who are neither black nor white--like D'Souza himself. In other words, he strives for a HUMAN perspective that transcends race.

It's powerful and controversial. D'Souza doesn't flinch from criticizing problems in black culture. Nor does he have much good to say about the policies that have been pursued to fix racial problems over the last 30 years.

Not everyone will agree with everything in this book. The book has genuinely infuriated some who strongly believe in things like Affirmative Action or the idea that white racism is at the root of most of the problems in black America. D'Souza sees some truth there but mostly rejects them as a primary cause for any of today's problems. The troubles lie deeper, he says, and in areas that people of all races are genuinely afraid to even discuss.

Anyone who genuinely cares about race and race relations needs to read this book--whether they agree with D'Souza's conclusions or not.

Rating:
Summary: Heartbreaking Exposé of Race and Culture in America
Review: This work is more than just a rendering of the role of race in America. It's a remarkable analysis of the philosophical foundations of Western society and how it corresponds with the liberal notions of proportional representation, cultural relativism and multiculturalism. D'Souza's painstaking study examines the historical and cultural roots of these ideologies and what the consequences have been for African-Americans and for America as it fulfills the vision of its creed: 'all men are created equal'.

This book is provocative and persuasively written. He carefully examines racism with a sober approach supporting and refuting positions with remarkable scholarship and revealing anecdotes. At times D'Souza's analysis is far too laborious than the subject matter deserves but you appreciate his sincere effort in making sense out of all the related issues.

The most distressing part of the book is how he exposes black pathology in all its naked absurdity and degeneracy. This work will incite those who believe more acknowledgement should be given to the contributions African-Americans have made to American society. Additionally, they will argue that D'Souza, as an East Indian immigrant, doesn't fully understand the dynamics of black culture. 'It's a black thang. You wouldn't understand', so to speak. He does celebrate black culture but this book is about bridging the socio-economic and cultural gap between blacks and whites. Black anti-social behavior, unfortunately, is one of the reasons for the gap. Also, as an immigrant, D'Souza provides an objective perspective to an issue that needs an objective perspective.

He is absolutely correct in stating that what is described as present day racism is actually rational discrimination, which is the sensible prejudgment of an individual based upon the factual behavioral characteristics of the group the person belongs too. He isn't arguing that it is justifiable for taxis to pass anyone by based solely on the color of his or her skin; however, if tomorrow a huge crime wave came mainly from East-Indian communities, don't expect many taxis picking up Dinesh D'Souza.

His review of American slavery is eye opening. At first his analysis may seem suspiciously apologetic for an immoral system by pointing out that a substantial number of free blacks (and Native Americans) owned black slaves not just to rescue family members but like white slave owners, to exploit free labor. However he does so only to bring a nuanced perspective over the politicized history of slavery, which in not a Western invention and has always existed in various forms in all societies. D'Souza points out that it is liberty and individual rights that are relatively new and Western concepts. However, with regards to reparations, this doesn't make his churlish question, 'what do blacks owe America for ending slavery?', any less condescending.

For all his meticulous study of cultural relativism, rational discrimination, early 20th century eugenics, and even the Greek understanding of nature and the polis, he surprisingly didn't extend his scrupulous analytical talents over the roots of black rage. D'Souza exhaustively discusses its paranoid nature and the depravity it produces. He does discuss how the unique characteristics of black culture developed under slavery and how they persist today contribute to some of the community's dysfunctions. But why did black rage flourish in the 1960's, as oppose to after the end of slavery when presumably blacks should've been bursting with rage? Why and how did black rage metastasize into its present form of rampant crime and illegitimacy? Such an analysis would've been important because though there are similarities between white racism and black rage (so similar in fact that D' Souza exposes the astonishing collusion between Malcolm X and the KKK), black rage emerged essentially as a response to white racism. The difference is not inconsequential. The emergence of black rage after the liberating repercussions of the Civil Rights movement suggests there it may correlate with the cathartic qualities of universal suffrage. This analysis could provide additional insights into how a multiracial society can prevent or at least mitigate the rise of such pathologies, which seem to stem from group resentment and an inability to effectively deal with group underachievement.

This criticism is in no way an attempt to give credence to the idea that we must 'understand the root causes' of a problem to effectively deal with it. Placing criminals in jail is far more effective in stopping crime than trying to 'understand' what compelled one to commit the crime. However, if we're to consider present day white racism as rational discrimination, then another question should be asked: is there rational black rage? At the time of the Civil Rights movement, despite the stubborn efforts of the free market, which allowed for black economic and social mobility, the ubiquitous 'System', with its Jim Crow laws and societal discriminatory mores, was real and was actively working against blacks. At one point the paranoia behind black rage was legitimate, hence rational. But as paranoia tends to do, it spun out of control. The rage became an alibi for immorality and underachievement. Additionally, the mayhem emboldened self-serving judges, policy decision makers and race merchants to justify the circumvention of the Constitution out of deference to the fulfillment of proportional representation, which has been guised as the protection of minority rights. Even if the crisis within the black community were to be repaired tomorrow, America would still need to contend with the rampant judicial activism that is wreaking havoc on our democratic traditions. D'Souza should've discussed this further.

After 400 years of slavery and Jim Crow it has been difficult for a people, whose entire historical and cultural identity can only be verifiably documented no further than North American shores, to accept that the virulent forms of white racism ended within less than a generation. It would almost be irrational to believe this, but it is true. What D'Souza is analyzing is how a people are painfully struggling with the reality that there has been, in fact, an end to racism.

This book is a must read for anyone thinks about race in America.