COVID-19: Updates on library services and operations.

The ten things you can't say in America /
Larry Elder.
1st ed.
New York : St. Martin's Press, c2000.
xiii, 354 p. : ill., maps ; 24 cm.
More Details
New York : St. Martin's Press, c2000.
catalogue key
Includes bibliographical references (p. 319-338) and index.
A Look Inside
About the Author
Author Affiliation
Larry Elder is the host of The Larry Elder Show on KABC Radio in Los Angeles and the host of the Warner Bros. Telepictures television show The Moral Court. His syndicated column appears nationwide, and he also writes a monthly column for Investors Business Daily
First Chapter

Make no mistake about it. The Klan is alive and well in Southern California and there is a good chance that many of the CEOs who sit in powerful positions could either be Klan members or Klan sympathizers.1


Racism Is Racism

“Larry Elder, is there a connection between your beliefs and the house and the white woman you have waiting for you in the hills?”

A black man asked me that during a debate over whether Hollywood conspires to shut out blacks. I called the notion paranoid and was greeted with that rather charming question.

Unfortunately, the questioner was typical. Many American blacks falsely and unfairly accuse whites for black America’s “plight.” Bad schools? White racism. Crime? White racism. Under-performance on standardized tests? Racist or “culturally biased” tests. Can’t get a loan for a home or a new business? Racist lending officers, who would rather reject profit than give a black man a loan. Disproportionately high arrest rates? Racial profiling by racist cops.

To put it more bluntly, many blacks simply despise whites. They assume white bigotry and hostility toward blacks, and feel—against all evidence—that “white racism” remains an intense and formidable obstacle. What nonsense. So convinced that white racism stops black progress, many blacks not only ignore obvious signs of progress, but viciously attack anyone—especially someone black—who dares challenge the “they’re-out-to-get-us” point of view. To hold the view—as I do—that racism no longer represents a serious threat to black upward mobility, to feel confident and positive about “race relations” in America—that makes me a “sellout.” Thus, the questioner’s attack, not on my views, philosophy, or ideology, but on me personally.

I take three positions, earning the wrath of blacks. First, I repudiate the “Johnnie Cochran doctrine.” Recall that during the O. J. Simpson trial, defense attorney Cochran voiced the mantra of many “black leaders” when he said, “Race plays a part of everything in America.” Second, I oppose race- and gender-based affirmative action. And, third, I believe O. J. Simpson butchered two innocent human beings. For this, “my people” have called me the following:

Oreo. Uncle Tom. Boot-licking Uncle Tom. Straight-up Uncle Tom. Judas. Boy. Bug-eyed. Foot-shuffling. Sugarcane Negro. Handkerchief head. Trojan Horse. Anti-black. Pro-white. Remus. Sambo. Sambo-Tom. The Anti-Christ. Clarence Thomas supporter. Sniveling weasel. Evil. Ass-kisser. Coconut. Wannabe white. Nickering nabob of negativity. And this is just an abbreviated list.

How dare I suggest that the fate of blacks is, well, in the hands of blacks!

Many blacks, encouraged by the so-called “black leadership,” view life starkly. Us against them. Black versus white. Rich versus poor. Key is the following assumption: that whites encourage, endorse, perpetuate, welcome, are happy about, and take pride in the oppression of blacks. Challenge the traditional white-mandone-me-wrong-and-continues-to-do-so mentality, and some blacks go absolutely crazy.

What about black Atlanta mayor Bill Campbell’s over-the-top defense of affirmative action? “Everybody who is a person of color in this country has benefited from affirmative action. There’s not been anybody who has gotten into college on their own, nobody who’s gotten a job on their own, no one who’s prospered as a businessman or businesswoman on their own without affirmative action.”2

Hysterical. How else to describe how some blacks reacted to the California debate on affirmative action? Students at a local college there, Cal State Northridge, decided to host a debate over Proposition 209, a ballot initiative to exclude race and gender as a consideration in public hiring, public contracting, and admissions into state colleges and universities. For the pro-affirmative-action side, they selected a black veteran civil rights activist in Los Angeles. To defend the anti-affirmative-action position, they invited … David Duke! That’s right. David Duke. See, anyone opposing affirmative action therefore supports racism, Jim Crow, lynchings, hangings, police brutality, and the Klan. Why, if the anti-affirmative-action folks could, they would reenact slavery, take away the women’s vote, and deregulate cable. Quick, somebody stop them! Is this not racist?

Influential black congresswoman Maxine Waters, former head of the Black Congressional Caucus, once called President George Bush “racist.”3 Why? He differed with her on policy. That’s enough. And Waters routinely refers to Republicans as “the enemy.” Blatant bigotry against whites, for many blacks, resembles a badge of honor. Many blacks feel they can, with impunity, make utterly racist statements.

Vice President Al Gore’s presidential campaign manager, a black woman named Donna Brazile, once talked about the importance of defeating the Republicans. We must, she said, defeat the “white boys.” “White boys,” she said, has nothing to do with “gender or race, it’s an attitude. A white boy attitude is ‘I must exclude, denigrate, and leave behind.’ They don’t see it or think about it. It’s a culture.”4 A “white boy attitude”? She also attacked black Republicans General Colin Powell and Oklahoma congressman J. C. Watts: “The Republicans bring out Colin Powell and J. C. Watts because they have no program, no policy. They play that game because they have no other game. They have no love and no joy. They’d rather take pictures with black children than feed them.”5

Colin Powell, perhaps the most respected American public figure, would “rather take pictures with black children than feed them”? Colin Powell, who spends considerable time and energy in promoting volunteerism, would “rather take pictures with black children than feed them”? Powell, mind you, supports affirmative action, favors gun control legislation, once called the Newt Gingrich Republican “Contract with America” too harsh, and is pro-choice. But he has “no love and no joy.” Hey, a statement like that gets a “white boy” campaign manager canned. But Ms. Brazile remains in charge, with virtually no one making an issue out of her blatantly bigoted statements.

Influential black director Spike Lee made a movie, Jungle Fever, about an interracial black-white romance. Lee, however, publicly stated his contempt for interracial relationships. In an October 1992 Esquire interview, Lee said, “I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street.” Charming.

In the Spike Lee movie Malcolm X, Lee depicts an actual incident where a white teenager approaches the angry activist. “Excuse me, Mr. X. Hi, I’ve read some of your speeches, and I honestly believe that a lot of what you have to say is true, and I’m a good person, in spite of what my ancestors did, and I just, I wanted to ask you, what can a white person like myself who isn’t prejudiced, what can I do to help you … further your cause?” she asks plaintively. He stares sternly and replies, “Nothing.”

When I gave a speech at a local high school, the front row featured several young black men wearing Malcolm X T-shirts. The picture on the T-shirts was that of “Malcolm-as-firebrand,” with his finger thrust in the air circa his “white-man-is-the-devil” period.

“Do you know what happened to Malcolm X late in his life?” I asked the students. Two of the three said, “No.” But the third said, “Yes. After he visited Mecca, where he saw people of all colors worshiping together, he changed the way he thought.”

