EDITORrnThomas FlemingrnMANAGING EDITORrnTheodore PappasrnSENIOR EDITOR, BOOKSrnChilton Williamson, jr.rnASSISTANT EDITORrnChristine HaynesrnART DIRECTORrnAnna Mycek-WodeckirnCONTRIBUTING EDITORSrn]ohn W. Aldridge, Harold O.].rnBrown, Katherine Dalton, SamuelrnFrancis, George Garrett,rnE. Christian Kopff, Clyde WilsonrnCORRESPONDING EDITORSrn]anet Scott Barlow, Bill Kauffman, JohnrnShelton Reed, Momcilo SelicrnEDITORIAL SECRETARYrnLeann DobbsrnPUBLISHERrnAllan C. CarlsonrnPUBLICATION DIRECTORrnGuyC.KeffettrnCOMPOSITION MANAGERrnAnita FedorarnCIRCULATION MANAGERrnRochelle FrankrnA publication of The Rockford Instifiite,rnEditorial and Advertising Offices:rn934 North Main Street, Rockford, IL 61103.rnEditorial Phone: (815)964-5054.rnAdvertising Phone: (815)964-5811.rnSubscription Department: P.O. Box 800,rnMount Morris, IL 61054. Call 1-800-877-5459.rnFor information on advertising in Chronicles,rnplease call Rochelle Frank at (815) 964-5811.rnU.S.A. Newsstand Distribution by Eastern NewsrnDistributors, Inc.. 1130 Cleveland Road,rnSandusky, OH 44870.rnCopyright © 1994 by The Rockford Institute.rnAll rights reserved.rnChronicles (ISSN 0887-5731) is publishedrnmonthly for $28 per year by The RockfordrnInstitute, 934 North Main Street, Rockford,rnIL 61103-7061. Second-class postage paidrnat Rockford, IL and addihonal mailing offices.rnPOSTMASTER: Send address changes tornChronicles, P.O. Box 800, Mount Morris,rnIL 61054.rnThe views expressed in Chronicles are thernauthors’ alone and do not necessarily reflectrnthe views of The Rockford Institute or of itsrndirectors. Unsolicited manuscripts cannot bernretumed unless accompanied by a self-addressedrnstamped envelope.rnChroniclesrnVol.18, No. 7 July 1994rnPrinted in the United States of AmericarnPOLEMICS & EXCHANGESrnOn Chronicles andrnImmigrationrnI’m a liberal, environmentalist, feministrndove, a businessman, a Democrat. I readrnyour magazine because some of it isrnthoughtful, educated, and intelligent.rnBy comparison. National Review isrnfull of sophomoric Hillary/Bill/TeddyrnKennedy/Democrat-bashing—funrnpartisan stuff if one thinks that winkwinkrnallusions to Gennifer Flowers arernhigh humor or enjoys pep-rally editorialsrnthat say “any Democrat who says herncares about the Constitution will liernabout anything.”rnFrom time to time Chronicles slipsrninto sneering and partisanship—butrnmostly you have been a notch or twornmore intellectual. Your thoughts onrnimmigration are more thoughtful thanrndemagogic, and so I’ll pass along my ownrnperspective.rnMy background is what most of myrnfellow Rotarians here in Medford, Oregon,rnthink of as “normal” American:rnmixed European and Protestant. Myrnwife, Debra Fee Jing Lee, was born inrnChina and immigrated here. Somernwould call her Chinese, though I thinkrnof her as American. I’m not altogetherrnsure what the census people make ofrnour son Dillon, but I do know that herncauses some people to be concernedrnabout the watering down of the “normal”rnAmerican race. I don’t see it thatrnway. Dillon is my son, my blood. He isrnnot a diminution of me or America. Dillonrnis an expansion, a reaching out to myrnimmortality and America’s. Americanrnculture will flourish now and into thernfuture not by how well it is defended,rnbut by how well it is grown and shared.rn—Peter SagernMedford, ORrnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSrnI N S O U T H AFRICA the negotiationsrnbetween F.W. de Klerk and NelsonrnMandela and the subsequent electionrnof the latter as president had an unexpectedrnand wholly unknown prelude. Inrn1969, I was teaching at South Africa’srnUniversity of Potchefstroom, the veryrncenter of Afrikaner conservative forces. Irnwas the only non-Boer professor in arnBoer environment, the only Catholicrnamong Calvinists, in the heart of thernTransvaal. One morning a call camernfrom a colleague whom I had not met:rnthe Reverend Willem de Klerk, just backrnfrom a study tour of England and thernNetherlands, the two countries that havernshaped the Afrikaners’ intellectual horizon.rnThis de Klerk was the elder brotherrnof that de Klerk who became presidentrnof his country (or of what remains of it).rnThe reverend, in his 40’s at the time,rnwished to meet me. We met in his officernat 2 p M and ended our conversationrnabout five hours later—or rather werncontinued the following day via intrafacuityrnmemos.rnWe disagreed from beginning to end.rnWillem de Klerk knew I was familiarrnwith the local situation and perhapsrnwished to try out his theory on me. Hernfavored a policy of racial integration andrnlisted more or less the same reasons thatrnHelen Sussman had given me some sixrnyears before: the racial tension was intolerable;rnfacing a black majority, whitesrncould not expect to hold on indefinitelyrnto power; it was better to negotiate whilernpower was in the white man’s hands sornhe did not slip into war like the French inrnAlgeria, an event still recent at the time.rnTo these arguments, Willem added thernreligious one: we are all God’s children.rnIt was not difficult to diagnose anrnacute case of puritanical bad conscience.rnI replied that a bad conscience may be arnbad advisor in determining a nation’srnpolicy and pointed at my interlocutor’srnnaivete in expecting a peaceful solutionrninstead of a multiple race war: first betweenrnblack and black (Zulu and Xhosa,rnpolitically Inkatha and ANC), then betweenrnother races, finally with whitesrncaught in the vortex of destruction.rnWhat should we do, then?—^he asked. Arnmixture of firmness and reforms, butrnkeep at all times the initiative and thernpolitical power, I answered. This wasrnthe only “solution,” not only in view ofrnthe ethnic proportion of the total populationrnbut also in view of the penetrationrn4/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn