Customer Reviews

The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society

5 star:		(49)
4 star:		(12)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(30)

 

 

Even if you don't agree with his views, the author certainly provokes thought and debate. For that reason, I think any teacher who wishes to get his or her class talking (in an advanced high school social studies class or in college)should require this book.

I should start off by saying I am generally for affirmative action, including race-based affirmative action. (read "The Shape of the River" if you want another book that is pro-AA and with which I agree wholeheartedly.) HOWEVER the point of THIS book is thought provoking and as follows:

People who criticize this book have thus far ignored the main point of it, I believe: that unequal outcomes do NOT equal racism. As a half Latin, half African-American myself, I can tell you with certainty that African-Americans and Latinos do not, in general spend as much time studying as do Christian whites, who in turn do not study as much as Jews or Asian-Americans. Is it surprising then that there are less Black doctors or engineering students, or that American-born Latinos do not score as well on the SAT as Chinese-born immigrant students? The answer for too long has been not to "level the playing field", but to put weights on the feet of the better athletes. Sure, some are born with advantages, but does hobbling all who perform above average to bring up those who didn't practice make it a fair game?

And the overwhelming majority of very poor Blacks and Latinos never benefit from affirmative action; only people like myself born of the middle class. Look at UC admissions since they stopped using race as a factor: Black and Latin enrollment are way down at UC Berkeley and UCLA, but down only slightly system-wide. It seems Blacks and Latins are going to slightly less selective schools, but are still getting a good education. If we tell kids that you have to study hard to get ahead, but then reward Jamahl or Jose by letting them into Stanford when there Asian or white friends may have studied harder, what does that say?

Living in San Francisco, a city where the local school district puts a CEILING on the number of Chinese Americans who can enter top public high schools because they DO TOO WELL, I can tell you that affirmative action can go to far. Why should a Chinese American, who suffers from racism just like his Black or Latino brethren, and scores better than the majority of Latinos and Blacks admitted to certain schools, be denied admission to those same schools? Because there are too many Asians. Many of the Chinese-born kids score BETTER on ENGLISH tests than Blacks and Latinos (and even some whites) BORN in this country. What does that say? Not that the Chinese are genetically superior or anything, just that they study, study, study. That is plain ridiculous. If I am flying in a jet plane, or getting surgery, or having a case tried in court, I am going to want the best engineer designing my plane, the best doctor cutting me open, and the best lawyer arguing my case. Changing the definition of "best" until a certain number of each ethnic group is in each field is not very comforting.

So this is the essential arguments that strike me as thought provoking.

The only problem I have with this book is the Author's tendency to be almost TOO extreme in some cases. His defense of Taxi drivers exhibiting "rational discrimination" for passing Black potential passengers was one example. Having been passed by taxis while in a suit, only to have a white passenger picked up halfway down the block by the same cab, I can tell you it does not strike me as "rational" at all. Also, he completely loses me at the end when he calls for an end to all anti-discrimination laws. He really doesn't justify it in any logical manner. I can see doing so for small businesses, but not large ones.

Nonetheless, I believe this book should be required reading for anyone with half a brain. And for balance, people ought to read something like "The Shape of the River".

"Not since Gunnar Myrdal's 'An American Dilemma'" has any book looked so searchingly at the nature of race in America. This was a statement by Thomas Sowell regarding his review of The End of Racism. Regardless if you agreed or disagreed with D'Souza's conclusions, you can't objectively deny Sowell's assessment. Unfortunatly, those who find his logic and conclusions unpalatable have systematically reverted to misrepresenting his arguments rather than facing them squarely. I guess it is easier to knock down imaginary arguments rather than real ones. Some common misrepresentations include:

1. D'Souza questions whether slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination etc bear "any" responsibility for the state of Black America. Reality: D'Souza is very clear in saying that these factors are the VERY REASON that blacks are in their state today. These influences, according to D'Souza, gave blacks a unique experience in America through which a culture of resistance wa! s eventually fostered. It is this vestigial cultural orientation, D'Souza argues, which today most impedes black progress in a society that is quite different from the 19th and early 20th century.