“Yes,” I said. “Malcolm repudiated his ‘white man as devil’ anger and found that people had more in common than apart.”

In Alex Haley’s The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Malcolm X later reflects and regrets his response to the white coed.

“Well, I’ve lived to regret that incident. In many parts of the African continent I saw white students helping black people. Something like this kills a lot of argument. I did many things as a Muslim that I’m sorry for now. I was a zombie then—like all Muslims—I was hypnotized, pointed in a certain direction and told to march. Well, I guess a man’s entitled to make a fool of himself if he’s ready to pay the cost. It cost me twelve years.”6

Yet many blacks prefer to freeze their notion of Malcolm X in time, leaving him at the “white-man-is-devil-and-done-me-wrongand-he’s -gonna-get-his” stage. Never mind that Malcolm later renounced this blanket hatred of whites.

Suppose hypothetically, that director Martin Scorsese, in a television interview, says, “You know, whenever I see a black guy with a white woman, I give ‘em a look like someone just expelled gas.” Quicker than you can say “Arnold Schwarzenegger,” Scorsese’s publicist holds a press conference, issues a heartfelt and sincere apology, and explains that someone took the director’s remarks out of context. Scorsese then steps up and announces the establishment of a “minority outreach fund” to develop screenwriters, directors, and producers. We all, says a tearful Scorsese, must become more sensitive to the concerns of the downtrodden and the “under-represented.” Now Scorsese’s back in business.

But what of Spike Lee? Perhaps someone should remind Lee of the 1970 Supreme Court decision that struck down laws against interracial marriage. Does Lee wish to reenact them? Does he agree with Chief Justice Taney, of Dred Scott fame, who deemed blacks to be sub-citizens without full rights, including the right to marry whomever they wish? Lee thus insults NAACP chairman Julian Bond, who married a white woman, as well as millions of other Americans in “interracial relationships.” But did anyone, whether a black leader, editorial writer, political pundit, or movie reviewer demand an apology, or at least an explanation, from Spike Lee? Did anyone boycott his movies the way Catholics, blacks, Hispanics, and other groups target “offensive” movies? No, an unbelievably and blatant racist statement made by influential public figure Lee just floated right on by.

South Carolina’s Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status for refusing to admit blacks. While the university today admits blacks, it refused to allow interracial dating until recently. Critics blasted Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush for giv ing a speech there. “Racism,” screamed critics who blasted Bush for his racial insensitivity in daring to give a speech at such a repulsive institution.

But is Bob Jones’s anti-interracial dating policy any less offensive than a position taken by the National Association of Black Social Workers? That organization opposes “trans-racial” adoptions. According to that organization, blacks and whites have vast cultural differences. A white couple should not, therefore, adopt a black child.

In 1992, the National Association of Black Social Workers drafted a position paper, calling white adoptions of black children “cultural genocide.” The group warned against “transculturation … when one dominant culture overpowers and forces another culture to accept a foreign form of existence.”7 A foreign form of existence?

Furthermore, many blacks, like whites, flatly oppose interracial dating and interracial marriage. In 1994, 65 percent of whites approved of interracial dating versus only 43 percent in 1987. Among young whites, 85 percent approved of interracial dating.

The majority of blacks, too, approved of interracial dating, with 88 percent giving approval in 1994. Among blacks, however, approval for mixed marriages fell from 76 percent in 1983 to 68 percent six years later. Among whites, though, those accepting mixed marriages continued to grow.8

Black Racism and Black Myopia

When Julian Bond became NAACP chairman, he declared his intention to wage war on the number one problem facing blacks: “the new racists.”

The new racists? Care to name names, Mr. Bond?

Examine Bond’s mind-set. America is a battlefield. Good versus evil. Us versus them.

During the Second World War, Japanese fighters in Burma continued fighting long after the warring parties negotiated peace. Their remote location prevented them from learning the news, so they continued fighting. Similarly, many blacks continue “fighting the struggle” long after the declaration of peace. By nearly any measure—the right to vote, to use public accommodations, to attend a state college or university if qualified—the “civil rights” struggle, thank God, is over. The black leadership should stick the pole in the ground, raise the flag, salute, and convert the troops to civilian duty. Instead, they continue fighting a war long since won while ignoring far more pressing issues. The black leadership is in Burma.

In 1977, I accepted a job as an associate attorney with an oldline, silk-stocking Cleveland law firm. The firm, now more than a hundred years old, had, in its history, hired just a handful of blacks. My uncle, a thirty-year auto machinist with General Motors, sat me down to “caution” me about white treachery. “Larry, let me tell you something. You know I grew up on a farm in Alabama. My brothers and sisters and neighbors and I would walk, barefoot, five miles to the nearby schoolhouse. The white kids got bused to a school three miles away. And, as the bus drove by us black kids walking in single file, the white kids would curse at us, call us niggers, spit at us, and throw eggs and tomatoes. And this is how white folks can be, and I want you to—”

I cut him off. “Thurman,” I said, “you know I love you. But, what happened to you has never happened to me. Nor will it. Today is today.”

The real danger lies with the NAACP, not the KKK. Racism exists, and treachery always lurks. But the vision my uncle painted—however burnished in his own mind—bears little resemblance to contemporary America.

Hard memories. Tough, quite understandable, hard memories. In Florida, the public school system, with the support of the NAACP, seeks to end decades-long court-ordered desegregation. But one of the original litigants, Charles Rutledge, now 75 years old, denounces the proposed end to forced desegregation. Never mind that the lifting of the court order is supported by the NAACP, an organization whose chairman declared as his number one agenda to go after “the new racist.” Say what you will about the NAACP, they are not soft on racism.

But Rutledge says, “If the court order is rescinded, they’ll do what they want. America is still a racist nation. Hearts of men haven’t changed that much.”9

Hard memories. But these memories do not reflect the memories of today’s America. No one says forget, but we should recognize obvious progress, and maintain perspective.

My mother also grew up in the South, on a farm near Huntsville, Alabama. When my grandfather took my mom and her sister to the department store downtown, they entered through a separate door. And when my mom put on a dress, once the garment touched her skin, she owned it. The store made my grandfather purchase the item, no matter how ill fitting or unattractive. Black skin tainted the garments.

When my mom finished that story, I turned to my father. “Dad, was it like that with you, too?” My father, a man of few words, simply said, “Hats, too.”

In the early 1950s, my mom took a plane ride. While pregnant with me, she carried my infant brother in her arms. Few blacks, in those days, traveled by air. So, no separate facilities—waiting rooms, bathrooms—yet existed in airports for blacks. So where was my mother to sit in the airport?

My mom said a sheepish airport worker asked her to stand to the side, and he brought her coffee. My mom said she felt almost sorry for this young white man, who saw the absurdity in forcing a paying customer to stand apart because of her skin color.

My parents told us these stories to show how far America has come, not to create anger, to divide, or to poison us. That America, my mom and dad told my brothers and me, no longer exists. So work hard, they said, and success follows.

