The young are often convinced that many of their elders are idiots (I have teenage kids, so I know this first hand). Sometimes they're right.

Strikes me as being a bit too harsh on Derbyshire, who btw is a lot more intelligent and readable, esp on his field of expertise, which is math (IIUC he used to work for a Wall Street house devising algorithms for their traders) and science.

Re. the first remark, Derb's from the north of England. "Attitude" to non-Americans doesn't convey the specific American racial cast that we've come to associate with the term here. Sharpton's attitude-- traditional sense of the word-- toward a variety of matters, esp race, is indeed repugnant.

Second, Derb's children are mixed-race, he lives in a mixed-race suburb of NYC, his wife is non-white and from another culture (and btw supports Obama), so he deserves to be cut a little slack for expressing not racist sentiments but a weariness with the righteousness, the blather, and frankly, the bullsh*t that we have come to expect from so many of Obama's young supporters.  

TNR's blogs of late are becoming increasingly tribal, snippish, trigger-happy in their authors' wish to ferret out and shoot down any perceived challenge to their hero. Do you guys really want to make TNR into the pro-Obama version of Kos or Powerline or Firedoglake? Could you lay off the kool-aid, please?

whenever I see Derbyshire I just see another Brit with bad teeth who had to go to China to find a woman in the countryside desperate enough to marry him. And who then masquerades his bi-racial family as evidence of his superior social understanding, when in fact he agrees with the Chinese traditional custom that his wife and children is his property.

I dunno, I like to keep him around as a kind of museum piece.

I have some experience with old folks like this.

My grandparents worked in the civil rights movement. They worked on new deal programs in the 60s, etc. They helped desegretate a school system. They technically shouldn't have a racist bone in their body.

But after years and years of stuff they just don't relate to or understand (the crack cocaine culture of the 80s followed by the rap/gansta culture of the 90s), they're turned off on "black" culture (or popular "black" culture as it's displayed on BET). They also see the local news, which focuses relentlessly on black on black violence.

It's a bit silly - but I can at least UNDERSTAND (though not condone) how older folks, who may be isolated from multi-culturism (retirement communities tend to be fairly segregated) only have a superficial view of black culture that the media feeds them.

Erm, there's something a little squirm-inducing about the first comment, tep.  I'm not so concerned about his use of the word "attitude" as his equating Sharpton with Obama in the first place.  What the hell do Sharpton and Obama have in common, other than race and gender?  Why would Derb need help distinguishing between the two, what with the vast gulf separating them in terms of qualification?  Sharpton is an ugly race baiter whose previous activities have included inciting race riots and supporting false claims against police officers.  Obama is a black man, who is also a Harvard grad, sitting US Senator, and former professor of constitutional law.  

Fails the sniff test, if you ask me.

I don't know if Derbyshire's a bigot and I suspect he isn't.  But I do know is that his word-weary-British-stiff-upper-lip-above-it-all-looking-down-on-the-fools-curmudgeon-probably-smokes-a-damn-pipe-as-an-affectation schtick is annoying as hell.  He doesn't dislike Obama for racist reasons, he dislikes him because he's a smug, superior asshole who dislikes people like Obama on principle.

I see your point, Danny, and the man obviously doesn't care as much for racial sensitivities as he should. Knowing his writings, though, and his fierce and consistent hostility to expansive state programs, I saw this comment as saying mainly that Obama is an old-fashioned leftist. Given that it's still not clear where we should peg Obama on economic matters, this strikes me as a valid, if clumsily and insensitively made, point.  

teplukhin2you writes: "Second, Derb's children are mixed-race, he lives in a mixed-race suburb of NYC, his wife is non-white and from another culture (and btw supports Obama) ..."

At risk of stating the blatantly obvious, let me point out that the fact you're married to an Asian woman and live in an ethnically diverse town doesn't mean you aren't a bigot.

some of the most virulent anti-semites I have met were British subjects living in China. And yes, many, many Chinese are racist against blacks but love whites (they have a toothpaste called heirenyagao, black peoples toothpaste that used to be called Darkie in English until changed to Darly, with a picture of a black minstrel faced man with shiny teeth on it) so don't tell me it is not possible to have an interracial couple that is still bigoted. Derby's wife is also from Changsha, the heartland of chinese backwardness.

It is a bullshit myth that being multicultural or multiracial means you are progressive. It all depends on what is mixed.

