The Right Opinion
Who Is 'Racist'?: Part II
Around this time of year, I sometimes hear from parents who have been appalled to learn that the child they sent away to college to become educated has instead been indoctrinated with the creed of the left. They often ask if I can suggest something to have their offspring read over the summer, in order to counteract this indoctrination.
This year the answer is a no-brainer. It is a book with the unwieldy title, "No matter what ... they'll call this book Racist" by Harry Stein, a writer for what is arguably America's best magazine, "City Journal." In a little over 200 very readable pages, the author deftly devastates with facts the nonsense about race that dominates much of what is said in the media and in academia.
There is no subject on which lies and half-truths have become so much the norm on ivy-covered campuses than is the subject of race. Moreover, anyone who even questions these lies and half-truths is almost certain to be called a "racist," especially in academic institutions which loudly proclaim a "diversity" that is confined to demographics, and all but forbidden when it comes to a diversity of ideas.
The ultimate irony is that many of those who publicly promote or accept the prevailing party line on race do not themselves accept it privately. A few years ago, when a faculty vote on affirmative action was proposed at the University of California at Berkeley, there was a fierce disagreement as to whether that vote should be taken by secret ballot or at an open faculty meeting.
Both sides understood that many professors would vote one way in secret and the opposite way in public. In short, hypocrisy is the norm in discussions of race -- and not just at Berkeley. Moreover, it is the norm among blacks as well as whites.
Black civil rights attorneys and activists who denounce whites for objecting to the bussing of kids from the ghetto into their neighborhood schools have not hesitated to send their own children to private schools, instead of subjecting them to this kind of "diversity" in the public schools.
As for whites, author Harry Stein says that many white liberals "give blacks a pass on behaviors and attitudes they would regard as unacceptable and even abhorrent in their own kind." This, of course, is no favor to those particular blacks -- especially those among young ghetto blacks whose counterproductive behavior puts them on a path that leads nowhere but to welfare, at best, and behind bars or death in gangland street warfare at worst.
In the introduction to his book, Stein says that his purpose is "to talk honestly about race." He accomplishes that purpose in a fact-filled book that should be a revelation, especially to young people of any race, who have been fed a party line in schools and colleges across America.
He looks behind the highly sanitized picture of Al Sharpton, as a civil rights statesman with his own MSNBC program and his designation as a White House adviser, to the factual reality of a man with a trail of slime that has included inciting mobs, in some cases costing innocent lives.
Positive news also receives its due. Some readers of this book may be surprised to learn that the ban on racial preferences in the University of California system did not lead to a disappearance of blacks from the system, as the supporters of affirmative action claimed would happen.
On the contrary, more blacks graduated from the system after the ban -- for the very common sense reason that they were now admitted to University of California campuses where they qualified, rather than to places like UCLA and Berkeley, where they had often been admitted to fill a quota, and often failed.
Stein's book is also one of the few places where many young people will see the actual words of people like Bill Cosby, Shelby Steele, Pat Moynihan and others who have opposed the fashionable platitudes that confuse racial issues.
Whether those words convince all readers is not the point. The point, especially for young readers in our schools and colleges, is that this may be one of the few times they will ever encounter a fundamentally different set of views on race -- views that they have only heard referred to as coming from "Uncle Toms" or "racists."
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

9 Comments
Greg Welch
Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 9:58 AM
You are always a MUST read on my Saturday reading of Patriot Post. I am a Vermont born and raised male, living in lovely Liberal Mass. Vermont is now just as liberal as Mass. I too used to be one of the indoctrinated. It just saddens me to see the harm and damage that is being done to the Black family, through the race hustlers , do good liberals, and politically correct. And, it is all done in the interest of fairness. The irony is that this fairness is working in the opposite direction. When will people wakeup?