We need historical perspective. Yes, slavery is America’s horror and shame. But slavery, unfortunately, appears throughout the whole of human history. Europeans enslaved Europeans. Asians enslaved Asians. Those we refer to as Native Americans enslaved other Native Americans. Black Africans enslaved other black Africans. Slave traders brought more African slaves to the Middle East and to South America than to Colonial America. Yet this country fought a civil war that resulted in the eradication of slavery. No other nation can say that.

But the black leadership in the United States remains dreary and pessimistic. Members of the Black Congressional Caucus introduced legislation for reparations for slavery.

Do wealthy blacks get a check? Should descendants of those who came to America after slavery pay up? Should descendants of those who fought and died on the Union side pay up? Should we make deductions for the trillions of dollars spent by the government on social programs from which blacks have benefited? What about people of mixed race? Should the payment correspond only to the percentage of a given citizen’s “black blood”? Should we get a contribution from the African nations? After all, some black Africans assisted in the slave trade. And what about another question? Suppose the slave trade never happened, and today’s thirty million American blacks instead live in Africa. Would they be better off?

Reparations, indeed! What a waste of time and energy. For all a country can be is just in its own time.

Illegitimacy, poor schools, drug abuse, crime—you name it—get blamed on white racism. This insults generations of black men and women who worked, survived, and thrived under unimaginably inhumane conditions. Today, many blacks ignore the meteoric progress of blacks, a success under way well before anyone heard of the expression “affirmative action.”

In high school, my class read a poem:

While riding through old Baltimore, so small and full of glee,
I saw a young Baltimorean keep a-lookin’ straight at me.
Now, I was young and very small, and he was no whit bigger
And so I smiled, but he poked out his tongue and called me “nigger.”
I saw the whole of Baltimore from May until September,
Of all the things that happened there, that’s all that I remember.

The teacher talked about the permanent damage done to this little boy’s psyche. The permanent stain of racism. The denial of the little boy’s dignity. The boy, said the teacher, will never be the same. By the time the bell sounded, everybody left angry.

I went home and repeated the poem to my mom. When I came to the last stanza: “Of all the things that happened there, that’s all that I remember,” she took a spoon out of the pot she was stirring, rapped it on the side, turned to me and said, “Larry, it’s too bad he let that spoil his vacation.”

Pre-affirmative action, pre-Civil Rights Act of 1964, pre-Voting Rights Act of 1965, pre-Open Housing Act of 1968, Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson wrote in an unpublished 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education draft concurrence, “Negro progress under segregation has been spectacular and, tested by the pace of history, his rise is one of the swiftest and most dramatic advances in the annals of man.”10 Hear, hear!

And today, taxpayers provide state-funded education. Blacks can rely, for the most part, on the police to do their jobs without violating human rights. The unemployment rate stands at a thirty-year low, with black unemployment falling faster than white joblessness. A black with the same years of experience and quality of education can expect to earn what a white man earns. America’s computer age rapidly increases productivity, and our nation’s standard of living rises at a pace unknown in all of human history.

Midtown Los Angeles is an area largely populated with Hispanics and Asians. At the corner of Olympic and Vermont there once stood a small dingy, library.

“Larry,” said my friend, Frank, who lives in midtown, “I want to show you something.” About 3:30 P.M., I met Frank in front of the library. “Look at this,” Frank said.

In front of the building, which stood on a slight incline, a halfdozen Hispanic kids rode skateboards. They did impressive tricks, including spins, flips, and other almost gravity-defying, Michael Jordan-esque moves.

“Now,” Frank said, “come on inside.”

We entered the library. Standing room only. Every chair and desk was occupied … by Korean-American kids and their mothers. Not a single Hispanic in the building.

Now, fast-forward ten or twenty years later. Which group will likely generate the senior vice president of sales and marketing at Merck, and which group will likely spawn lesser achievers?

Politicians can scream all they want about the “digital divide,” the allegation that the computer era leaves many behind through no fault of their own. But the bottom line, ground zero, remains the little library at the corner of Olympic and Vermont. The library shows that affirmative action remains alive and well in our country. Only some call it homework.

So, today’s challenge is not black versus white. It is prepared versus unprepared. This means making schools work, holding parents and students to high standards, and shaming those who irresponsibly breed and then abandon their children. The “black leaders’” almost pathological search for the Great White Bigot does not address these problems.

Black Harvard sociologist Orlando Patterson said, “The sociological truths are that America, while still flawed in its race relations … is now the least racist white-majority society in the world; has a better record of legal protection of minorities than any other society, white or black; offers more opportunities to a greater number of black persons than any other society, including all those of Africa … .”

The editor of the National Review, John O. Sullivan, put it this way, “White racism exists. But its social power is weak, the social power against it overwhelming.”

Would the Last Black Republican/Conservative Please Turn Out the Light?

Blacks hate Republicans.

Bill Maxwell, black editorial writer and columnist for the St. Petersburg Times, wrote a column called “Black Republicans: Self-Loathers.” 11 Some choice excerpts:

  • Some creatures are just plain strange, making us do double takes because their compositions or habits or appearances defy our sense of logic and our way of viewing reality.
  • Take the wildebeest, warthog, hyena, brown pelican, the Shar-Pei. These animals, seemingly wrought by committee make us laugh. Another such creature, of the human kind—and perhaps the strangest of all—is the black Republican.
  • Black Republicans fail to understand that few white Republicans will accept them as equals. Although they will not acknowledge the truth, most white Republicans, like most other whites, view black Republicans as strange creatures.
  • White Republicans feign consternation that most blacks find them contemptible, arguing that those mean old Democrats have been black people’s real enemy all along. Keyes and others, such as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Oklahoma Rep. J. C. Watts and California businessman Ward Connerly, also spout this nonsense.
  • Some blacks like [Colin] Powell become Republicans because they see clear political advantage or because they work for Republicans.

    Most others, however, are mean-spirited self-leathers who rarely find anything positive to say about fellow blacks.

    They out-nasty the worst white racist, calling the likes of Jesse Jackson, the NAACP’s Kweisi Mfume, and the Urban League’s Hugh Price evil men hell-bent on destroying America.

    White Republicans love this kind of stuff. They wink and nod each time black Republicans claim that racism is a thing of the past, that whites and blacks are free to compete equally. Black Republicans have fooled themselves into believing that white Republicans are their brethren.

    And, of course, black Republicans delude themselves into believing that they alone are responsible for their success.

Other than that, Mr. Maxwell, how do you really feel?

New York congressman Charles Rangel said of the 1994 Republican Congress, “It’s not ‘spic’ or ‘nigger’ any more. They say ‘let’s cut taxes.’”12 How bad is it? Well, nearly everybody loves Colin Powell. Except blacks. According to a 1995 poll,13 Powell enjoyed a 73 percent popularity rating among whites. Among blacks, however, he registered only 57 percent. Think about that. A Newt Gingrich clone, he ain’t. As mentioned earlier, Powell is a social moderate, perhaps truly more comfortable in the Democratic Party than in the Republican. And he made the country proud by kicking Saddam Hussein’s butt.

