To the Editor:

Although I agree with many of Arch Puddington’s arguments in “Speaking of Race” [December 1995], there are some things he either does not mention or does not stress sufficiently. . . .

First, there is the question of what happened to the vanishing idea of interracial harmony. Some black leaders clearly saw that playing on emotional grievances was a way to gain power in the black community—and they have continued to use this tactic to this day. But much of the response to such calls has to be at least partially a response to disappointed expectations. The 1960’s civil-rights movement gave blacks the equality under law they had rightly demanded, but equal results did not follow. Legal equality did not mean economic or social equality. This had to be a major disappointment.

A similar situation occurred in Eastern Europe. People there have also been bitterly disappointed by the fact that political freedom and the free market increase opportunity but do not guarantee results. Many blacks, with equally short memories, reacted to their disappointment by supporting a return to . . . segregation. In the growing American climate of shucking off personal responsibility, unmet expectations have lent credence to the idea that there is a “white conspiracy” to keep blacks oppressed.

A second cause of racial problems is the conservative backlash against the civil-rights movement. Liberals went too far in setting up such well-meaning programs as affirmative action (perhaps even the concept itself was flawed), and black-power types started preaching that the civil-rights movement had failed before it was given a chance to work. But many conservatives started playing on white resentment and race consciousness even before there were specific programs to resent. . . . For example, the Southern strategy of the Republicans came into being before affirmative action and the long list of real and alleged white grievances it created was put in place.

Mr. Puddington is correct as far as he goes. However, we have to recognize the toxic effects of unrealistic expectations among blacks, and cynical (at best) behavior among conservative white leaders. These contributed at least as much as black power and misguided liberalism to laying the groundwork for the vicious racial resentment/backlash cycle we find ourselves in today.

Bruce Brager
Arlington, Virginia

_____________

To the Editor:

. . . Arch Puddington seems to suggest that prior to the introduction of affirmative action, Americans as a whole did not think in terms of race and that affirmative action prevents the development of a truly color-blind society. Such statements are either uninformed or intentional misrepresentations of the reality of American history.

The average American of working age was born before the day when segregation in accommodations and housing was made illegal. . . . African-American voting in the South has become common only in the last 30 years. Significant numbers of African-Americans have held office in the South for roughly 25 years. A Southern black would have to be younger than thirty not to have any significant memory of segregation. Needless to say, African-Americans who are older than fifty have spent major portions of their formative and productive years in a society that permitted legal discrimination.

Bearing this in mind, it seems odd to me that many conservatives like Mr. Puddington assume that the passage of a few federal and state laws would effectively make America color-blind. . . .

Mr. Puddington’s apparent acceptance of what he calls the “daily suspicion” of young black men by whites seems to belie his earlier declaration of American color-blindness. In a truly color-blind society, black men encountered on the street by the general public would be judged as individuals: those who acted threateningly or behaved badly would be judged accordingly; those who behaved properly and appeared to be decent would not be considered threats. To put things another way, using Mr. Puddington’s logic, as a black man in the South I should be hostile to every white man I meet, given the region’s history, and whenever I encounter law-enforcement officers anywhere in America, I should be prepared for violence.

This willingness by many Americans to accept things like the “daily suspicion” of black men is largely responsible for the continued emphasis on racism by African-American leadership. Contrary to the ideas of Dinesh D’Souza in his new book, The End of Racism, African-Americans, like Jews and other minorities, realize it takes far more than a public disavowal of racism or a particular prejudice for it to be removed as a damaging force in society. . . .

Anthony Q. Cheeseboro
Murray State University
Murray, Kentucky

_____________

To the Editor:

. . . In “Speaking of Race,” Arch Puddington says that we must

tear down our absurd, counterproductive, and incendiary system of group classifications and preferences, and reassert the doctrine of race neutrality. This will not happen without a struggle. Some critics of racial preferences have even been prompted to suggest a prudent stepping-back from the effort.

Mr. Puddington seems to realize that such “prudence” would be much like General Meade’s not pursuing Robert E. Lee after Gettysburg. “No worse advice can be imagined,” he says. Yet strangely, he himself “steps back.” . . .

