-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
“Just when I thought I was out,” Michael Corleone said, “they pull me back in.” I’d intended for yesterday’s post-Derbyshire blog item to be my last word on the subject, but based on the reactions I’ll say a bit more.
Liberals frequently behave as if any awareness of race as it relates to crime and other social problems is inherently racist, unless white racism is itself being fingered as the culprit. When people of good faith say that these liberal cliches do not comport with their experience or understanding of reality, they are often told that they are acting out of some kind of racism, be it intentional, institutional, or subconscious.
Since the 1960s, we have heard that “crime” and “law and order” are racist code words rather than legitimate concerns about crime and personal safety. As recently as this election cycle, complaints about welfare were greeted as dog whistling to racists rather than genuine concerns about welfare dependency and the government’s fiscal problems. In 1995, Charlie Rangel — the Harlem Democrat (is that a dog whistle?) who eventually rose to chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee — went so far as to say that talking about tax cuts was equivalent to using racial slurs.
In each of these controversies — to say nothing of controversies where the racial angle is much more overt and less the product of liberal imagination — there is an implicit assumption that white racial animus is fairly widespread. That in many white people, especially conservative white people, there is a little Klansman hiding who wants to get out. Most white people do not recognize themselves in this description.
The left’s tolerance and occasional celebration of racial hucksterism has produced an equal and opposite reaction on the right. It has made some more mainstream conservatives automatically dismissive of claims of anti-black racism. On the more extreme end, it has produced an audience for white nationalism. These white nationalists — the people I called “white nats” in the comments thread of yesterday’s post — start by rejecting liberal caricatures and asking plausible questions: Would you rather live in Haiti or Switzerland? In [insert dangerous inner city neighborhood here] or [insert prosperous white suburb here]? Would you rather be governed by Marion Barry or George Washington? Once you have provided the obvious answers, they head further down the road.
The overwhelming majority of people can hold two thoughts in their head simultaneously: they can avoid a dangerous neighborhood at night without it affecting their treatment of their black friends, neighbors, coworkers, and strangers they meet (yes, white people do have black friends, neighbors, and coworkers). Even John Derbyshire acknowledges as much in the column that led to his separation from National Review (the Atlantic helpfully lists some racists who criticized Derbyshire for this acknowledgement; Jason Lee Steorts makes the case that the column goes on to violate this principle).
In essence, the extreme left and right paint an unrealistic picture of American race relations as being something akin to the Hutu and the Tutsi. Few people share either group’s worldview entirely, but the number of Americans they influence is larger. And while many commenters were disappointed I didn’t weigh in more directly on Derbyshire himself, I thought this undercurrent — which the controversy surrounding his column for Taki’s brought to light — more interesting than being the thousandth person to denounce Derbyshire’s piece or trying to defend views that don’t resemble my own.
UPDATE: Derb speaks for himself with Gawker.
View all comments (46) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/04/10/beyond-john-derbyshire-ctd
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Richard| 4.10.12 @ 3:04PM
Thank you, James Antle, for one of the more thoughtful assessments of the insider baseball maelstrom of l'Affaire Derbyshire.
"The overwhelming majority of people can hold two thoughts in their head simultaneously: they can avoid a dangerous neighborhood at night without it affecting their treatment of their black friends, neighbors, coworkers, and strangers they meet (yes, white people do have black friends, neighbors, and coworkers)."
I don't know John Derbyshire, but have alternately enjoyed and been vexed by his columns over the years, while almost always admiring the quality of his writing. His "Straggler" pieces in the paper copy of National Review have been insightful, witty, and self-deprecating takes on the foibles of middle class suburban life. I am sorry to hear that he is battling cancer, and I hope that his customary tenacity will equip him to overcome that dread disease.
Call his sentiments what you will, his public expression of attitudes many people hold presented the editors of National Review with a challenge, and they made a decision that it would be unacceptable to have those particular views associated with their magazine. Call it hypocrisy, if you will. As has been said many times, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. Conservative principles and ideals that originate from our nation's founding converge on the premise of the dignity of the individual. It's true that each of us makes a series of risk-weighted assumptions every day about behaviors we see ourselves likely to experience from individuals we are likely to encounter, and adapt our own course of action accordingly. From time to time there can be a tension between these actions, and a small-'d' civic duty to render to each other a degree of respect and avoidance of pre-judgment that expresses the better angels of our nature. Which way we choose to lean can influence everything from the cohesiveness of a military unit, to the openness of our business to customers, to the degree to which our civic society honors our virtues, instead of being hostage to our vices. I've felt Mr. Derbyshire's impulses myself. Part of the challenge of life has been to learn to govern them.