So for a black voter, what’s not to like? Yeah, blacks say, but he’s … a Republican.

To many black people, Republicans don’t simply represent a different point of view. They represent “racism,” “back-of-thebusism,” and, if they could get away with it, a reversal in fundamental civil rights. When congresswoman Maxine Waters calls the Republicans “the enemy,” this suits most blacks just fine. Obviously, Republicans want blacks at the back of the bus and, if possible, back on the plantation.

How warranted is this black hatred of Republicans? Abraham Lincoln became the first nationally elected candidate from the newly formed Republican Party. The party platform that year sought to prevent the spread of slavery.

Because “Lincoln freed the slaves,” black voters supported the Republican Party for years. Even as late as the 1956 race between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson, blacks gave Republicans nearly 35 percent of the vote.

This allegiance switched in the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon presidential race, when a southern sheriff arrested Dr. Martin Luther King. King’s aides sent identically worded letters to both John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Kennedy responded. Nixon did not. Because of Kennedy’s intervention and the public light it shed, the Southern jailers quickly released King. For this important symbolic and meaningful gesture, blacks rewarded John F. Kennedy in the voting booth, putting him over the top in this extremely close election with 70 percent of their vote.

But it was southern Democrats who formed the line to defend Jim Crow. Georgia governor Lester Maddox famously brandished ax handles to prevent blacks from patronizing his restaurant. He was a Democrat. Alabama governor George Wallace stood in front of the Alabama schoolhouse in 1963 and thundered, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.” He was a Democrat. Birmingham Public Safety commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor sicced dogs and turned fire hoses on black civil rights demonstrators. He was a Democrat. In 1954, Arkansas governor Orville Faubus tried to prevent the desegregation of a Little Rock public high school. He was a Democrat. President Eisenhower, a Republican, sent in federal troops to prevent violence and enforce a court order desegregating the school.

As a percentage of their respective parties, more Republicans voted for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats!

A Republican president, Richard Nixon, not John F. Kennedy or Lyndon B. Johnson, instituted the first affirmative action program with goals and timetables.

On the mantels of black homes, you often find pictures of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the slain Kennedy brothers. But, near the end of the Kennedy presidency, black leaders seethed over his failure to push for major civil rights legislation. Kennedy, ever the pragmatist, wanted to wait until after the 1964 election, fearing a civil rights push could alienate the important southern vote. Not exactly the credentials of a civil rights warrior.

And, it was during the Kennedy administration that FBI head J. Edgar Hoover sought and received permission to wiretap Martin Luther King. The person granting him permission? Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy.

Want to start a fight? Walk into a black barbershop and praise Ronald Reagan.

Blacks simply do not know that blacks prospered greatly under Reagan. But black adult unemployment fell faster during his presidency than did white adult unemployment. Black teenage unemployment fell faster than did white teenage unemployment.

But Reagan, according to Black Entertainment Television commentator Tavis Smiley, “tortured” blacks. Tortured? Yet, despite popular misconception, Reagan did not shut down any significant poverty program. In fact social spending under Ronald Reagan actually grew! Reagan did not “roll back the social safety net.” He preserved it, and, in many cases, expanded it.

Still, no pictures of Ronald Reagan on the mantel of blacks.

Earlier we discussed Proposition 209, California’s initiative to remove race- and gender-based affirmative action. Ward Connerly, a successful black contractor, led California’s grassroots effort to repeal race- and gender-based preferences. Connerly felt demeaned that the state assumed he needed a boost and believed that the affirmative action mentality creates a dependent mind-set that robs people of self-sufficiency and the willingness to assume personal responsibility.

Even affirmative action supporter Arthur Ashe, in Days of Grace, spoke of affirmative action’s entitlement mentality: “Affirmative action tends to undermine the spirit of individual initiative. Such is human nature; why struggle to succeed when you can have something for nothing?”14

But Connerly clashed with black leaders, who accused him of selling out. Black California State senator Diane Watson, a staunch proponent of affirmative action, viciously attacked Connerly, “He’s married a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black.”15 What? Yet another attack from a black person about the race of another black person’s spouse! Afterward, a heartfelt apology? Not on your life. When reporters later asked Senator Watson about the remark, she defiantly stated, “That’s right. I said that.” Spike Lee would be proud.

Suppose, during the 1996 race for the Republican nomination for the presidency, Senator Bob Dole attacked rival Senator Phil Gramm because Gramm married a Korean-American. Are you kidding? The Dole campaign goes supernova. Lights out. Case closed.

But Senator Diane Watson? Well, Clinton later nominated her as U.S. ambassador to Micronesia.

USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux said that she hoped conservative black Supreme Court justice Thomas’s wife would feed him “lots of eggs and butter and he dies early … of heart disease.”16

Justice Thomas serves as poster boy for the wrath of the black left. And many blacks simply cannot rationally discuss Clarence Thomas. Equally conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia—no problem. Many blacks can rationally discuss the politics of John Wayne, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan, and even Ronald Reagan. But Clarence Thomas?

The black monthly magazine Emerge, with a circulation of 162,000, featured a cover on Justice Thomas. The magazine depicted a cartoonish Thomas dressed as a lawn jockey, holding a lantern and sporting a broad grin. The cover caption? “Uncle Thomas, Lawn Jockey to the Far Right.” And, inside the cover, we see another cartoon picture, this time of Clarence Thomas, on his knees, shining the shoes of fellow Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, another despicable “conservative.”

Emerge magazine calls itself a “black news monthly.” News monthly? Imagine a Time magazine cover story showing an obese Ted Kennedy stuffed into a jockey suit and holding a lantern with the headline reading, “Uncle Ted, Lawn Jockey to the Far Left.” Recall the infamous Time magazine’s O.J. Simpson cover. For what it thought of as dramatic effect, Time darkened Simpson’s features. “Racism,” hollered black leaders. Time quickly apologized. But a “news monthly” like Emerge can caricature a black Supreme Court justice as a shoeshine boy without fear of criticism.

Black publisher Emanuel McLittle produced a now-defunct monthly publication called Destiny. Destiny’s message: work hard, stop blaming “the White Man,” and let’s have a little perspective. Prominent writers such as Walter Williams sat on Destiny’s board and contributed columns. But Destiny folded, citing an inability to attract mainstream, national advertisers. The shrill, angry Emerge magazine faces no such problem. Chrysler, G.E., and AT&T all advertise in this magazine despite its constant attack on “racist” corporate America. What is that all about?

Diversity of thought simply does not exist, especially not in the black media.

Several black conservatives syndicate their columns all across the country. Professor Walter Williams’s column appears in 400 newspapers, and conservative economist Thomas Sowell’s appears in 150. And there are other gifted conservative black columnists in local newspapers all around the country. Donald Adderton of the Sun Herald, in Gulfport, Mississippi. Michael Meyers of the New York Post. Joe Stewart of the San Diego Tribune. Deroy Murdock, who has written for the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the Orange County Register, the San Francisco Examiner, the Miami Herald, and others. Yet, the typical black weekly newspaper, the ones screaming for multiculturalism, inclusion, and diversity, completely shut these minds and thinkers out. Even most big city liberal mainstream newspapers give black conservatives more respect, carrying the occasional column by a conservative and even setting aside some space for a conservative point of view. Not so with black newspapers.

