So. First, let me say this: Derb’s article is “controversial” in the same way Juan Williams’ noting that he gets a bit frightened on a plane when he sees Arabs in the row in front of him tugging at their vests was controversial. Meaning, it was honest — and as such, it was not sufficiently filtered for a media climate where political correctness still provides the parameters for what is and isn’t acceptable.
Eric Holder famously noted that we’re afraid to talk about race in this country. Derbyshire proved he, at least, isn’t. And his comrades are crawling over themselves to gain distance.
And the reason is, Holder, the left, the “pragmatic” right — they don’t really want to talk about such things. They only want to talk about the need to talk about such things, while simultaneously demonizing any real attempts to do so. An easier way to bank some cheap grace you won’t find in a PC-soaked society.
Some of what Derbyshire said in his article I didn’t agree with; some of what he argued I take no position on, because I’d need to see the evidence cited expanded on a bit and given a more rigorous test; and as a practical rhetorical matter, I think Derbyshire did himself no favors by singling out blacks. But what is indisputable is that the article is set up as a talk he’d have with his kids about race, and the opinions he’s formed — and that he’d pass on to his children — are his, while the reasons he’s developed them he sourced w/ links. That is, he tried (within the constraints of the format) to show his work.
That his article brought out some unsavory types in the comments — WHY WON’T DERBYSHIRE TAKE ON THE KIKES? — has less to do with his article and more to do with certain people who are always drawn to such pieces.
It was in many respects a brave article — and that can be true whether you believe Derbyshire a racist or not. But given that it was written in the context of bounties on George Zimmerman, or Spike Lee Tweeting out home addresses, or Al Sharpton — who is invited to Easter breakfast at the WH — actively working to incite violence and subvert the justice system, well, it expresses a kind of anxiety that exists in the culture right now.
Derbyshire set his article up by noting that in any large population, there will be trends; he sought to take a look at the trends and reach conclusions based on them. Whether or not you believe the conclusions he reached are valid or not is almost immaterial.
Yep, t’is. As is the truth itself, which–as has been demonstrated way more times than just this one–must never, ever be spoken of or examined objectively. Not when even a race-baiting worm like Jesse Jackson admits to the same sentiments as Derb’s, it mustn’t. That could be dangerous, see, in a way that inciting the mob to assault Whitey at random over a ginned-up racial OUTRAGE just…isn’t. This bit is important–and telling:
That many on the right are hurrying to run away from Derbyshire is also, however, completely predictable. These are the people who are giving us Mitt Romney, and who — while they talk about the evils of identity politics, or the problem with race-based affirmative action, or the ruse of “multiculturalism” as a social ordering mechanism — haven’t the courage of their convictions: they will talk in generalities (and be called racists for their troubles, anyway), but when it comes down to citing specifics, their first instinct is to show the left how they, unlike throwbacks like Derbyshire, are one of the good ones.
This of course reinforces the left’s control over the social narrative, whereby they — by virtue of their leftism — are champions for racial and ethnic minorities, while those on the right are guilty of racism until they prove otherwise.
Me? I already know I’m not a racist, and so I just feel sorry for those who think they can hurt me by calling me one.
I don’t feel sorry for them in the least. I loathe and despise them.