The Left’s Misguided Attack On John Derbyshire
This is strange for many reasons and requires a bit of a preface. Charlie, or "Chuckles" Johnson, as I've been forced into calling him today given his more recent behavior, was all over me on Twitter yesterday for embracing an item by John Derbyshire, one which I hadn't even read. Somehow Johnson magically determined I was in full agreement with it, presumably, simply because I went to work for the late Andrew Breitbart. That was true beyond all doubt to Johnson, even if I didn't know, or much care what Johnson was ranting in unhinged fashion about.
There is a talk that nonblack Americans have with their kids, too. My own kids, now 19 and 16, have had it in bits and pieces as subtopics have arisen. If I were to assemble it into a single talk, it would look something like the following. Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work.
This is not to say I agree with everything written by Derbyshire, though this reminds me of a childhood experience growing up in a racially-mixed neighborhood with several good black friends.
(9) A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us. A much larger cohort of blacks—around half—will go along passively if the five percent take leadership in some event. They will do this out of racial solidarity, the natural willingness of most human beings to be led, and a vague feeling that whites have it coming.
I don't know about the "have it coming" feeling in my experience, though certainly, some blacks hate whites and some whites hate blacks, unfortunately. I can't read people's minds and didn't sense that. However, I do remember standing next to Ray, who was one of my best friends in sixth grade. Ray was black and we were in the playground watching a fight start between a white kid and a black kid. We both knew both of them.
Ray looked over at me and, to paraphrase after all these years, said, Dan, you know if this gets bigger and we end up getting pulled in, I have to be with my people, right? I didn't like it. I felt confused and even a bit hurt – but I didn't question it, either. I think I kind of shrugged my shoulders and said something like, Yeah, I understand. Truthfully, I didn't understand it. I just knew it was the reality in that situation and as true for me as it was for Ray.
What he was saying was, we're still going to be friends, afterward, right? And I thought, well, sure. Why not? We all would be when we played black versus white football, or soccer, that weekend, depending on the season – unless another fight broke out, which rarely happened. We just had to do what we had to do here and both instinctively knew it, somehow. It wasn't about us. In any event, it never came to that and Ray and I always remained friends until, when older, we both moved away and lost touch.
Getting back to Derbyshire's piece, this below is at least one of the items in it with which I disagree – and I can't really ever perceive of myself giving this kind of talk in the first place. It is, however unfortunately, an acknowledgement of how significant portions of the population, both white and black, view the other quite differently from their own, if you will. As for this, I'd likely be as cautious of a white, or black individual before helping. If they didn't look right, or looked suspicious somehow, I probably wouldn't stop to help. If they looked okay, I would, no matter what color they were.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway. Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki's Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don't get paid for their work.
My larger point is, the left is always screaming racism, often even when it hasn't been proven to exist – as in the recent case of Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Even the media falsely screamed it. So, along comes Derbyshire and, I don't know, confesses it, on his part? And all the left can do is scream, get him! Silence him! He must be fired!! What does that solve? It's as if the left wants it to appear as though America doesn't still struggle with racial issues … except when seizing upon an incident, or issue they think they can exploit for political gain. Frankly, they're even trying to do that here, as with Johnson attacking me over it for no reason and with no clue.
I end up as, not hurt, but a bit confused, just as I was back in the schoolyard that day with Ray. The left should be thanking Derbyshire for being honest – for confirming so much of what they themselves always seem to be saying. Yes, America still has racial issues with which to struggle.
I've always assumed they were going to be worked out eventually and more over generations, than educationally in one generation, or even three, not through affirmative action and such. That, by the way, doesn't mean I think certain individuals who've known true disadvantage shouldn't be considered for special help. They should when its helpful and prudent. But this screaming and calling for censorship, casting out, or worse, blood is counterproductive and is never truly going to solve anything. By both sides simply screaming at one another, all one ensures is more fighting and divisiveness. So, what good is all the fuss? Just as it is worse than bad, but dangerous in the Martin/Zimmerman incident.
It may not be pretty to read, or come close to some ideal, but how much of what Derbyshire wrote is mostly true in a still too significant portion of America's population, black, or white? And why is the left intent on only dealing with it by screaming and freaking out, when only a calmer, more sensible conversation over time is the only positive way in which to deal with it? It's as if the left, not the right, is absolutely determined to ensure that racial division will always exist in America? Why is that?
Perhaps it's just as seems to be the case with Chuckles. Racism is only truly worth addressing if and when you believe you can somehow attack people with whom you disagree politically. Honestly, just how noble is that? Not very, in my opinion, for what it's worth.