When It Comes to Shamoless Demagoguery, Overheated Rhetoric, and Outright Lies, Black Leaders Shine

Many black leaders and other prominent public figures say the dumbest, damndest, and most insulting things. For example, the venerable Bill Cosby once suggested that AIDS was a plot against blacks. The entertainer said he believed AIDS was developed “to get after certain people.” Admitting he had no proof, he said, “I just have a feeling.”17

Similarly, Will Smith, in an interview with Barbara Walters, suggested that scientists conceived AIDS to retaliate against blacks.

“Ethnic cleansing,” cried Jesse Jackson, following a Supreme Court decision striking down Southern Congressional districts drawn up to create minority congresspersons.18 Along with Jackson, Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund denounced the decision, saying, “The noose is tightening.”19 Her colleague, Theodore Shaw, warned that once this decision goes through, the Black Congressional Caucus “could meet in the back seat of a taxicab.”20 Well, the blacks who decided to run for reelection in now-majority-white southern districts all won! Did Jackson, who once called Jews “Hymies” and New York City “Hymie Town,” apologize for his unfair and pessimistic expectations of white voters? David Duke will join the Harlem Globetrotters before that happens.

Some of the most successful, wealthiest blacks nevertheless whine about the racism. Whoopi Goldberg, the comedian-actress, complained about Hollywood, even though, at the time, she earned more money than any actress. “The one thing I’ve learned is that you’re black forever in Hollywood. Your color never dissipates. It never becomes about: you’re this actor. You’re always: this actor who is this … And so I suspect that somewhat begrudgingly I sit atop that little miniskyscraper. But it’s a very precarious situation always because people don’t want to pay you that money.”21 Meaning what? That studios willingly open their pocketbooks for white actresses but hold their nose when doing it for black ones?

Black baseball player Gary Sheffield, who in 1998 earned a record $14.9 million, complained about racism, noting, “You see racism [in baseball] every single minute of every day.”22 Jeez. Even during the National Anthem?

Nearly all mainstream newspapers have the obligatory angry black leftist columnist, and Julianne Malveaux serves this function for USA Today. When Malveaux and I appeared on a national television show, I accused her of obsessing over “the great white bigot.” To this, she incredibly fired back, “There is no one ‘great white bigot.’ There are about 200 million little white ones!” That pretty much covers every white man, woman, and child in America and, perhaps, even a few of the unborn.

Denzel Washington reportedly refused to kiss his white female costar in the movie Virtuosity because he feared the reaction from the targeted white male audience. However, Kelly Lynch, his female costar, wanted to kiss Washington. But Washington, despite a green light from the filmmakers, said no. Lynch explained, “He felt very strongly about it. I felt there is no problem with interracial romance. But Denzel felt strongly that the white males, who were the target audience of this movie, would not want to see him kiss a white woman.”23 Think about this. Doesn’t Washington’s white female, costar know a thing or two about white males? Presumably, her parents are white. She likely has lots of white friends. She probably, therefore, knows something about the “white male mind-set.” But, Washington, obviously the expert here, knows far more about the inner bigotry of white men than his white costar. His pessimism trumps her optimism. Another victory for race relations!

How crazy does it get? Real crazy. Some black leaders even create racial incidents. In Beverly Hills, on June 3, 1998, the police pulled over black California State senator Kevin Murray. Police later said they had run his plates, getting back a “no access” response. Officers thought this odd, and asked Murray to pull over.

Well, the “fit hit the shan.” Murray screamed “racism.” Another victim of “DWB—driving while black.” Had it not been a black man in Beverly Hills, claimed Murray, you guys would not have stopped me.

But a reporter for New Times, a Los Angeles alternative weekly newspaper, wrote that Murray intentionally blew up the incident. Murray, the reporter wrote, bragged to his neighbors that he intended to “milk this thing for as far as I can go.” His neighbor claimed that Murray laughed at the incident and admitted that it had little, if anything, to do with race. “Kevin has really been enjoying the publicity from being pulled over, and I mean really been enjoying it,” said the neighbor. “He’s going for big mileage on it, and he’s loving it. Don’t you just love that? When it’s just talk between friends, he never says it’s about race. He says it’s because this woman cop had a snotty tone with him, and nobody can treat [him] with disrespect.”24

“No justice, no peace,” bellowed Congresswoman Maxine Waters during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.25 Following the “not guilty” verdict against four cops who beat black motorist Rodney King, rioters set fire to more than two thousand businesses, causing billions of dollars in damage. Koreans owned most of the businesses that were torched.

Yet, black leaders like Waters described the riots as a “rebellion” 26 or an “uprising.” A rebellion or uprising against Korean store owners? No one calls for reparations for the Korean shopkeepers who saw their life savings and means of income wiped out in a matter of a few hours. Indeed, for allegedly failing to keep dollars within the black community, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan calls these hardworking Los Angeles Korean store owners “bloodsuckers.”

Black “Victicrats”

A “victicrat” blames all ills, problems, concerns, and unhappiness on others. This black victicrat mentality emerges in strange, unpredictable, confusing, and frequently inconsistent ways.

One summer during high school, I applied for a job with the County of Los Angeles. To qualify for the job, hundreds of students gathered downtown to take an aptitude test. If you scored below a certain level, the county deemed you unqualified, and you had to leave. After the three- or four-hour exam, we waited in the hall as the instructors graded the exams. Gilbert, a fellow student, approached me.

“Watch out, Larry, they’re gonna get us.”

“Who’s gonna get us, Gilbert?”

Gilbert sighed and rolled his eyes knowingly. “You know, the white people, that’s who.”

“But, Gilbert, you think they’re gonna ‘punish’ the blacks by flunking us?”

“Larry, you got a lot to learn.”

Well, they announced the results of the exam. I passed, as did many other minorities. But Gilbert did not. He got up to leave, looked me in the eyes as he walked by, and said, “What did I tell you?”

The Washington Post, in 1995, wrote about black, white, Hispanic, and Asian views on race. Pollsters asked middle-income blacks whether “past and present discrimination” is responsible for your group’s problems, and 84 percent of blacks answered yes. When middle-income whites were asked whether “past and present discrimination” holds blacks back, only 30 percent said yes.27 This is no surprise. It mirrors the attitudes of blacks and whites during the O. J. Simpson case, where a majority of blacks felt Simpson innocent, while the overwhelming majority of whites felt the opposite.

Here’s where things get interesting. The pollster28 asked Hispanics whether they find “past and present discrimination” to be responsible for holding them back and 43 percent said yes. But when blacks were asked whether “past or present discrimination” holds Hispanics back, 58 percent said yes. In other words, 30 percent more blacks perceived discrimination against Hispanics than did Hispanics themselves.