Based on what I have read from him over the years, I'm willing to believe that Mr. Derbyshire gave the average individual he encountered the civic duty of basic respect that he describes at one point in his article for Taki. What he proclaimed elsewhere in that article, however, gave National Review's editors pause, because it flies in the face of the aspirational conservatism that National Review - however imperfectly - seeks to express. A conservatism that draws from roots of Christian faith that should be obvious to any regular reader of the magazine or its on-line incarnation, and that draws from optimism and pride grounded in the kind of patriotism for which Ronald Reagan was such a powerful witness. For what it is worth, Mr. Derbyshire scorned both lines of thought and inspiration with increasing regularity. Choosing that path may well make (or have made) Mr. Derbyshire a stimulating and challenging opponent in debate. It is the judgment of NR's editors that it ceased to make him a full partner in the vision of conservatism they have sought to present.
It does Mr. Derbyshire no disservice to acknowledge these things. The phenomenon that I find troubling, however, alluded to in Mr. Antle's statement that the racial hucksterism on the left has prompted an equivalent reaction on the right, is the willingness of so many on the right - including multitudes commenting on this site - to use Mr. Derbyshire's dismissal as the justification for venting their own racial animosities. In some laagers of the echo chamber right, or in some basement computer rooms, that catharsis may feel liberating. But it is neither the path to a governing majority, nor to a civil society, nor to a nation that reflects the Judeo Christian principles that informed its founding and the voices and examples of its greatest leaders. And that's not a criticism aimed at Mr. Derbyshire. That is a criticism aimed at the mirrors into which many of you are looking. Whatever your philosophy is, it isn't "conservative".
Richard
vb| 4.10.12 @ 3:10PM
Excellent comment:
Chris (the second one)| 4.10.12 @ 4:32PM
Really, I found it pretty insulting. In a nice, long winded way, Richard basically said that if you don't agree with him, if you don't reject what is a realistic appraisal based on what many Americans face on an ongoing basis, you aren't conservative and you aren't acting Christian. There are no specifics here. It is just gauzy platitudes.
Quartermaster| 4.10.12 @ 8:16PM
Amen. Moreover, NR/NRO has long ceased to conservative, they are Neoconservative which is another species of cat than Conservative. It is actually more in the GOP mainstream which was quite leftist and mercantile at its foundation. That Derb would be thrown under the bus is a surprise only to the naive. That the Pod people and Kristol is all for it says all you need to know on teh subject.
OTOH, Derb acquits himself quite well in the Gawker interview.
Chris (the second one)| 4.10.12 @ 10:37PM
I laughed at Richard's statement that NR "...draws from roots of Christian faith that should be obvious to any regular reader of the magazine or its on-line incarnation..." NR is pretty AWOL on most Christian social issues. On homosexual marriage they are squishes. They do tend to be pro-life. But, that's about it. Every other social issue, they'll complain until the dinner party circuit convinces them to surrender.
Bob Grant| 4.10.12 @ 3:35PM
A thoughtful post but can you trouble me with examples of "multitudes" of commenters posting their "racial animosities" at this site?
Aside from a handful of knuckleheads that are summarily dismissed, I see no proof of what you describe. Most are thoughtful posts like yours.
BTims| 4.10.12 @ 3:39PM
I'm not happy to say this but I for one, don't believe (and have never believed) that that can be true equality and harmony between the races (and even "ethnicities" vis sa vis Latinos).
I believe a country needs a dominant, majority to set and establish the culture of that country. Minorities will never completely love the situation but that's why I also believe we should have many smaller nations, made up for differing races and/or ethnicities.
"Hispanics" used to be called "Mexicans" when they were a tiny percentage of the US population but when their numbers swelled, due to lack of border and immigration law enforcement, they now have political power and are called "Hispanics" to purposely include as many Latin Americans as possible for the sake of numbers. Now it's happening with Muslims.
Muslims used to be called "Arabs" when they were a tiny, tiny faction of the US population or prior to about the 1930, there were no Muslims in the US. But since their numbers are growing fast, due to never ending immigration, they are not more confident, call themselves "Muslims" instead of "Moslems", they now dress in ancient, traditonal garb, are more stridently devout and more anti-American, anti-Western.
