The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society [Paperback]

Dinesh D'Souza (Author)

Book Description

Release date: September 30, 1996

The author of the best-selling Illiberal Education offers a controversial challenge to the ubiquitous crusade against racism, arguing that race should not serve as the basis for public policy making. Reprint. 40,000 first printing.

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review

"Virtually all contemporary liberal assumptions about the origin of racism, its historical significance, its contemporary effects, and what to do about it are wrong," announces Dinesh D'Souza in another characteristically thought-provoking and controversial book. His scrupulously researched study of the history, nature, and effects of racism will certainly ruffle many feathers--particularly those of cultural relativists and liberal "antiracists" whose opinions he aims to discredit. But thinkers of all political persuasions would benefit from reading this self-described conservative's eloquently presented views as he "excavates beyond the usual digging sites" to present a unique and troubling vision of the "neurotic obsession" with race that continues to divide American society.

Much of what D'Souza says flies in the face of liberal doctrine. He maintains that there are cultural differences that account for distinct levels of achievement among races, and that racism cannot be blamed for "black failure." He argues that racism is not a universal phenomenon but a relatively recent Western intellectual concept, and because we can trace racism's beginning we can likewise bring about its demise. He deals blow after blow to longstanding "myths" about race, criticizing the "civil rights industry," rejecting "misguided" solutions such as multiculturalism and proportional representation as "fighting discrimination by practicing it," and even calls for a repeal of the near-sacred Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This is not an easy book to read, but it is an important one. Even if more than a few disagree with D'Souza's assumptions and arguments, all should welcome his well-considered, insightful treatment of this immensely difficult topic. --Uma Kukathas --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Publishers Weekly

Claiming that racism in no longer an important factor in American life, D'Souza argues that government must cease to legislate issues on a racial basis.
Copyright 1996 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Product Details

• Paperback: 756 pages
• Publisher: Free Press (September 30, 1996)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0684825244
• ISBN-13: 978-0684825243
• Product Dimensions: 6 x 1.6 x 9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 2.1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (107 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #298,616 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Dinesh D'Souza has had a 25-year career as a writer, scholar, and public intellectual. A former policy analyst in the Reagan White House, D'Souza also served as John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and the Robert and Karen Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He served as the president of The King's College in New York City from 2010 to 2012.

Called one of the "top young public-policy makers in the country" by Investor's Business Daily, D'Souza quickly became known as a major influencer on public policy through his writings. His first book, Illiberal Education (1991), publicized the phenomenon of political correctness in America's colleges and universities and became a New York Times bestseller for 15 weeks. It has been listed as one of the most influential books of the 1990s.

In 1995, D'Souza published The End of Racism, which became one of the most controversial books of the time and another national bestseller. His 1997 book, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader, was the first book to make the case for Reagan's intellectual and political importance. D'Souza's The Virtue of Prosperity (2000) explored the social and moral implications of wealth.

In 2002, D'Souza published his New York Times bestseller What's So Great About America, which was critically acclaimed for its thoughtful patriotism. His 2003 book, Letters to a Young Conservative, has become a handbook for a new generation of young conservatives inspired by D'Souza's style and ideas. The Enemy at Home, published in 2006, stirred up a furious debate both on the left and the right. It became a national bestseller and was published in paperback in 2008, with a new afterword by the author responding to his critics.

Just as in his early years D'Souza was one of the nation's most articulate spokesmen for a reasoned and thoughtful conservatism, in recent years he has been an equally brilliant and forceful defender of Christianity. What's So Great About Christianity not only intelligently explained the core doctrines of the Christian faith, it also explained how the freedom and prosperity associated with Western Civilization rest upon the foundation of biblical Christianity. Life After Death: The Evidence shows why the atheist critique of immortality is irrational and draws the striking conclusion that it is reasonable to believe in life after death.

In 2010, D'Souza wrote The Roots of Obama's Rage (Regnery), which was described as the most influential political book of the year and proved to be yet another best seller.

In 2012, D'Souza published two books, Godforsaken and Obama's America: Unmaking the American Dream, the latter climbing to #1 on the New York Times bestseller list and inspiring a documentary on the same topic. The film, called "2016: Obama's America," has risen to the second-highest all-time political documentary, passing Michael Moore's Sicko and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. In addition, 2016 has risen to #4 on the bestselling list of all documentaries.

These endeavors--not to mention a razor-sharp wit and entertaining style--have allowed D'Souza to participate in highly-publicized debates about Christianity with some of the most famous atheists and skeptics of our time.

Born in Mumbai, India, D'Souza came to the U.S. as an exchange student and graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Dartmouth College in 1983.

D'Souza has been named one of America's most influential conservative thinkers by the New York Times Magazine. The World Affairs Council lists him as one of the nation's 500 leading authorities on international issues, and Newsweek cited him as one of the country's most prominent Asian-Americans.

D'Souza's articles have appeared in virtually every major magazine and newspaper, including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic Monthly, Vanity Fair, New Republic, and National Review. He has appeared on numerous television programs, including the The Today Show, Nightline, The News Hour on PBS, The O'Reilly Factor, Moneyline, Hannity, Bill Maher, NPR's All Things Considered, CNBC's Kudlow Report, Lou Dobbs Tonight, and Real Time with Bill Maher.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

65 of 74 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Even if you LOVE afimrative action, you should read this October 13, 1998

By christian hopsburg

Format:Hardcover

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".

133 of 162 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars thorough, balanced, but most of all, MISREPRESENTED July 23, 1998

By A Customer

Format:Hardcover

"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."

17 of 19 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars The most provocative and in-depth look at race in the 90's June 10, 1999

By A Customer

Format:Paperback

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.