Similarly, Asians were asked whether “past or present discrimination” holds Asians back. Thirty-one percent said yes. But when pollsters asked blacks if “past or present discrimination” holds Asians back, 41 percent said yes.29 Again, 30 percent more blacks perceived racism against Asians, than did Asians themselves.

On my Los Angeles radio show, I asked people to explain why blacks saw more racism against Hispanics and Asians than did Hispanics and Asians themselves. A black caller said, “We’re experts in perceiving racism.” Oh. Astute and hardworking Japanese-Americans and Chinese-Americans manage to earn more money, per capita, than virtually any other group in America. Yet the very same people are too stupid to realize the white race continues to hold them back.

Despite little evidence, nearly one-third of blacks believe the CIA played a major role in the inner-city drug epidemic, and nearly that many believe, as entertainers Bill Cosby and Will Smith once suggested, that scientists concocted AIDS to further black genocide.

Many blacks blame substandard urban schools’ performance on racism, claiming that urban districts get less money for schools than suburban and rural districts. So, then, it’s about the money? But, in districts like Washington, D.C., New York, and Los Angeles, districts spend upwards of $9,000 per child, far more than the average tuition for private and parochial schools.

Furthermore, black superintendents run many urban districts, often with substantial black membership. Many of these troubled districts reside in cities run by black mayors and where the city council is substantially, if not majority, black. Despite the money, despite black management, all too often, the results are lousy.

Journalist David Beard, writing for the Sun-Sentinel South Florida noted that a Barbadian SAT score of 1345 was “about average for the students of … secondary school in this Caribbean nation.” The teachers in Barbados earn less money than their U.S. counterparts. A substantial number, over 50%, of the students come from single-parent households. Yet, said former Boston University chancellor John Silber, “They defy all of the expectations and all of the clichés passed off as excuses for the poor quality of primary and secondary education in the United States.”30

Why do black students in Barbados perform so well on the “culturally biased” SAT? And, if the SAT is “culturally biased,” wouldn’t the test handicap students from the “Barbadian culture” more than students from the “black American experience”? An educator working for a pre-university school in Barbados said, “The parents expect the kids to do well. Barbados parents as a whole hold education to be Number One.”31

The teachers in Barbados are not applying rocket science. Hard work, lots of homework, rote, grammar skills, high teacher expectations, and high parental expectations, accompanied by parental involvement. Computers are few, and the classes are dramatically sub-high-tech. Said U.S. educator Charles Glenn of the Barbadian education system, “In Barbados, there’s no culture saying, ‘The schools are racist. The tests are racist. I’m a victim.’ In Britain or the United States, many kids are convinced there is nothing they can do to succeed.’”32

Yet when an American black kid graduates from high school and underperforms on standardized tests, black leaders urge the student’s acceptance into competitive universities, anyway. Because of poorly managed schools, black kids get shafted in grades K through 12, but the civil rights establishment resists reforms. Angry black parents demand vouchers, so they can place their children in better schools. But the Democratic Party, the NAACP, and Jesse Jackson all oppose vouchers, arguing they stand to destroy public schools—the very public schools depriving urban parents of a decent education for their children!

John Stossel, commentator for ABC News, hosted a special on myths widely believed by blacks. Some blacks, he found, accuse Church’s Fried Chicken of putting something in the meat to render black men impotent. And some accuse Snapple natural beverages of being manufactured by the Ku Klux Klan. Why? Well, the label featured a ship that many blacks called a “slave ship.” (Actually, the bottle shows a replica of the Boston Tea Party ship.) The upper left-hand corner of the Snapple label, said many blacks, depicts a “K”—a clear-cut reference to the Klan. In actuality, Snapple was founded by a Jewish family, and the “K” on their label stands for “Kosher.” But then, why let the truth get in the way of a good victicrat story?

The chairman of the African-American studies department at Harvard University, Henry Louis Gates, complains about racism by giving a personal example. He says that even though he is a learned man who has published many books, whites nevertheless see him first and foremost as a black man. He said, “When I walk into a room, people still see my blackness, more than my Gatesness, or my literary-ness.”33 It insults him that people see his race. (How does he know what they see or think? Doesn’t this “racial profiling” actually insult whites?)

Karen Russell, the daughter of black basketball great Bill Russell, writes, too, of her anger. In a New York Times Magazine cover story, she complains of racism. She says her white friends say things like, “Karen, we don’t understand the problem [with racism]. We don’t think of you as black.” How dare they, writes Russell, accept me only after “denying my ethnicity.” This insults her, the fact that people don’t see her race.

So, whites piss Gates off because they see him as a black person. And whites piss Karen Russell off because they don’t. Scotty, beam me up.

Remember the black man dragged by white racists in Jasper, Texas? Justifiably, this became an international story. Three white men in Jasper saw a black man, James Byrd, walking down the road. They offered him a ride, then assaulted him, chained him to the truck, and drove him several miles, scattering his body parts all over the countryside. Black victicrats, citing horrific crimes like this, call for enhanced “hate crime” legislation. The FBI recently recorded about eight thousand annual hate crimes. Of those, nearly half involved race, a substantial percentage of which consisted merely of verbal intimidation. This leaves only a handful of alleged serious “hate crimes.”

But, look deeper. Americans commit nearly nine million violent crimes each year, and an additional thirty million nonviolent crimes. Thus, the several thousand “hate crimes” per year represent a tiny fraction of 1 percent.

Are blacks more likely to be victims of “hate crimes” than whites? No. Americans commit around 1.7 million interracial crimes each year, of which about 1.2 million involve blacks and whites. Nearly 90 percent of these involve a black perpetrator and a white victim. Ninety percent. Thus, assuming blacks commit a small percentage of these racial crimes because of the victim’s race, then hate crime legislation, if applied evenly, would ensnare more blacks than whites!

The media seem to think blacks incapable of committing hate crime. In 1989, several young black teenagers raped and assaulted a Central Park jogger. The crime made headlines, but no one suggested a racial motive. Tell me, if a black woman jogged through Central Park only to be grabbed, raped, and beaten by several white youths, wouldn’t someone wonder aloud whether race might have prompted this act of violence and vulgarity? Under the definition of a race-based “hate crime,” a perpetrator need act only in part out of racial animus.

Black youths stoned and nearly killed white truck driver Reginald Denny during the 1992 riots in South Central L.A. Hate crime? Apparently not. And in 1997, three white teens from northern Michigan hopped a train that landed them in a predominantly black area of Flint, Michigan. Several black youths brutally attacked them, beating, then shooting the two white boys in the head, killing one. The white girl was forced to perform oral sex, after which she was pistol-whipped, robbed of ten dollars, shot in the face, and left for dead.34 “Hate crime”? Apparently not.

Many newspapers and magazines wrote about the Flint crime, but no one raised the question of whether the perpetrators might have been motivated because they found some white kids in a black neighborhood. No one called it a “hate crime.”

