Internet Responds To Racist Article, Gets Author Fired

In the wake of the Trayvon Martin tragedy in February, many publications posted articles about "the talk" — a phrase denoting the conversation many black parents have at some point with their children to explain the realities of racism. Last Thursday, writer John Derbyshire penned an article titled "The Talk: Nonblack Version," which codified a similar set of lessons he had given to his children over the years. Unfortunately, those lessons turned out to be horribly racist themselves. "The remarkably long list of how to teach children to stay safe by avoiding black people goes on for two pages and Derbyshire contends is a true lifesaver. There is no irony or clarification that, perhaps, this is a joke, no matter how much you may want to find a disclaimer after you’re done reading." Reader concealment writes to point out that the internet and the media vocalized their disgust quickly and at length, and now Derbyshire has been fired from his position at the conservative National Review magazine (the offending article appeared in a different publication called Taki's Magazine).

Comments

Re:Few to admit it, but a lot of parents teach thi

[cpu6502]

>>>got a harsh lesson in anti-white racism by getting my ass kicked for about the 10th time at said school

More recent example:

A white guy was beat-up by some blacks who said, "This is for Trayvon." In other words it was a revenge attack against white people. (Never mind that the killer was actually hispanic; not part of the white majority. News orgs like NBC have twisted the story.) Of course the blacks were not charged for a hate crime. Or assault. Just disorderly behavior.

Re:Few to admit it, but a lot of parents teach thi

[Hatta]

After I got a harsh lesson in anti-white racism by getting my ass kicked for about the 10th time at said school, I realized that dad may not be so stupid after all and moved back with in him.

Whether he's stupid depends on how he interprets the situation. Are young black men more violent towards young white men because they're inherently violent because of genetics? Or do they simply learn that their roles aren't valued by society and take any chance they can to assert dominance, just like anyone of any race would do in their position?

The former is stupid and racist. The latter is smart and correct. Your experience, while possibly consistent with a racist interpretation can also be completely explained without racism. It's still stupid to be racist.