2. D'Souza doesn't care about white racism, he only wants to abolish white guilt. Reality: D'Souza ultimately concludes that while racism is a problem, it is a minor problem. Shocking as this is to many, it is no less true. Civil rights activists committed to struggles of yesteryear have every incentive to beat the drum of "white racism" past the point of diminshing returns - particulary when they are dependent on such activities in order to maintain notoriety and to continue living such plush lifestyles. As for white guilt, D'Souza would probably have no problem with whites feeling as guilty as they want so long as that guilt has little role in policymaking. It is white guilt which has driven racial policy in America for the past 40 years and the black underclass is in ! worse condition than EVER.

3. D'Souza doesn't believe th! at racism exists anymore - just "rational discrimination" - which, as Ellis Cose said, is "to put not to fine a point on it, discrimination against people who ought to be discriminated against." Reality: D'Souza's argument here is not that complex. He clearly conceeds to the immorality of such behavior - especially as to its demoralizing and hurtful effect on law abiding black males who have PhD's and not a spot on their criminal record. Yet the act of discrimination (such as a taxicab not picking up black men) is occouring precicely because the taxicab driver, or store owner, or little-old lady, etc. does not have any information on that person. Taxicab drivers have had many blacks beat the fare or leave no tip (moreso than whites) or have had other drivers regail them with stories of the blacks that held them at gunpoint (again, at a higher rate than whites). Korean store owners have had similar experiences - including having to sit on the roof of their ! store with a rifle to ward off looting black teenage males. If you talk to any restaurant waiter, they will tell you that, on average, blacks tip much more poorly than whites. As such, many sigh a groan of frustration or despair when recieving a table of blacks. The point is that these actions are not "racism" in any conventional sense because they do not stem from any subjective animus towards blacks. These are simply people who are acting on what their, or another's experience has taught them. Some can argue that these generalizations are unfair - but they are exactly that - generalizations, not racism.

4. D'Souza asserts that because a few blacks owned slaves it was "not at all racially charged." Reality: D'Souza clearly says that slavery was fraught with undertones of race, but that the plane of causation was in reverse: that is, slavery caused racism - not that racism caused slavery. One only has to look that the history of slavery in the world to se! e that it certainly wasn't unique to Western Civilization. ! What was unique, however, were the philisophical priciples of Western civilization that ultimatley destroyed this most enduring institution in human history - that is, slavery. Thus, many rationales were used to justify the enslavement of blacks (who were, by the way, enslaved predominatley in the Americas because they were abundant in supply and easy to maintain as slaves - certainly in contrast to the indigenous American Indians). Most of these rationales, D'Souza argues, were founded on the principle that blacks were inferior - that is - "made to be slaves." Ultimately, racism was the rational many used to justify an activity that flatly contravened with America's most cherished principle of individual freedom.

5. D'Souza portrays Columbus as a humanitarian, slavery as benevolent, and segregation as a system intended to help blacks. Reality: In no way does D'Souza portray Columbus or any of the other European explorers as anything close to "humanitarian.&q! uot; D'Souza does use passages out of Columbus' journal to show that Columbus was indeed impressed with the Indians he first encountered whom he described as among the "most beautiful and gracious people he had ever seen" - but that's about as far as he discusses Columbus. Yet D'Souza fully conceeds the "occupation and brutality" of Western colonialism that followed in Columbus' wake but qualifies it by stating that there was not, in fact, anything unique about it other than the fact that it went against a still evolving Western thought concerning human and property rights. Ironically, these principles are used selectively by contemporary American Indian activists to condemn a the very civilization who actually put them into practice. In no way does D'Souza say that slavery was even close to benevolent - only that slaves were thought of as property. As such, they were expected to yield a return and could not do so if they were excessivly abused. The same si! mple logic prevented farmers from excessively beating a hor! se that pulls a carriage or an ox that pulls a plow. D'Soouza did say that segregation was, in part, designed to protect blacks in the sense that it was perceived by paternalistic Southerners to keep blacks away from a violent racist minority that would certainly do them harm.

D'Souza's arguments are coherent and easy to follow. His policy prescriptions (such as the abolition of affirmative action and repealing of anti-discrimination laws in the private sector) are debateable - yet they are also logical. This book and other books such as these are difficult for many modern day "race-merchant" liberals to come to terms with. It is easier to insinuate the author said something he did not, in fact, say - then to attack the insinuation. How hypocritical it is for anyone to condemn D'Souza for using extreme and moderate voices interchangeably in his text (although quoting them accurately)- and then to turn right around and compare him to Hitler or David Duke and call h! is a Social Darwinist. If liberals ever expect to win the intellectual battles, they had better get past the idea that their adversaires are "not in error, but in sin."