In March 2000 a black man shot five whites, killing three in a Pittsburgh suburb. A black neighbor quoted the suspect, Ronald Taylor, as saying, “I’m gonna kill all the white people.” A white maintenance man, who worked at Taylor’s apartment building, complained, “Whenever he saw me, he called me a racist pig, or white trash. Or he’d make a point of walking past and brushing up against me. He just didn’t like me.”35

Yet, television news anchors tiptoed around whether to accuse the suspect of a “hate crime”! Suddenly, anchors advised that we don’t know whether Taylor’s alleged hate crime against whites was the “primary” or “sole” reason for the shootings. Pardon me? Suddenly, somehow a new requirement got added. When did they make that change?

Even the local police avoided any appearance of a rush to judgment. “There’s a lot of hostility in this individual,” said Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania’s police chief Gerald Brewer, “so I think it’s a little premature to simply define this as a racist event.” A little premature?

In August 1999, white supremacist Buford Furrow gunned down several people at a Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles. He later shot and killed a Filipino letter carrier. During the first three days of the shooting, how many newspapers carried the story? Over 150. They wrote nearly 200 articles.

But, in November 1999, an Ethiopian man in Kansas City shot and killed two coworkers. The shooter, who shot and killed himself, left a letter referring to “blood sucker” whites. Over the next full year, how many newspapers carried the story of this hideous, apparently race-based shooting? Eleven.

In April 1999, teenagers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot and killed several classmates, before killing themselves. The shooters had written about their hatred for blacks, athletes, and others. What do you tell the parents of a slain, white male teenager? Well, the state provides a lesser punishment for your child’s killers, since your child is white. Never mind that the white teenager’s body lay only feet from a slain black teenager’s body, for whose killers the government provides stronger punishment. What nonsense.

And, in any case, why do we need “hate crime legislation”? Didn’t Clinton supporter James Carville assert that he “hated” independent counsel Ken Starr? This is America, thundered Carville, and you don’t have to like somebody if you don’t want to. And isn’t it racist to place one victim ahead of another, based on ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability? Aren’t all crimes really hate crimes in the sense that the bad guy wanted to do harm to the innocent? Hate crime legislation forces us to place greater value on some victims because of race. By all means, we should prosecute bad conduct. But if I’m standing at an ATM machine and a Ku Klux Klansman hits me in the back of the head with a brick, the operative word is not “Klansman.” It is “brick.”

For a 1997 PBS special, Redefining Racism, I interviewed George Curry, editor of the aforementioned Emerge magazine. I consistently challenged his facts, conclusions, and overall pessimism. He got angrier and angrier. No doubt, he disagreed with much of what I said. But, his anger, I think, comes from another place. The Emerge victicrat mind-set says this: “The Man rigged the game. He’s stacked the odds. But, subscribe to my magazine, and we will show you the way. We show how to navigate the treacherous waters of racism and discrimination.” Racism sells.

Publisher Curry’s victicrat worldview requires enemies, and this makes truth tellers and falsehood shredders so dangerous. Take away “us versus them,” and you remove a huge incentive to buy his magazine. A recent and typical Emerge article asked, “Has the Economic Boom Bypassed Black America?” Open the magazine. A woman and a man are sitting in ajaguar, in Mitchellville, Maryland, a predominantly black Washington, D.C., suburb of sumptuous houses, lush, manicured green lawns, colorful flowerbeds, huge picture windows, and Mercedes and BMWs parked in driveways. The article tells us that “68 percent, or more than 8,000 of Mitchellville’s 12,593 residents, are black. Initially, their affluence stemmed from high-paying government jobs. College degrees and entrepreneurships later fueled the movement of blacks to the suburbs.”36

But even here, says the article, the system screws blacks. “And for all that a Mitchellville has to offer, it is equally striking for what’s missing. The Starbucks coffee shops, Barnes & Noble bookstores and even bagel shops that are ubiquitous in most trendy neighborhoods are nowhere to be found. Much like poor inner-city areas, Prince George’s County has more liquor stores than jewelry stores, more used merchandise stores than department stores. There are similar issues in wealthy black communities in areas such as Atlanta, Chicago, and suburban Los Angeles.”37

Hold the phone. Assuming these neighborhoods lack these desirable businesses, how about, like, starting them? After all, didn’t “entrepreneurship” fuel the suburban boom? Don’t entrepreneurs recognize entrepreneurial opportunities?

Hollywood also finds itself in the crosshairs. According to the NAACP, the industry excludes blacks. But, as mentioned earlier, didn’t Al Gore’s campaign manager claim that Republicans “exclude” blacks? Name an industry more identifiably liberal than Hollywood. Marlon Brando talked about the heavy Jewish influence in Hollywood. Few groups retain their Democratic affiliation more fervently than Jews. For the most part, Jews, like blacks, do not abandon the Democratic Party for the Republican Party as they grow wealthier. Outside of Rupert Murdoch of the News Corporation (which also owns Twentieth Century Fox) one would be hard-pressed to name a Republican force in Hollywood.

Blacks watch television at least as often as do whites. Among young blacks, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, nearly half of black fourth-graders, in a 1994 survey, watched at least six hours of television a day. This is three times the rate at which white fourth-graders watched television.”38

Washington Post writer Jon Jeter interviewed Sherri Parks, who teaches American studies at the University of Maryland. Parks, according to Jeter, says, “Marketing studies have shown that although middle-class black families typically watch less television than poorer black families, they still watch more than their white neighbors.”39

If the industry’s alleged black exclusion produces such an unappealing product, why do blacks so enthusiastically patronize the fare created by Hollywood?

Victicrats protested that NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox discriminated against blacks by failing to include more of them in the fall 1999 new-show lineup. A black author, Dr. Earl Ofari Hutchinson, wrote a book called The Assassination of the Black Male lmage,40 arguing that the media intentionally depict blacks demeaningly in order to further their racist agenda.

NAACP president Kweisi Mfume blasted the networks for failing to include more minority characters. A “whiteout!” critics charged. “Ethnic cleansing,” said others. Mfume threatened a boycott. But a study41 by Linda and S. Robert Lichter of the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., paints a very different picture. After studying hundreds of hours of television, the Lichters showed that prime time television depicted blacks as doctors, lawyers, dentists, or other professionals far more than their numbers in real life. And TV depicts blacks as criminals far less frequently than in real life.

It’s nearly impossible to turn on your television set without seeing blacks, whether in commercials, dramas, comedies, or anchoring the news, participating in sports, hosting religious programs, on shopping networks and infomercials, or “TV-courtroom” shows. Former heavyweight champion George Foreman pushes his “George Foreman Grill” in front of predominantly white studio audiences to the tune of nearly $40 million a year. Black television fitness guru Billy Blanks, the “Elvis of Exercise,” sold more than five million copies of his Tae Bo video in the first year of its release. 42

Consider the plight of the hapless network executive: In the last few years, executives have green-lighted The PJs, an animated series cocreated by Eddie Murphy, and The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer, a spoof on Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War, with a black character in the lead. Yet some blacks protested both shows. The PJs, black activists screamed, “demeans” blacks through using “stereotypical characters,” including a recovering crack addict. And, said the activists, The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer makes light of slavery, even though the show revolves around a central black character who happens to be the only sane, rational, and intelligent person in the show.