p3orion
Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Anyone can learn to spin the news just like a major-media editor! It’s fun! It’s easy!When investigating news stories, it is often tiresome or inconvenient for reporters to seek actual facts before determining the preferred outcome. Fortunately, for stories like the George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin incident, the "major media" have developed a handy set of rules to help them assign guilt without the nuisance and drudgery of having to pursue such outdated concepts as "objective truth."The general rule:Any white blood in a presumed aggressor makes that person white (or at most "white Hispanic"), while any minority blood in a presumed victim makes that person a minority. It’s that simple! Extra points are added for being liberal, female, Muslim or atheist, poor, or gay. Subtract points from anyone who is conservative, male, Christian, middle-class or higher, straight, or a veteran. (Also, please note: Asians are "dishonorary" whites, but self-hating Jews are equal to Muslims.)Another great advantage of these "situational race" rules is that they work both ways! That is, when you consider an incident, not only can how the people were involved help you to figure out their races, but their races can be used to determine how to say they were involved! Let's see how that works: George Zimmerman is a registered Democrat who tutors minority kids, but this is cancelled out by his support for the rule of law (de facto conservatism.) Therefore his race becomes (of course) the paramount consideration. On one side he is Hispanic with a touch of African blood, however, his father was white. He admits having shot a black kid; all other considerations are irrelevant.The final score is:A bigoted racist “white Hispanic” shot an innocent black kid.--------------------Another example:Before Barack Obama was well-known, if he were to have shot George Zimmerman, how would it have been described? Hint: Obama was raised by his white mother's liberal parents in Hawaii. (Note: As the nation's foremost liberal, the extra points for Obama's socialist "street cred" now outweigh any other social consideration, but for the purposes of this exercise, consider him still just a race-hustling community agitator.)[Try this exercise on your own before checking the correct answer!] .....Answer: A bigoted racist “white African American” shot a poor part-black Hispanic.--------------------One more:Two African-American men get in a fight. One is poor and Christian, the other is a wealthy homosexual. Which one is pronounced guilty by the media?.....Trick question! Black on black crime isn’t reported by the media at all!--------------------For homework, determine the proper spin for each of the following :1) 30 blacks in Baltimore rob, beat, and strip a tourist, the only white man in the area. Question: Of what is the tourist guilty? (Remember, being white is only WHY he is guilty.)2) Al Sharpton smacks conservative black economist Walter Williams upside the head. Q: Which one is the aggressor, and why? 3) Senator John McCain (RINO, Ariz) assaults flip-flopping Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Q: Does anyone really lose?EXTRA CREDIT4) Possibly-lesbian Elena Kagan throttles "wise Latina" Sonya Sotomayor. Q: To which one would the headlines assign blame? Q: What if former ACLU lawyer Ruth Ginsberg (remember, Jewish!) joins in on one side? Q: If black conservative Clarence Thomas holds one of them down, who is the victim? Q: How much money would you pay to see this happen?
alex
Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 12:08 PM
P3orion......Trick question! Black on black crime isn’t reported by the media at all!That was too funny
wjm
Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM
Carol Burnett quiped Comedy was Tragedy plus time. In P3's case, it is truth at this time. The tragedy now is the open season on the Constitution, as perpetrated by the Traitors who vote Democrat.
Holmes Simons
Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM
There are plenty of reasons to dislike, even hate, people. I dislike, even hate, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The basis for my emotion is what these men have made of themselves and how they victimize the victimless. I feel the same about lying communists like David Axelrod, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Dick Durbin, and Maxine Waters. Race doesn't really enter into it except to describe the tone of their skin. Real racists insist my dislike is founded upon another's skin color, and I am a racist, but not them. I have never hated a black man or a white man because of the color of his skin. Now, Obama is a different kind of cat. I can't stand coffee with cream or people with flies, so if Obama ever makes a Starbucks commercial I will admit to becoming a racist, 'cause I can't stand him and his subversion of the Constitution. He's a communist, a fraud, a deviant, and a half-white jerkwad. I hate half-white jerkwads.
p3orion
Saturday, April 28, 2012 at 4:44 PM
You're right Holmes. Like you, I wouldn't pretend to be the kind of person who loves everyone, or can even tolerate all. But I can think of a lot of better reasons to hate someone long before I get to his looks. But that requires thought, whereas it does not to make a simple presumption that everyone of a given skin tone is going to share more relevant traits. Racism is then, at its root, little more than mental laziness. Then again, so is much of liberalism, which is why Leftists are so quick to throw out a charge of racism at anyone who disagrees with their simplistic worldviews, and why they are so offended by the thought of a black man like Thomas Sowell having the temerity to defy their neat categorization of all blacks as necessarily liberal. They have neither the will nor the capacity to imagine anything more complex.
Terry Webb
Sunday, April 29, 2012 at 6:23 PM
I have often wondered how any person could reach the position of "professor" in a post secondary institution and have such a closed and insular intellect. Higher education, by virtue of its very definition, MUST study, dissect, discuss, and ultimately (by dispassionate and intellectual reasoning) reach an objective conclusion of any controversial subject. But, what do I know?
Abu Nudnik
Monday, April 30, 2012 at 12:02 PM
A member of my own family called me racist for saying Zimbabweans would be starving within a year of Mugabe's nationalization of the farms and the splitting up of successful agribusinesses into subsistence plots without roads or other infrastructure - all of them given away to his political allies to hold on to power.I was wrong. Zimbabweans were starving within three months. It had nothing to do with the color of the farmers.This type of criticism shows a general preference for the content of issues over a realistic analysis of political structures, something about which they show an astounding blindness. Tyrants use this effectively.
p3orion
Monday, April 30, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Mac, you forgot the punch line:"Those people learn more and more about less and less...until they know everything about nothing."