Mr. D'Souza has written the most detailed account of race that the 90's has seen. We have been conditioned to speek softly about race, and are hesitant to speak the truth about race relations. Whether this book's conclusion is correct or not is a matter of opinion, however I commend Mr. D'Souza for tackling the subject. Racism in this country is something that has to be addressed, but is frequently addressed dishonestly. I personally do not care who solves the race problem in this country, Republican or Democrat or Independent. However, we must solve it and do it in an open forum. Read the book and decide for yourself, even if you don't totally agree with the author, there are still many things to learn from him.

This is probably the most important and courageous book on race and racism in America written in the 1990s. It flies in the face of the comfortable shibboleths and easy answers that we've all heard so often in the last 30 years.

D'Souza genuinely believes in the cause of racial equality and harmony. But he refuses to flinch from looking at reality as it is--not just from the black perspective or the white liberal perspective, but from the average white person's perspective, and from the perspective of minorities who are neither black nor white--like D'Souza himself. In other words, he strives for a HUMAN perspective that transcends race.

It's powerful and controversial. D'Souza doesn't flinch from criticizing problems in black culture. Nor does he have much good to say about the policies that have been pursued to fix racial problems over the last 30 years.

Not everyone will agree with everything in this book. The book has genuinely infuriated some who strongly believe in things like Affirmative Action or the idea that white racism is at the root of most of the problems in black America. D'Souza sees some truth there but mostly rejects them as a primary cause for any of today's problems. The troubles lie deeper, he says, and in areas that people of all races are genuinely afraid to even discuss.

Anyone who genuinely cares about race and race relations needs to read this book--whether they agree with D'Souza's conclusions or not.

No matter what anyone may feel about D'Souza's hypotheses, his conclusions, or his politics, you will not be able to escape the fact that he is an outstanding writer, and that the "End of Racism" will remain his signature work. Unlike other conservatives whose attacks are personal and shrill, this author organizes his arguments superbly, and presents them without passion. He is not afraid to discuss topics that most people fear would brand them as racist, and he does it without being inflammatory.

The book is well researched. There are footnotes upon footnotes for each chapter. It is easy to see that this writer and frequent talk show guest is highly intelligent, as well as conservative.

I break with D'Souza completely with his suggestion that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be repealed. We have already seen the rise of the 21st Century robber barrons who were unleashed by deregulation. It would be unfair to allow racism to be unleased by repealing civil rights laws.

Nevertheless, D'Souza's "End of Racism" occupies a place on my bookshelf. I highly recommend it for yours.

This book was a great achievement in exposing the false pretenses of our current racial orthodoxy. Beset by a series of protracted fallacies, our current policies on race are little more than one-way partisan affairs seeking to paint whites as incurable racists who continually place hurdles in the path of blacks. The current analysis of our racial dilemma is ideologically straight-forward: white racism explains the entire difference in wealth, life-expectancy, education attainment, IQ scores, illegitimate births, poverty, access to the internet and virtually every other statistical discrepancy between the races. To buttress this notion a host of blatantly transparent nonsense has ensued. Legislative policy wants to make crime look more politically correct by inventing a new category of offense, hate crimes, in the hopes that they can devote more attention to blacks as victims and whites as offenders. The media spend a great deal of attention on police brutality and the "horrors" of racial profiling, but neglect pointing out its obvious reasonableness considering the black/white ratio in crime is just a great as the male/female ratio. College academics spend a great deal of time resurrecting the slave trade and rehashing the caricature of evil whitey enslaving noble Africans , but neglect mentioning that slavery is still pervasive all across the face of modern Africa. The media, academia and public policy offer a highly selective presentation of the facts of our racial situation since nourishing the sentiment that whites mistreat blacks is imperative to maintaining the current direction of public policy -- affirmative action, quotas, and third-world immigration.