And, some years before, Fox canceled a black action show called M.A.N.T.I.S. Protesters considered the canceling racist, even though Fox programming featured more shows with primary black characters than network rivals.

Just how racist is television? Jesse Jackson, as mentioned, angered many by referring to Jews as “Hymies” and New York as “Hymie Town.” Yet, Jackson has a television show, Both Sides with Jesse Jackson, on CNN, a subsidiary of Time-Warner. Time-Warner’s CEO is Gerald Levin, a Jew. And, during the O.J. Simpson trial, defense attorney Johnnie Cochran likened Mark Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler, angering many Jews. Yet, Cochran, too, has a television show on Court TV, which was founded by Steve Brill, a Jew, and is now part of Time-Warner. According to an Anti-Defamation League study, anti-Semitism in America is at an all-time low, except in the black community, where anti-Semitism is three times the national average.

The Screen Actors Guild, in 1996, reported that 12 percent of all film and TV jobs went to blacks. This happened to be the same percentage of the population of blacks in America in 1996. The Screen Directors Guild, in 1995, said 3.9 percent of all jobs went to black directors. By 1996, the figure rose to 5.2 percent. As for commercials, the Screen Actors Guild 1996 report showed that Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and blacks perform 21 percent of all commercial jobs, with blacks landing nearly 12 percent of the total.

“Minority Markets Alert,” a New York City-based newsletter, reported that in 1995, blacks appeared in nearly 40 percent of comm

Full Text Reviews
Appeared in Publishers Weekly on 2000-07-24:
Los Angeles radio talk-show host and nationally syndicated columnist Elder, who is African-American, has incurred the wrath of many blacks for his outspoken assertion that racism in the U.S. no longer represents a serious threat to blacks' upward mobility. This conversational, bluntly candid manifesto should prove equally controversial. Elder, who favors much less government and much less regulation, blames both Republicans and Democrats for creating and maintaining a bloated welfare state that stifles individual initiative and free enterprise. His "Ten-Point Plan" for transforming America calls for abolishing the IRS; passing a national sales tax; reducing government by 80%; ending welfare and entitlements, including Social Security, Medicare, and farm and tobacco subsidies; legalizing drugs; abolishing the minimum wage (which, he claims, undermines job creation for blacks, teenagers and entry-level workers); and eliminating corporate taxes. He also opposes affirmative action, hate-crime legislation and virtually any regulation of handguns, including registration. Elder (who is slated to host the forthcoming TV show The Moral Court) further accuses the white-run media of condescending to blacks by overemphasizing stories of racism and by subtly applying a lower set of expectations to African-Americans' behavior. Taking swipes at Bill and Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Johnnie Cochran, Louis Farrakhan and others, he blasts the black leadership, which, he insists, should focus on ways to morally and legally discourage "the young, irresponsible and unwed from having children." In Elder's apt phrase, we have become a nation of "victicrats," people blaming their ills on others and demanding special treatment while refusing to accept personal responsibility. While many readers will consider his prescriptions simplistic, they'll find his candor and straight talk refreshing. (Sept.) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Review Quotes
"[Elder] is a fresh voice on the scene and deserves a listen and a read." --New York Post "Elder slays dragons and sacred cows with wide, authoritative research and witty, entertaining, informative prose that is sure to enlighten most readers who live in a culture where truth is elusive." --Kirkus Reviews
"[Elder] is a fresh voice on the scene and deserves a listen and a read." -- New York Post "Elder slays dragons and sacred cows with wide, authoritative research and witty, entertaining, informative prose that is sure to enlighten most readers who live in a culture where truth is elusive." -- Kirkus Reviews
This item was reviewed in:
Publishers Weekly, July 2000
Booklist, August 2000
Kirkus Reviews, August 2000
To find out how to look for other reviews, please see our guides to finding book reviews in the Sciences or Social Sciences and Humanities.
Main Description
From Rush Limbaugh to Howard Stern, America tunes in to its radio hosts both on the air and between covers, accepting them as truth-tellers without agendas, the perfect gadflies for the age of too much information. In an era where everyone seems bought and paid for, they cut through it all to tell it like it is. For Fall 2000--just in time to enter the fray for the presidential election season-St. Martin's is happy to present the most unfettered voice of all, Larry Elder. Larry Elder has been igniting passions and conversations for five years at the top of the competitive drive-time radio heap, KABC in Los Angeles-the "Sage from South Central" punctures pretensions, refuses to accept the accepted wisdom, and puts everyone on notice that the status quo needs to be shaken up. From his outrage over the entrenched "victicrat" society and how it keeps believers spinning their wheels, to his trenchant observations on work, leadership, race, special interests, politics and more, Larry is a clarion voice that cuts through what the usual suspects say and hear. "Bad schools, crime, drugs, high taxes, the social security mess, racism, the health care crisis, unemployment, welfare state dependency, illegitimacy. What do these issues have in common? Politicians, the media and our so-called leaders lie to us about them. They lie about the cause. They lie about the effect. They lie about the solutions." -- Larry Elder The Ten Things You Can't Say In America: Blacks are More Racist than Whites White Condescension is as Real as Black Racism The Media Bias: It's Real, It's Widespread, It's Destructive The Glass Ceiling: Full of Holes America's Greatest Problem: Illegitimacy The Big Lie: Our Health Care Crisis The Welfare State: Helping Us to Death Republican v. Democrat: Maybe a Dime's worth of Difference, One's for Big Government, One's for Bigger Vietnam II: The War on Drugs, and We're Losing that One Too Gun Control Advocates: Good Guys with Blood on Their Hands
Table of Contents
Prefacep. xi
Blacks Are More Racist than Whitesp. 1
White Condescension Is as Bad as Black Racismp. 67
The Media Bias--It's Real, It's Widespread, It's Destructivep. 101
The Glass Ceiling--Full of Holesp. 133
America's Greatest Problem: Not Crime, Racism, or Bad Schools--It's Illegitimacyp. 154
There Is No Health-Care "Crisis"p. 169
America's Welfare State: The Tyranny of the Statist Quop. 189
Republicans Versus Democrats--Maybe a Dime's Worth of Differencep. 231
The War Against Drugs Is Vietnam II: We're Losing This One, Toop. 252
Gun Control Advocates--Good Guys with Blood on Their Handsp. 268
Appendixp. 301
Notesp. 319
Indexp. 339
Table of Contents provided by Syndetics. All Rights Reserved.

This information is provided by a service that aggregates data from review sources and other sources that are often consulted by libraries, and readers. The University does not edit this information and merely includes it as a convenience for users. It does not warrant that reviews are accurate. As with any review users should approach reviews critically and where deemed necessary should consult multiple review sources. Any concerns or questions about particular reviews should be directed to the reviewer and/or publisher.

  link to old catalogue

Report a problem