Letters to the Editor
Bryce Anderson
Published Letters: 30 Editor's Choice: 5
-
@Garry Owen
[Read the article: Fantasies in black and white]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's hard for me to follow this "racism is racism" argument. I would argue that white racism towards blacks is more damaging to society than black racism towards whites, simply because one group holds the bulk of the power in this society.
How have racist blacks affected your personal life, Garry? Can you think of a time when you were denied a promotion because management thought the color of your skin made you a bad fit for their corporate culture? Has a black loan officer ever steered you towards a subprime loan, because your skin pigment flagged you as likely to default on a loan?
You've probably never had your land taken by Aztlan separatists, or been thrown out of a Japanese hotel either.
Of course all the other sorts of racism you describe are morally reprehensible (assuming we took the American Southwest fair and square, which I doubt). But we should be focused on things our society can come together and remedy, rather than using Chile's treatment of Mapuche natives to excuse our own racial ills.
America is still afflicted with various forms of institutional racism, and we all know who has the power in American institutions.
That's right. The Jews.
I kid! The answer I was really looking for was "not blacks". It's not easy to find them behind CEO desks, on the board of directors, or on the board of admissions at ivy league universities. Nor would that handful remain there long if they started pushing for policies that systematically discriminated against whites.
Also factor in "colorblind" policies that simply discriminate against the poor, the downtrodden, and the hard of luck, that disproportionately affect blacks because they're more likely to be poor, downtrodden, or hard of luck. Think here of payday lending laws, bankruptcy "reform" (also known as the 2005 Irresponsible Lending Protection Act), vagrancy laws, etc.
Garry, I luvz ya man, but I don't see where you're going with this.
-
@Jay L
[Read the article: National Review reporter caught fabricating; where is the "liberal media"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, for one thing, I think a retraction that starts out talking about "For months, our magazine has been subject to accusations", goes on for 14 pages of "you can see how this sort of thing might happen to someone", and only in the last paragraph (which you can't even get to without reading up to page 11) reluctantly concludes that they can't be 100% sure that the article was 100% correct - I think such a retraction is, itself, less than transparent.
Less than wholehearted, perhaps. Less than sincerely apologetic, maybe. Less than transparent? By the end of the fourteen pages, you know what has been accused, who is doing the accusing, what was said by whom and in defense of what, and so on. Even someone unfamiliar with the controversy would understand how it played out.
In short, The New Republic's retraction was informative and transparent, in a way that The National Review's wasn't.