What am I trying to say? Bottom line: The US was a better place when we were about 90% white, 10% black, pre 1965 immigration reform act. The elites want the US to become the UN and have every race, ethnicity, culture, language, religion and custom "celebrated" here.
Why?
Bob| 4.10.12 @ 7:51PM
The -ism of the day is racism. A hundred years ago, it was about nationality. If you were Italian, or Greek, or Irish, or whatever you were ostracized. The difference is that the Greeks, Italians, and Irish assimilated into American culture. Today, immigrants refuse to assimilate, and brand any attempt at assimilation as racism.
C Bowen | 4.10.12 @ 3:51PM
Republicans are the white people's party. They occasionally employ the political tactic of racism to turn out their base, no different then the Dems.
This tactic is just a function of electoral politics.
The issue is that Conservative Inc., will happily send the sons (and sickly the daughters) overseas to fight and kill Muslims, debt financed of course, and this same Conservative Inc., is the first person to call those who attempt to speak and defend the base a 'racist.'
See, Conservative Inc, uses the electoral tactic of racism against the people that vote for their guys.
We find that sick.
And in fact, it is a good thing the girly men fired Derbs, as Conservative Inc. is the problem and needs to be destroyed in the eyes of the people who vote for them and to repeat, send their sons and daughters to fight their foolish wars.
jppc| 4.10.12 @ 4:55PM
White conservatives a) have children and b) have guns. Your types are masturbating, limp-wrists, cross-dressers and homo's. ROTFL
Hmm, wonder why you didn't mention liberal democrat wars like Bosnia and Libya? Hmm....inconvenient truth, eh? ROTFL
C Bowen | 4.10.12 @ 4:59PM
The Neocons like Bill Kristol and John McCain supported killing and bombing Christians to prop up Muslims in Bosnia and Libya--what you talking about?
I am well to your Right, jppc, and you are exactly the kind of person who slavishly votes Republican year and year out, and never gets anything for it.
Re-read what I wrote.
jppc| 4.10.12 @ 6:22PM
You are sick with "NDS" - Neocon Derangement Syndrome. Get a life.
C Bowen | 4.10.12 @ 7:11PM
That doesn't make any sense. You said I did not mention liberal democrat (sic) wars like Bosnia and Libya, which was true, I did not mention them, because all rightwing conservatives know that Conservative Inc stalwarts like Bill Kristol, John McCain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, supported wars to make the world safe for Islam, but the duped people like you into such wars based on a general racism towards Muslims.
They supported bombing Orthodox Christians in Serbia, to make Bosnia and Kosovo safe for Muslims; they supported toppling Saddam who kept the Christians safe, to make Iraq safe for Islam--and the ethnic cleansing of Iraqi Christians; they supported intervening in Egypt to make it safe for Muslims, and bad for Christians; they supported/are supporting Al-Qeda in Libya and Syria.
Get a brain.
Quartermaster| 4.10.12 @ 8:24PM
Change it to Neoconservative, Inc. I'd buy it. The neoconservatives tried to read people like my self and Jerry Pournelle out of the conservative movement. We didn't think that going into Iraq and Trashcanistan were good ideas. I had no trouble with going after Osama and staying in the AFG long enough to make sure they didn't harbor our enemies, or kicking Hussein out in Iraq, killing him then tossing the keys to teh next strong man and telling him not to make us come back. These things should have taken, what, 6 months?
You need to be abit more aware of what you are writing about. The Neocons do want to go abroad seeking monsters to slay. Conservatives do not. Defend our interests and bordersx? Abs0lutely, but we weren't doing that in Iraq or Trashcanistan. Those were simply Wilsonian crusades that threaten to break us.
The Neocons are also all for throwing the borders open to anyone who wants to come. Saying such things are not NDS. It is simply stating the facts.
C Bowen | 4.10.12 @ 8:59PM
Quartermaster;
I am plenty aware--I subscribe to Chronicles and American Conservative Magazine, read TakiMag.com, Alternativeright.com, Paul Gottfried, antiwar.com, amren.com-- not because I agree with everything they offer, but because I try to be well read in conservative thinking--but obviously, this is a not a serious posting board, username anonymous and not even part of disqus (takimag, amren, altright, even humanevets are so there is at least some cross pollination) which I might think intentional, so I throw Molotov Cocktails here when tactics warrant.
Look at two responses on this threat to me--this chap said I have 'neoconservative' blah blah blah--they have a stock answer. That confirms the whole thing needs to come down and there is no use explaining the neocons anymore, to this crowd.