Hell, even in Mexico there are still 3 classes, white, mixed, and native. And, sadly enough, chinese-new zealander came to teach english here but when they saw he was Chinese didn't give him a contract because all of the students assumed he couldn't speak good english. Beyond that, in China I had a chinese American friend who couldn't get a job teaching there because the Chinese wanted a white face in the class room.

It is a bizarre f-ed up world. His multiracial family doesn't give him a pass to be an asshole

Derb is wrong about Obama, and a lot of other things.  But we all need a Derb around to keep us honest.  He may offend, but he does cut out the BS on most things (perhaps except the illegal immigration issue, on which he tends toward the knee-jerk).  I recall a story about the sinking of a ferry in the Mediterranean carrying a large number of Egyptians.  Derb's response was, look, if it were a boatload of, say, Germans, I'll pay attention, but as it's Egyptians, none of whom I know or for whom I care, it's a nonstory.  (I am paraphrasing.) K-Lo went apopleptic on him, but guess what, how many people really remembered the incident a week later?  Derb also points to a couple of examples correllating median home price and demographics on Long Island, but I think he goes a bit far on the race thing and I would say that home-buyers with kids are really concerned about how graduating kids fare.  The (presumptive) fact that that correllates with race is another issue, all too well known to us commenters.

Wait, it's a *good thing* that Derbyshire doesn't care that Egyptians drown?  Just because other people also don't care?

I'm not saying Tep is wrong, but the double standards regarding acceptable racial discourse bothers me. Joe Biden calls Obama "clean," and it's a national scandal. Bill Clinton compares Obama's win in SC to Jesse Jackson's win and he's a race baiter. Derbyshire issues a fusillade of loaded rhetoric (AGAIN), and we're all supposed to consider the context and give him a pass. Something is wrong about this. If a liberal makes a racially problematic comment, that person is a hypocrite and must be crucified. If a conservative does it, well...let us all sit back and consider contextual information.

The logic of this construction suggests that conservatives are racists, doesn't it? If that is not true, and I thing it's not, then they have to get the big club too. Therefore, Derbyshire must issue a public apology and/or fall on his sword. Wouldn't that be the fairest option?

isn't his thesis the exact equivalent of the article tnr put up last night about sexism and college students applied to racism and youth voters?  I don't get how you can criticize national review when TNR is publishing the same filth.

With all due respect, ratnerstar, where did I say that was a *good thing*?  All I meant to say was that Derb says what many people end up thinking or doing silently.  That in itself if a service and a reason to keep him around.  On the contrary, this is not a *good thing*.  But, as the cliche goes, it is what it is.  

I'm also not sure why he should be canned.  His opinion is, well, his opinion, as long as he backs it up with facts, which he frequently does.  If I recall, this magazine gave good press to "The Bell Curve", which offended many readers' sensibilities.

And, before I am miscast as a blind Derb-o-phile,  I will be, and have been, pouring my lot in with Obama.

I guess I don't quite get your point, rlgor.  I'm sure there are many ways in which Derbyshire is valuable, but I don't think that particular incident illustrates them.  Lots of people don't care when foreigners die.  This is a fact that I don't think we need John Derbyshire to remind us of, nor encourage.

But, yeah, why fire him?  Besides, anyone who annoys K-Lo has some redeeming value.

Isaac Chotiner, I think you have missed the point.  It's also chilling that you skipped over Derb's arguments entirely and went straight for the calls for him to be silenced.

Derbyshire is and has been skeptical that Obama is bringing anything to the table other than typical liberal ideas.  The argument has been made that Obama is bringing post-racial politics to the table.  Derbyshire responded with more skepticism and addressed the claim directly.  He asked whether or not there was anything post-racial about Obama and his campaign, and came to the conclusion that neither Obama nor his campaign are post-racial at all.  Derb didn't say whether that was a good or bad thing - in fact, Derb's post implies that he considers a post-racial world to be a very good thing, and merely expresses cynicism that such a world can be accomplished, or that those who argue for it would actually match their actions with their words.  

The goal was to express skepticism about the claims of Obama's post-racialism, and he uses Sharpton as an example to make that point.  If Sharpton wasn't a crooked race-baiter, and instead gave really good, feel-good speeches, his politics (foreign policy, economic policy, welfare policy, etc) would not be different from Obama's.  And, if that's the case, what does Obama bring to the table that Sharpton doesn't other than ethics and manners?  It's the old "you can put lipstick on a pig" argument, and it's not racist at all.

