If you are having trouble viewing this email, click here.

January 22, 2009

by Dinesh D'Souza

side bar side bar side bar Yes, everyone is going ga-ga over Obama, and there is a reason for it.  The reason is only partially explained by Obama's promise to introduce "change" to America, since it remains unclear what kind of change Obama will introduce, and whether this will actually improve our economy and make us safer.  Recognizing that Obama is untested material, the media has been focusing on the historic significance of Obama's presidency. 

As I watched Obama take the oath of office, I was moved, along with many others, but I also felt a sense of vindication.  In 1995 I published a controversial book The End of Racism.  The meaning of the title was not that there was no more pervasive racism in America.  Certainly in a big country one can find many examples of racism.  My argument was that racism, which once used to be systematic, had now become episodic.  In other words, racism existed, but it no longer controlled the lives of blacks and other minorities.  Indeed racial discrimination could not explain why some groups succeeded in America and why other groups did not. 

The old civil rights model held that groups at the top of society got there through discrimination.  Yet the empirical evidence showed that the two most successful groups in America were Asian Americans and Jews.  Certainly these two groups didn't succeed by keeping everyone else down; rather, they succeeded by out-competing everyone else.  Moreover, these were minority groups that had not allowed discrimination to keep them down.

One of the new terms that The End of Racism coined was the idea of "rational discrimination."  The basic idea here is that there are two kinds of discrimination: one is based on prejudice, and the other is based on conclusions.  If groups are hated just for their skin color, then this is irrational discrimination.  But if groups provoke hostility on account of their behavior, then this is rational discrimination.  The implication of this idea is that someone is not racist to be wary of African Americans who behave badly, or any ethnic group for that matter, as long as they are well disposed toward those who conduct themselves admirably.

When I first published these arguments, they produced a maelstrom of controversy.  My book came out around the time of the O.J. Simpson verdict, exonerating him for killing his ex-wife, and also the Million Man March on Washington.  So the racial atmosphere in the country was a bit raw, and many in the media were unnerved by my claims.

I may have been ahead of my time, but it now seems that I was not wrong.   Here we get to the real significance of Obama's election and his ascendancy to the presidency.  Consider the oceans of ink that have been spilled over the past couple of decades about how America is a racist society, how bigotry runs in the veins of white America, how little real progress has been made, how far we still have to go, and so on.  A few years ago I debated Jesse Jackson at Stanford University and he couldn't give any evidence that contemporary racism had kept his children down.  At the same time, he said that precisely the absence of evidence is what worried him the most.  Jackson's argument was that racism, once overt, had now become covert.  In other words, racism hadn't decreased in the slightest but it now worked in ever-more-subtle ways to deny African Americans their share of the American dream.

The difference between how well accepted Obama's and not Jackson's message has been accepted shows that it is individual conduct and demeanor that is decisive here, not skin color. That's because Obama doesn't come across as a race-hustler.  He doesn't seek to turn victimization into profit.  Rather, he makes his claims on the merits and he appeals to shared American ideals.  To borrow a line from Martin Luther King, Obama seeks to be judged not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character.  And Americans have responded to that, so that King's dream has become a tangible reality in Obama's life.  "Rational discrimination"?  You be the judge.

If Obama's election means anything, it means that we are now living in post-racist America.  That's why even those of us who didn't vote for Obama have good reason to celebrate.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.

Responses to Biological Colonialism:

Hi there Just wondering if you were going to comment on "The Shack" at some stage. Some of the criticisms of this book include: modalism, lack of trinity hierarchy, open theism, seriousness of sin, forgiveness and forgiving others.
Author interview - http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/69461/Relationships%20and%20Religion.mp3
Mark Driscoll - http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=pK65Jfny70Y
Blogs - http://connversation.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/book-review-the-shack/ http://www.emergentvillage.com/weblog/the-latest-on-the-shack-phenomenon http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/21957.htm http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/21968.htm
I enjoy reading your articles. - Neil Jansons

"Biological Colonialism" as a critique of reproductive and medical technologies is already becoming rapidly obsolete. Patients' own stem cells (not those of embryos) will soon be used to grow replacement body parts. Experiments are already underway. Microminiature delivery systems for drugs are already being used in the bloodstream of patients. The next step: full-fledged nanotechnology robots that will be used in that manner, and their successors: permanent cell repair mechanisms throughout the body. The last thing patients in high tech societies will need or want is spare parts from poor people. Why go to all that trouble and by necessity take anti-rejection drugs for the rest of your life when you can "grow your own?" And when that kind of advanced technology is used for reproduction, we will have a genuine ability to end all abortions. We don't have that ability now. Just think of it. With cell repair mechanisms at work, no woman could ever be forced to be pregnant, even by rape, with the kind of control this tech would give her. On the other hand, any woman could become fertile at any time she desires with the same tech. Christian ethicists must do a better job of keeping up. Our accelerating technological revolution is outdistancing ancient oughts and ought nots. I'm not sure they can, however. Christianity was born and bred in an ancient agricultural civilization in the Middle East. There have been several technological revolutions since, and new ones are coming along faster and faster. - Sally Morem

I thank Sally Morem for her letter. This much we know, exploiting the destitute for their body parts—which I called biological colonialism--is happening now because exploiting the weak is seen as a lesser evil by the victimizers to their own or a loved one's illness or death.  But righteousness should not just be expected only of those who are healthy.

It is devoutly to be wished that ethical biotechnological advances of the kind Morem describes will ultimately resolve the problems addressed in my article.  But such fixes—if they come, the outcome remains uncertain—are years away.  Nor will biotech or other scientific breakthroughs solve other issues of the rich exploiting the world's destitute that I didn't mention, such as pedophiliac sex tourism and human trafficking.  The point is that no matter how far science takes us, there will always be clear lines of right and wrong that cannot and should not be "outdistanced."  One wrong that can never be made right is treating any human being as an object rather than a subject.  In this sense, the problems I addressed are of the soul, both individual and societal.  Or to put it another way, biological tourism is a symptom more than it is a cause. - Wesley J. Smith

Click for a Printer Friendly Version
about tothesource
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
subscribe email a friend
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
Dinesh D'Souza, served as senior domestic policy analyst in the White House in 1987-1988. He is the best-selling author of Illiberal Education, The End of Racism, Ronald Reagan, The Virtue of Prosperity, What's So Great About America, and The Enemy at Home. His new book What's So Great About Christianity was released in October of 2007.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org