Look who I am responding to as evidence.
You and I have no troubles--your handle is familiar. I link back to a site where I post at with other paleocons. In our lexicon, we have pretty much given up on Beltway Conservatives (so called Conservative Inc. by Sean Scallon amongst others) but we root for Antle and the other remaining few nevertheless-hope they can navigate, and try, through various means, to encourage his writing.
Peace.
C Bowen | 4.10.12 @ 5:19PM
Conservative Inc made Scooter Libby a hero.
This is a guy who wrote a novel that featured animals raping a girl.
That is to say nothing of Lynne Cheney's lesbian novel, Sisters.
Figure out the scam, already.
jppc| 4.10.12 @ 6:21PM
You are on drugs......geez.
C Bowen | 4.10.12 @ 7:06PM
Are you saying Scooter Libby did not write The Apprentice? And Lynne Cheney did not write Sisters? You can order them on Amazon--do you not actually have a computer, jppc?
Do you want me to post some links so you can order?
Quartermaster| 4.10.12 @ 8:25PM
That was "Neoconservative, Inc." that did those things Bowen.
C Bowen | 4.10.12 @ 8:49PM
Fair--W. at least listened to the elder Conservative Inc. and did not pardon Libby.
Mike W| 4.11.12 @ 12:15AM
Clever reply.
I'm not sure why you are going after Bowen unless you are one of those dead ender conservatives that still think it was a good idea to go into Iraq.
What I think he is getting at is that the neocons, (Sailer said they want to invade the world and invite the world) despise true conservatives. They are actually liberal domestically but want to con us into many pointless war overseas.
The real neocon hacks write for this web site. Antle is a good example with his absurd criticism of Derb's realistic portrayal of American race relations. TAS has become tiresome lately. They ignored the political war being waged by the liberal media during the Sanford affair. TAS just generally sucks.
Bob| 4.10.12 @ 7:52PM
No different than the Dems? When have prominent Republicans called for raids on black communities or bounties on black people, a la New Black Panther Party?
You have a severely distorted view of the world.
C Bowen | 4.10.12 @ 8:47PM
Santorum and Rick Lowry sided with the Sharpton led mob against Zimmerman, so it was necessary to have the New Black Panthers be even more extreme. Panthers are on the payroll one way or the other--you do get how it works right?
C Bowen | 4.10.12 @ 9:08PM
Bob--
Just so we are clear--I am defending Derbs--you did figure that out, right?
Drek| 4.10.12 @ 4:16PM
I think John Podhoretz should be singled out for his particularly squalid smear against Derb. I'll paraphrase it to keep it short and spare you the bother of having to read Podhoretz patting himself on the back: "I always knew Derb was racist."
That's the gist of what he wrote, if not delineated quite so emphatically.
And he was gloating while he posted it.
A jerk, and one in our own ranks.
DiverCity| 4.10.12 @ 8:58PM
You ought to resign your commission if you deem the Pod-person to be one of your rank.
JDP| 4.10.12 @ 4:24PM
i love how that Gawker article says "uber" conservative. i suppose it's better than ultraconservative. uber!
Lesser Weevil| 4.10.12 @ 5:00PM
And in reference to NRO--if only it were so!
Bob| 4.10.12 @ 7:54PM
It's hipster lingo.
JDP| 4.10.12 @ 4:29PM
shorter C Bowen:
neocons, neocons, neoconnnnnnnnns!!!! it's always 2003!!
C Bowen | 4.10.12 @ 5:02PM
They are sick people, indeed. Bomb Syria! Bomb Libya! Bomb Iran--Derbs a racist!
Bob Grant| 4.10.12 @ 4:50PM
How novel would it be to debate Derbyshire's column instead of the reactions to it?
His 15 point "non-black" talk would not be one I would give to my son or daughter but most of it has merit nonetheless. Having a mathematical background, Derbyshire's use of Statistical Common Sense is what one would expect if your are familiar with his writings.
He loses me when he advises his children not to extend Good Samaritan deeds to minorities in distress as this goes against every Biblical principle instilled in me.
His advice to befriend IWSB's (Intelligent and Well-Socialized Blacks), although accurate and very practical, smacks of personal bias and is something his children should just learn on their own. One of life's lessons.
He's already (in jest) described himself as a "mild racist" and he accurately fits that description in my opinion.
He's never called for segregation. Nor has he called for violence of any kind. As a matter of fact, his advice to his children is to avoid it at all costs.
Overall, his views are much, much, more benign than many who serve in congress (see Congressional Black Caucus), many preachers (paging Mr. Wright), or typical race baiters.
It's questionable whether he should have lost his gig at National Review.
Crassus| 4.10.12 @ 7:34PM
Nobody seems to realize that Derbyshire's piece was satire. Dumbasses.
Bob| 4.10.12 @ 7:55PM
Satire is thought crime.
Bob| 4.10.12 @ 7:48PM
Mr. Antle,
What are you even saying?
Chris (the second one)| 4.10.12 @ 10:40PM
I would say it comes down to, "I don't want to address what Derb said, so I'll mention how there are those extreme righties out there endangering the kumbaya project."
W. James Antle III | 4.11.12 @ 3:29AM
Bob,
If you are really curious, we will have to negotiate the fee for your remedial reading course later.
Chris,
What is your fee for teaching stand-up comedy?
Chris (the second one)| 4.11.12 @ 10:37AM
Tuesdays and Thursdays at $25/hour. :-)
Denise| 4.10.12 @ 8:48PM
Do any of you frequent the Number 1 Black Website World Star Hip Hop?
No?
Why not?
Jackson| 4.10.12 @ 9:42PM
This is simple.
You either think Haiti (and Africa, and Detroit, and the favelas in Brazil, etc.) is different from Switzerland because of some Marxist-defined conspiracy (White Privilege, Post-Colonial Theory, Critical Race Theory), or not.
Which is it?
"Once you have provided the obvious answers, they head further down the road."
Further down the road to where? Recognizing that Haiti is full of Haitians and Switzerland full of Swiss? Is that bar for 'racism' nowadays?
Fmr1| 4.11.12 @ 1:31AM
Jackson, you are correct. Today the Brazilian leadership launches new wave after wave of onslaughts into the endless Rio de Janeiro favelas to shoot the drug gang members (yes, even when they are just 17 years old), warn people to get out and then bulldoze a whole section to the ground.
The city leaders cannot stomach it and know it to be unsightly, a blight, utterly dangerous, unacceptable. They know that bulldozing and earth moving is radical, but they ask, "Well, what can you do? This has been here now for three or four decades? They won't change themselves, so we have to change this."
And they know that the world will not be coming to Rio for the soccer World Cup and the Summer Olympics if rapes, muggings, assaults, taunts, knifings, and kidnappings are the norm.
What makes the slums of Pretoria slums?
What makes the barrios of Mexico City barrios?
What holds back Filipinos in Cebu or Manila?
Who hasn't seen pictures of the Hong Kong slums?
How about the ones in Peking?
Why does Bombay have slums and street people under the shadows of its skyscrapers?
Who doesn't think that Port au Prince will look much the same in 25 years as it does today?
Ask the same question about Islamabad and Kabul.
Why does no one ask why an Oslo or a Copenhagen, a Calgary, Edmonton ,or a city like Bern, Switzerland is so radically different than these places I have named above? Is it really all just due to climate?
Doesn't it all boil down to the people who inhabit these places and spaces?
Bob S| 4.11.12 @ 1:03AM
Ummm, so it's OK for Jesse Jackson to state the obvious, but not the Derb? Check.
We get it. White raciss bad, black raciss good.
What flavor will the kool aid be next week?
Ignerunt minds want to know.
[IOW Mr. Antle, you can do better than this.
Please do so in the future.]
C Bowen | 4.11.12 @ 7:53AM
The Marxists have asked Lowry to fire Prof. Robert Weissberg, and he complied last night.
Wonder who will be next?
Red Phillips | 4.11.12 @ 11:23AM
Sorry, I didn't see this when I posted the same info below.
Laguna Beach Fogey | 4.11.12 @ 10:51AM
White racial consciousness is rising and there's nothing Neocons such as Lowry and Antle can do about it.
And to think I once subscribed to those Neocon rags (NR, TAS)...!
It's almost as if NR and TAS are 'false flag' projects or controlled opposition for the anti-White Left.
The conservative movement has lost.
It has failed its base.
No wonder people are frustrated and seeking an alternative.
Red Phillips | 4.11.12 @ 11:22AM
The cowardly Rich Lowry has fired another person for wrongthink.
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....rich-lowry
PC enforcer Charles Johnson (Little Green Footballs) says "jump," Rich Lowry says "how high." Lowry is a pathetic hack.