That you rush to the charge of racism and fall flat, even against an acknowledged minor racist like Derbyshire, demonstrates why we need to break the taboo - and the instinct to toss about the racism slur - in order to become post-racial ourselves.  You can start by reading Derbyshire more carefully.  Good luck.  

I concede your point, ratnerstar.  But yes, one reason why reading Derb is fun is because he drives K-Lo up a wall.

BTW I don't see a heck of a lot of folks clamoring for K-Lo to get fired over the fabulist W. Thomas Smith incident (did I get the name right?).  Was there no point anymore to following up with that?

pharmge:

I dunno - I think any black person who makes it this far in a primary and is poised to win is by definition "post-racial"

"Do you guys really want to make TNR into the pro-Obama version of Kos or Powerline or Firedoglake?"

Too late. It's been that for months.

phargle, if Sharpton wasn't a crooked race-baiter, he wouldn't be Sharpton.  You seek to exclude the very characteristics that define him as a public figure.  Absent those characteristics, which are utterly different from the academic and political credentials that Obama has brought to the race, there is nothing to Sharpton.  There is no basis for comparison between the two, aside from their race.

re: virginiacentrist

I know I'm not the only person who gets excited reading exit polls. . . and the exit polls show a remarkable racial tone to the election.  I don't think that is Obama's fault - I voted for Obama myself in the New Mexico Democratic caucus a few days back, in part because I hope his program matches his rhetoric - but . . .

Well, it's in the Democratic primaries, and most of the white people are voting for the white candidate and most of the black people are voting for the black candidate.  This does not seem like a post-racial situation to me.  And, if Obama is still in favor of government-sponsored race-based discrimination, I am not sure he's post-racial either <i>except in tone</i>, which was what Derbyshire was saying in the first place.  Am I making sense?

kerr, what the hell has this to do with Derbyshire, yeesh, at least comment about the issue first to show you have something to say.

Phargle - "If Sharpton wasn't a crooked race-baiter, and instead gave really good, feel-good speeches, his politics (foreign policy, economic policy, welfare policy, etc) would not be different from Obama's.  And, if that's the case, what does Obama bring to the table that Sharpton doesn't other than ethics and manners?  It's the old "you can put lipstick on a pig" argument, and it's not racist at all."

As stated before by others in this thread, how about an educational pedigree that dwarfs Sharpton's and that of 99.9% of the population, years of legislative experience, and time spent as a community organizer in which his chief concern was not grabbing the most face time on national television? I think that's quite a lot that Obama brings to the table and Sharpton does not.

ratnerstar - I agree with rlgordonma.  As you said, it is true that lots of people do not care if foreigners die.  But many assume that this kind of person is simply uneducated or disengaged from the larger world.  Derb demonstrates that both of these assumptions are false. And although I do not subscribe to the opinion that conservatives are bigots, or that conservatism is somehow inherently racist, I think there are enough conservatives that agree with Derb's statements but who would never dare air them in polite company. I admit that this assessment is one that is based only on personal observation. I will say that Derb is right about young people - reading the conservative publication on my campus, there are those who are waiting to follow in his footsteps.

I think  this is pretty consistent with most British views regarding race that I have come across.  His comments are offensive, but focusing on his broader points I see a pretty common tone. The British believe that we Blacks are preoccupied with race, and that we should giet over it.  While I don't  believe that this viewpoint is particular to British whites, it is quite consistent with them. Sullivan, and Hitchens, and the Economist editorial board also think that America is too preoccupied with race, and Black Americans especially.  Brits seem to have a fundamentally different view of race then Blacks. I think it is because they lack some context of what it means to be second class citizen in an American sense. My father had to use segregated bathrooms, and my grandfather was not aloud to vote. How is that not going to affect me?  I myself have been subjected to other overt and not so overt signs of racism. Why would people believe that is such a simple thing to merely brush these experiences off.  What they call oversensitivity, many blacks would merely call a realistic presdisposition based on past experiences.

Like I said other whites (and blacks) also echo this viewpoint of black "victimhood" but not nerely as uniformly as the Brits. Am I the only one who has noticed this?

Laslty, him having an Asian wife gives him absolutely NO credibility as to whether or not he is racist against blacks. I always cringe when some affiliation with one particular minority is used an argument for credibility with another minority. Asian Black relations, and Hispanic Black relations are worse off then White Black relations.

