Concerning "Dear White America" in the New York Times

Dear Hannah,

The great irony of a hunger strike is that it does nothing to prove the morality of the hunger striker.  It does everything to prove the morality of the man he's striking against.  Millions of horrible people have been willing to die for horrible causes, and we have only been the worse for it.  Far fewer have been willing to save the life of a suicidal enemy.  And if you do happen to go on a hunger strike and win, the only thing you've done is proved your enemy cares more about you than his cause.  You can only win a hunger strike against a person who cares about people.  You can only defeat your enemy if your enemy is actually a saint.  Gandhi may have saved the Indians from the English -- but how successful would he have been against Al Qaeda?

In almost exactly the same way, writing an open letter to white Americans doesn't prove that white Americans are racists.  It only proves that black men believe white men are capable of listening.  And if blacks believe whites are capable of listening (as their hundreds of open letters published in the papers imply), blacks must believe white people are capable of kindness.  The franker your pleas, the more pleas you write, the more you tout their empathy -- and their tolerance.  The fact that a black man can publicly insult all white men leaves us wondering one thing, though, and that is why black men have such a hard time taking criticism from whites.

The Golden Rule is a central tenet of every serious religion in the world, which makes many black Americans (whatever the PEW Research Center says of them) easily the most irreligious.   To deal fairly with your neighbor is a basic principle of justice, which is why many black men are the worst of the unjust.  They ask everyone to imagine what it's like to be black, and rarely consider how it feels to be white.  They make crazy accusations against an entire race, and then have the gall to complain about white racism.  They riot because someone was shot by the police, and then immediately say our policemen are guilty without a trial.  If there's any empathy or fairness in the black community, it's been buried by mass acts of hypocrisy and slander.  If there's any chance of brotherhood between our races, it's being smothered by racists and hypocrites.  A transfer of power from whites to blacks wouldn't end any racism at all.  The only thing it would do is change the color of the assholes.

Something unfair people overlooked in the disgusting "Dear white America" was the fact that charges of racism were leveled in the same pages as acknowledgements of black crime.  He dared to mention robbers, and then demanded indifference to robbery.  He brought up rapists, and then pretended raping is irrelevant.  But if there's a problem with black crime, let's maybe deal with the crime before dealing with our disgust for criminals.  If there's a problem with black character, then let black men be better men before demanding that we think highly of them.  You ask the other way around and you aren't asking for peace, but effectively declaring a war.  You're holding out an olive branch in one hand, and in the other hand, you're hiding a dagger.

The undeniable gist of the piece in the New York Times was that black people hate living in black society, and are jealous of the stability, success, and harmony of white neighborhoods and businesses.  It was a cry for inclusion, masked in the language of somebody who deserves to be excluded.  Nobody can deny that a history of oppression and poverty has created an almost unlivable ghetto, and nobody can deny after looking at the comments of any racially-sensitive article that racism still exists in America.  

But if racism is our problem, why forget the only solution?  Totally denying the foundations of peace and coexistence, The New York Times asks us to get along with someone whose lying and unfairness would make him a terrible neighbor even to black people -- whom he in turn implicitly admits are terrible neighbors.  As such the brotherhood of man won't be reunited by smug letters from effeminate and irrational back-stabbers.  It will be reestablished when men of all colors expect good things from one another, and know that they're playing by the same rules.   Our peace is in the Laws of Nature, which the New York Times apparently thinks are irrelevant, and toward which large sections of the black intelligentsia are either ignorant or hostile.

We agree with the New York Times racist that there's no hope for peace when nobody's willing to admit their failures.  There's also no hope for humanity when nobody's willing to accuse other people fairly.  And there can never be any kind of livable society when nobody's willing to forgive the repentant.  But there can never be peace when nobody's willing to out our impostors, to war against our criminals, and to judge our neighbors rightly.  The problem with Americans today isn't that we're racists (even if it can be debated that we are).  It's that some of us find "racism" more offensive than criminals, and perpetuate the same injustices that they claim to hate about others.

I admit, as the New York Times racist maintains, that I'm prejudiced.  I'm prejudiced against him and against everyone who values black people more than character.  And as such, I hold my hand in friendship to every black and white man who deserves it -- and refuse my support, concern, and society to anyone who doesn't.  I say as the angels announcing the arrival of our Savior, peace and joy, good will to men.  I add like King David, may God convert, suppress, or destroy the wicked.

Your father,


  1. Linked over from American Thinker, glad I did, well written and thought out stuff here.

    i appreciate it, thanks.

  2. Great to read someone saying what needs to be said. Let the conversation begin.

  3. Very well said and supported. I am sure it will be taken well by the open minded reader, but those it criticizes will never be able to let go their racism and understand your wisdom.


Post a Comment