Shared publicly  - 
 
I've always been quietly aware that the nice polite racists over at NRO and VDare -- Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire, Charles Murray -- are simply Klansmen with bow-ties. Nonetheless, it's still shocking when one of them goes deeply off the rails like this, but still manages to get his article signed on by his editor.
Yesterday pseudo-political web magazine Taki published a stunning work of overt racism by John Derbyshire, a man so racist (and sexist) that even his colleagues at the National Review think he sucks.
2
1
Eric Hopper's profile photorone's profile photoAndres Soolo's profile photoKeith Beacham's profile photo
18 comments
rone
 
Ta-Nehisi Coates linked to this, so i took a gander at the articles on the site. Taki's not only has Derbyshire and Sailer (whom i first encounter troll-stalking Malcolm Gladwell's TypePad), but Pat Buchanan, too, and a whole passel of people writing racist shit about Trayvon. It's like they're trying to rebrand NRO rightwing shit as some sort of mirror-universe Esquire. It's sickening.
 
I'm reminded of this block from Josh Barro's Forbes column last week:

"Conservatives, almost universally, feel like they get a bad rap on race. They catch heat when they point out improvements over the last several decades in race relations and in the material well being of minorities in America, even though those phenomena are real. They catch heat when they contend that government programs intended to help the poor have led to problems with dependency in minority communities, even though those critiques are sometimes correct. They catch heat when they criticize Affirmative Action, even when in some cases (as at the University of California) Affirmative Action was clearly disserving minority communities.

Why do conservatives catch such heat? It’s probably because there is still so much racism on the Right to go alongside valid arguments on issues relating to race and ethnicity. Conservatives so often get unfairly pounded on race because, so often, conservatives get fairly pounded on race. And this is the Right’s own fault, because conservatives are not serious about draining the swamp."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/03/26/trayvon-martin-and-the-rights-race-problem/
rone
 
That is fantastic.
rone
 
Another problem is that they have no qualms screwing the poor who aren't minorities, and those poor are incapable of seeing it.
rone
 
RONPAUL!
 
+1 for accidentally +tagging Ron Paul.
 
Been hearing some people who are convinced that the article in question was meant as satire, which is possible, but if it is it was very poorly telegraphed as such (typically there's at least some clear clue that such a piece is satire - from having read it, I'm not seeing it).

You keep a writer like Derb on staff as a wild card of sorts... the only problem is when your wild card goes full Pat Buchanan (and you never go full Pat Buchanan), requiring massive amounts of damage control. Pretty dangerous for brand reputation to have to put up with that sort of an incident.
rone
 
+Michael Fisk: it's plausible because right-winger satire and humor is absurdly tone-deaf.
 
I do not think this was intended as a satire. It could count as unintended satire, perhaps.
 
So, do you feel totally comfortable in a predominantly black neighborhood in any major US city? Or do you get a sense that, perhaps, you don't belong there and people would generally prefer it if you left? If you never have, I can introduce you to a few predominantly black communities in a few large US cities in which you will likely encounter teeth-gritted 'politeness' or possibly even overt hostility because you aren't black.

And why are this person's experiences any less relevant or worthy of being talked about than the average black person's experience of being feared and distrusted by white people? Who gets to decide that?

To be clear, I feel pretty strongly that Trayvon Martin is dead because of racism, because of poor attitudes and assumptions made about black people in the US.

But shutting people down like that doesn't work if you want to solve the problem. It creates angry, disgruntled people who think that what you really want to do is have white people and black people trade positions on the oppression hierarchy. It feeds into a persecution complex because, well, it is persecution.

From other parts of the article, I do think the person who wrote it is pretty racist. But his talk is how ost white people actually feel about their cities. And there's a reason for that. THey feel that way because a lot of that is true.

There is fear, hatred and anger enough to go all around the table. And pretending that some people have no right to those feelings doesn't do anything to try to solve the problems behind them.
rone
+
2
3
2
 
It's not about "no right to those feelings." It's about "why do we feel this way and what can we constructively do about it." Writing shit like that is not on the list.
 
+Ron Echeverri - Then why are the "lessons I teach my sons" by a black man constructive or helpful? Seriously. I think that one is just as true.
rone
+
3
4
3
 
The power imbalance is the key point. A white person may well be imperiled by idly going through a black neighborhood; a black person may well be imperiled at any time for any excuse because they're "suspicious", just because they're black.
 
+Ron Echeverri - Ahh, so someone who is 'oppressed' (on the 'no power' side of the power balance) should be allowed a voice without charges of racism or other attempts at censure, but someone who is an 'oppressor' should not be. Yet, you claim you want a world of equality. Excuse me if I find this hard to believe. Your actions tell a different tale than your words, and they speak louder.

An observation that even given the facts from both parties, on both party faces far more restrictive environment than the other (who merely has to avoid certain avoidable neighborhoods) is quite apropos. And perhaps the person stating his fear of certain neighborhoods might be able to think harder and come to a different conclusion if this is pointed out. That person will merely become resentful, angry and feel silenced by attempts at censure, and rightfully so. One path has the power to change people's attitude, and one reinforces and cements existing divisions.

I sometimes wonder if the cementing of existing divisions isn't the point. Power can be derived from the fear created by those divisions by playing one side of the division off the other.
rone
 
*sigh* Please don't put words into my mouth or fingers. I said no such thing, nor did i even imply it. If you want to build your own little strawman as a launching ramp for your petulant false equivalence rant, you can do that without blaming me for it.
 
+Ron Echeverri - raises eyebrows Alright then. I wasn't aware that I was ranting. And I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just restating what I heard you say. If you didn't say that, then I apologize for being mistaken. As for 'petulance', tone is in the ear of the reader on the Internet.
rone
 
Dude please. "Excuse me if I find this hard to believe. Your actions tell a different tale than your words, and they speak louder." If that's not petulant, then i probably need a new dictionary.
 
+Eric Hopper: I find the whole concept of trying to figure out rules of who should be blamed for racism and whom the rules permit to be a blameless racist rather queer. Don't mix heuristics with principles.
Add a comment...