teaching can introduce references to parallel or analogousnideas and institutions in cultures other than our own whennthe material requires them. This can be done without thenpretense that the course in Western culture can be transformedninto a course of world culture.nThe debate in the Stanford Faculty Senate over thenfuture of the course in Western culture is not yet over.nHappily it has been free of the false and degradingnaccusations that marked so much of the discussion in thenprevious years. A disturbing aspect of the discussion so far isnthat all parties to the debate, whatever their views on thenwisdom of retaining a core list, are agreed that works “bynwomen and persons of color” should be added to the list.nSOUTH AFRICA—YESTERDAYnAND TODAY by Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihnn”The trouble with people is not their ignorance.nIt is the number of things they know thatnain’t so.”n— Mark TwainnDuring 1986, the fury of the left’s outrage with humannrights in Chile abated globally and was redirectednagainst South Africa. The reasons given were the vestiges ofnthe apartheid system and an alleged absence of democracy.nIn this confrontation the United States, for reasons of itsninternal politics, played a major role: the improbablenWashington-Moscow axis went into full gear. Thanks tonAmerican idealism, a most altruistic subservience to Sovietnstrategic global aims was effected.nYet to understand the South African problem it isnnecessary to realize through what channels information isnfed to Americans and West Europeans and what subtle butnnot always conscious motives are coloring the “facts.”nThere is not only the ever-present leftist pseudo-religion,nbut also a linguistic and, -at the same time, historic componentnin the anti-South African witch-hunt. The misinformation,nif not disinformation, is spread in English, and it isnmainly manufactured by the South African “Anglos” whonrepresent one third of the White population. This is mostnevident if we read their papers, which (with the exception ofnone daily) are fanatically and viciously anti-South African,neven more so than the American and British press. Thenexception is the rarely quoted The Citizen. What foreignncorrespondent or self-appointed specialist on South Africanknows Afrikaans? To think and write seriously about SouthnAfrica without a knowledge of Afrikaans is as impossible asncovering Belgium without knowing Flemish, the languagenof the majority.nErik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn is the Europeanncorrespondent for National Review. This essay is anchapter of his forthcoming book, Leftism, to be publishednin Sept. 1988 by Devin-Adair (Greenwich, CT).nOne would have thought that the criteria of selection shouldnbe intellectual distinction and cultural significance. Thatnthere are no women authors on the current list no morensignifies that the core list is sexist than the absence ofnAmerican authors indicates that it is anti-American. Wenshould add works by Americans, women, and persons ofncolor only on the basis of their educational significance.nThis gratuitous agreement — gratuitous from the standpointnof educational quality — is the clue to the basicnpolitical motivation among some of the student groups thatnoriginally organized the opposition to the course in Westernnculture.nThis opposition of the Anglos is not accidental. After thenannexation of the Cape Province and, especially, after thenconquest of Natal, Transvaal, and the Orange Free State,nthe British in South Africa were happy to see the variousncolonies melting, in 1910, into the Union of South Africa, anDominion of the British Empire. The British, then asnperhaps now, felt vastiy superior to the Boers (“Boors”),nwhom they saw as simpleminded country yokels. That thenAfrikaner would willingly follow the British lead was not forna moment open to doubt. A number of Afrikaner leadersndid completely accept the leadership of the British—thenUnion of South Africa followed the call of Westminster innWorid War I as in Worid War II. Afrikaners died for GeorgenV and George VI.nIt was the British-led trade unionists who laid thenfoundation of apartheid-legislation and apartheidism camento be accepted by the majority of Afrikaners. But in 1948, anbolt out of the blue struck the British of South Africa: thenNationalist Afrikaner Party gained a clear majority. Suddenly,nthe British discovered that segregationism is a majornproblem now seemingly entrenched forever, and theirnCommonwealth-orchestrated protests against it led to thendeclaration of an independent republic in 1960. ThennnMAY 19881 19n