As William B. Allen, the former chairman of the Civil Rights Commission, and others have suggested, the root cause of this “absurd system” can be traced back to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which midwifed the invidious civil-rights mentality that is an example of what Hamilton warned against over 200 years ago. . . . Yet Dinesh D’Souza’s recommendation, in The End of Racism, that we jettison this failed exercise in authoritarian reform liberalism is adjudged by Mr. Puddington to be one of the book’s weakest features. . . .

As long as we adhere to the outmoded premise that blacks need special protections aside from the Bill of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the common law, we will continue denying them the self-respect they deserve as fellow citizens. It is time for the courts and legislatures to get out of the “Dear Abby” business and return such decisions to the people and our core Indo-European, Anglo-Saxon culture so that we can regain our morality and shared values. Let ail of us “minorities” recover our mutual respect and our self-respect in the purifying adventure of the melting pot. Repeal the Civil Rights Act. Contrary to Mr. Puddington et al., there is no other way to engage the struggle.

W. Edward Chynoweth
Sanger, California

_____________

Arch Puddington writes:

Bruce Brager locates the source of our current racial troubles in the unrealistic expectations of equality raised by the civil-rights movement. This is, unfortunately, only part of the story. A more fundamental problem is the implied promise that equality of condition could be attained in the post-civil-rights period through state action. On one level, urban Marshall plans were proposed to rebuild the inner city and put all its inhabitants to work. On another level, social scientists laid out ambitious schemes to integrate the workforce through hiring quotas and to equalize educational opportunity through busing. On still another level, the quality of life of the poor was to be enhanced through a massive expansion of the welfare system.

The parallel which Mr. Brager draws between the post-liberation experiences of black America and Eastern Europe is in this regard highly instructive. In the case of post-Communist Eastern Europe, the West had the wisdom to speak hard truths: there would be no significant infusion of aid; if Poland, Russia, and the other former Communist countries expected to participate in the international economy, they would be required to adhere to the rules, even though this would mean a considerable amount of short-term economic pain. The countries which accepted these terms have made important strides toward prosperity; those which have resisted are poorer and politically less stable.

Black Americans, by contrast, were repeatedly assured that they could skirt the normal workings of the market in their pursuit of equality. They were told that without an activist government their opportunities would be severely limited. And they were told that racism was still as pervasive in American society as it had been under segregation. These are not messages which stimulate competitiveness, entrepreneurship, high aspirations, and the work ethic. They ultimately lead, instead, to defeatism and embitterment. And for this the civil-rights leadership and liberalism generally must take the blame.

I do not share Mr. Brager’s concern over Republican hypocrisy on racial matters. Dishonesty on racial matters is pervasive in American society. For every conservative who has exploited busing, crime, or quotas, there is a liberal who has attempted to deflect debate on busing, crime, or quotas by labeling his opponents as racist. America would clearly benefit from a moderation of the tone of racial debate, but only if the civil-rights movement abandons its practice of impugning the motives of those who question the wisdom of affirmative action and other government policies.

I want to assure Anthony Q. Cheeseboro that I do not believe that “the passage of a few federal and state laws would effectively make America color-blind.” My problem is with laws that exacerbate color-consciousness and with a civil-rights establishment which is increasingly open in its support of a permanently race-conscious legal order. The elimination of these laws will not automatically lead to a society in which race does not matter. It will, however, contribute to an improved racial environment by removing the quota stigma from the many thousands of black students and workers who are competing successfully in America today.

Furthermore, the proliferation of race-conscious practices reinforces the counterproductive myth that racism is the principal impediment to black progress. Mr. Cheeseboro himself invests considerable credence in the racism argument, yet he would clearly be counted a moderate in today’s debate. Thus, it cannot be stressed enough that black economic progress will be retarded until it is recognized that factors other than white prejudice are the major obstacles to prosperity.

On the other hand, unlike W. Edward Chynoweth, I find the proposal to repeal all or part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act neither feasible nor appealing. Proponents justify this proposal by noting that under current law, black employers are prohibited from discriminating in favor of black workers. We have not, unfortunately, even approached the time when blacks could rise in the economy through being hired en masse by black-owned businesses. Until we have a proliferation of black capitalists, politically unachievable proposals like the repeal of the Civil Rights Act only detract from core debates over race-consciousness and the black social condition.