Additionally, my being Black gives me no insight in to what it is like to be Asian, or Hispanic, and vice versa.

re:  clumsymohel

Certainly, Obama brings greater credibility regarding his ability to the table.  I agree that his experience, rhetoric and ethics are on a completely different plane than Sharpton's.  I personally believe that tone and ethics are important, and would accept an ethical leader with a positive tone over an unethical one with a negative tone, even if I prefered the unethical person when it came to policies.  That's why I voted for Obama.  I believe he is a terrific candidate for president, and I believe Sharpton is vile.  

(Does my objection to Sharpton's attitude make me racist, Isaac Chotiner?  Thanks.)

Anyway, Derbyshire does not agree.  He is examining Obama's policies.  He is saying that, whether you have rude, criminal, worthless Sharpton pushing a specific set of liberal policies, or you have polite, ethical, capable Obama pushing those policies, at the end of the day you still end up with the same set of policies.  And racial policies are included in that subset because of affirmative action.  Derbyshire is saying that Obama is not presenting anything new.  He is saying that Obama is just taking Sharpton's message and saying it with a smile.  You'll notice that a lot of Derb's posts in the Corner express confusion at the perception that Obama is somehow different when his policies are all the same as what has come before.  Am I making sense now?

Oh, and irony:  Derb's perceived failings on race are being explained by his Britishness.   I hope, for consistency's sake, that Isaac Chotiner demands that TNR ban all users who have expressed the view that Derb is a bit racist because he is British.  Because that would be, you know, like saying that someone is a certain way because they are black.  

I think it goes without saying that I am not saying that the man is racist because he is British, although that was a lovely little grade school oversimplification. I am trying to get at whether or not there is a systemic difference in viewpoints on race somewhat based on where one comes from that is more complicated then just black or white. I have found that there is a consistent opinion regarding race from British pundits liberal and conservative that is at odds with the viewpoint of black Americans. That is not to call them racist, although there seems to me to be a consistent insensitivity that often borders on being offensive.  Derbyshire doesn't seem to particularly care about this. I am also trying to see if there are any opinions that contradict my own.

I don't know truly know whether there was a similar civil rights era movement in Britain, or the general nature of minority relations there.

Phargle's line of thinking seems to remind me of another slightly related issue of people oversimplifying issues of race into a game of who is or is not a racist. Reagan is a great example. If I say that Reagan's policies adversely affected Black people or that the interests of blacks were a very low priority for him, I am some how calling hime a racist. That is not the point. I don't care whether or not Reagan was racist; I care about how his polcies affected people. Taking the focus away from the pragmatic value of an action and placing that focus on a character judgement of an individual changes the subject. It seems to be a pretty popular rhetorical tool nowadays.

I agree that Derb is very close to crossing a line here, and others who know him better, or know their racists better, might well argue that he did cross a line here. National Review has a long and uncomfortable history with this kind of baiting behavior from certain transplanted European journalists. Joe Sobran was a good example; Buckley finally fired him in response to accusations of anti-semitism.

I'd be curious to see what Buckley thinks of Derb's writings on race. Or better, Tom Sowell's views on Derb.

phargle:

Actually - I think Obama made some motions towards class based Affirmative Action:

corner.nationalreview.com/post

re:  jdpourciau

You get it!  You get it perfectly.  You can make a comment on how race impacts something, or how something is informed by race, without making racist comments.  That is exactly the defense of Derb I am trying to make.  I'm sorry some of it came across as grade-school:  I don't think you are a racist for saying that Derb is British, therefore he is racist.  Instead, you said that Derb is British, and British people tend to talk about race in a certain way.  (I'm a British citizen, by the way.)  I do wonder, however, if we'd think Derb was racist if he said that so-and-so is black, and black people tend to act in a certain way, so that explains . . . well, you see where I am going with this?

re:  virginiacentrist:

*cheer*

As best I can tell, we all have tribal tendencies, which means we all have racial hang-ups. Derbyshire's are in many ways worse than most, and his antipathy towards blacks is disgraceful, weird, and all together not to be excused. Yet, he's one of the few writers for National Review who isn't a complete hack, getting paid to rehash right wing talking points and swoon to Bush's words with the ecstasy of St Theresa (that means you, K-Lo). He is a basically honest writer, yet one with shitty morals. And I think honesty counts more than moral correctness. I'd much rather K-lo, Kudlow, Michael Graham, etc be fired than the honestly disgusting Derbyshire.