D'souza shows that he can stand on his own two feet and with superb acumen demolish each liberal antic in turn. He takes the reader on both an historical and sociological adventure chronicling the origin on racism in Europe, its subsequent development in the United States, the opinions on race by some of Europe's great thinkers and explorers, the rise and fall of scientific racism, and the eventual triumph of Boazian cultural relativism. As the book progresses Dsouza carefully distills his central thesis that cultural relativism is the invisible serpent that is responsible for consuming the black culture. The success of cultural relativism over universal standards of conduct and scientific racism gave a forceful impetus to egalitarianism and the civil-rights movement, but now performs an inhibiting role by preventing any critique of black culture. If it is impossible to judge the merits of one culture by the standards of another, all cultures are immune from criticism, including the gansta rap, illegitimacy and crimes of blacks. However, identifying culture as the culprit will not pass the politically correct hurdle on race. If black culture is responsible for black failure, why punish innocent whites by reverse discrimination?

So, leaning a great deal on Thomas Sowell, D'souza argues that blacks are ultimately the only ones able to repair their own culture and that they must take proactive steps for insuring the advancement and progress of their people. Today, civil-rights leaders demand and expect nothing from the black community -- remember, liberals think blacks can not improve their condition since their disadvantage is due to whites -- and increasingly implore for greater government activism, educational spending, affirmative action, diversity consultants in every major industry, and an eventual abolition of academic and standardized testing. All evidence of race differences must be squashed under the moral dictates of egalitarianism. D'souza shows with perspicuous logic and prose that civil-rights leaders have misdiagnosed the problem and are making a fatal error by tying the fortunes of blacks to the prodigality of the state. Without question, the measure of racial progress is calculated in government spending and stringent lawsuits. Traditional notions of fairness and equity are capriciously disregarded so that any white business owner who does not have a "representative" share of minorities is looked on with suspicion and guilt. D'souza's book shatters each of these assumptions and consequently the moral edifice of liberal social policy on race. In doing so he was won the enmity of every racial demagogue and politically correct parrot, but earned the respect of those who still cherish reason and truth above all else.

I will be brief in my review of the book. I have read two of the authors books including this one (also read "What's So Great about America.") & they are both two of the best books that I have ever read.
This is a book for all mankind, but as a young American black male & believe this book should be mandatory reading for all African-Americans. The author gives the most complete, honest, & comprehensive assessment of racism & its' effects (or lack of effect) in modern America that I have ever seen or heard. I could not agree more with this book & I think you will too if you are honest w/ yourself. I don't want to give away the book but I beg you to read it, b/c I believe it will lead to better race relations in America & the West (the only place to ever abolish slavery).
Dinesh keep on writing & I will keep on reading!!

If you are the type of person who subscribes to the standard liberal line on race and politics, this book is not for you. If you are willing to take a clear-headed, scholarly, unsentimental look at those issues that the media and literati have come to accept as axiomatic, this despite empirical and historical evidence to the contrary, The End of Racism will enthrall you.

It took a lot of guts to write this book. Race is the 3d rail of politics in America and unless you accept, without question and without reservation, the basic tenets of the Civil Rights movement, you are considered "insensitive," or, at worst, a "racist." Mr. D'Souza systematically, and with erudition, challenges this worldview head on.

This book is chock-full of thought-provoking perspectives, not the least of which is the distinction between racism and ethnocentrism. Relying on the abudant historical record, D'Souza buttresses his assertion, which winds up striking at the heart of the Civil Rights-Leftist-Multiculturalis canard that racism was responsible for slavery, ergo, reparations are in order.

D'Souza is not without his critics, who run the gamut from the scholary, to the demagogic. Still, don't let this scare you from reading this book. D'Souza is no race-baiter by any means. His look at race and culture in America is unsentimental and clear-headed. He comes across as genuinely concerned about the state of race relations in this country, and his book offers a refreshing alternative to the tired, shop-worn, pap from the Left.

Excellent book from an author with a unique perspective (D'Souza is Indian, not black or white.) There are some hard to face truths here for every ethnic group and some solid ideas for ending racism is America. "The End of Racism" is a well balanced but hard-hitting examination of the politics and culture of racism as well as the perception vs reality of racism in American society. Well worth the read.

It was six years ago that I purchased my hardcover edition, and I am STILL referring this book to people interested in understanding the subject of race and of "discrimination." My beloved first edition has been loaned to my Mexican American boss, who stuggles to understand some racial issues.

To say this incredible piece of research is merely profound would be to sacrifice it's true nature: to educate. And to see people in this forum still reading and writing about D'Souza six years later is a pure delight to me. I can't wait to see what he writes next...