REVIEWSrnParadise Recoveredrnby Paul GottfriedrnThe End of Racism: Principlesrnfor a Multiracial Societyrnby Dinesh D’SouzarnNew York: The Free Press;rn•724 pp., $30.00rnMr. D’Souza might have reconsideredrnthe title of his book, for he isrnnot describing the end of racism. GlennrnLoury recently observed a predilectionrnfor “end” themes in recent neoconservativerntracts: Fukuyama with the endrnof history and D’Souza with the endrnof racism, Loury explains, have takenrnHegelian (or pseudo-Hegelian) phrasesrnto express their private visions. Theyrnconfer historical inevitability on whatrnthey or their patrons would like to seernhappen. In D’Souza’s case, the talkrnabout the end of racism betokens confusionrnmore than wishful thinking.rnIn both The End of Racism and in arnWashington Post article published onrnSeptember 24, he depicts a reality atrnodds with his own happy talk. D’Souzarncomplains about media and academicrnsupport of black nationalism and aboutrnresurgent scientific racialism on thernright. Allowing here for the usual ncoconscrrnative hyperbole—namelv, thatrn”moderate conservatives” are beingrnthreatened b’ equallv sinister forces onrnthe right and the left—it seems thatrnracial relations in the United States mavrnbe closer to Jared Tavlor’s portrayal ofrnthem in Paved with Good Intentions thanrnto D’Souza’s vision of racial harmony.rnBlack hostility toward whites has demonstrablyrnincreased over the last 20 years,rnas eidenccd h black reactions to thernSimpson trial and racially motivatedrncrimes by blacks against whites. On a recentrnCrossfire show, D’Souza stressedrnthe need for interracial marriage as thernultimate solution to America’s race problems.rnBy contrast, his opposite number,rna black Howard University professor ofrnhistorv, emphasized the right of thernblack community to maintain its ownrn”group integrity and pride.”rnPartK, D’Souza means by the “end ofrnracism” that race explains less and lessrnabout black underclass failures. Culturalrnpathologies, according to D’Souza, are atrnthe root of these, and the governmentrnhas exacerbated them by funding antisocialrnbehavior. Meanwhile, the mediarnhave excused black male criminalitv inrnparticular, and underclass violence inrngeneral. Here D’Souza, writing incisiveh’rnand boldly, has angered his black colleaguesrnat the American Enterprise Institutern—including Loury—by speakingrnabout underclass barbarism. And he discussesrnin grim detail a world he accusesrnthe left of not condemning sufhcicntly.rnNoting that most nonintellectuals intuitivelyrnunderstand which people are mostrnlikely dangerous, he praises the cab driverrnwho will not pick up young blackrnmales after dark.rnThese observations—or rather clichesrn—are far from indicating the end ofrnracial hostility. Nor does the mountingrnevidence in regard to inherited group differencesrnbeing accumulated by geneticistsrnand statisticians; rather, it suggestsrnthe reverse. If social differences correspondrnto cognitive disparities, and ifrnAmerican blacks (as members of a distinctiverngene pool) have signifieandy lessrninherited aptitude for abstract thinkingrnthan other groups, these facts will haverncertain probable results. Blacks on averagernwill continue to fall below whites andrnAsians socioeeononiically, and, proportionately,rnmore blacks dian members ofrnother races will find thcmsehes at thernbottom of a colorblind societ}’—resentfulrnof their fate.rnD’Souza does not sufficiently considerrnthis possibility, wanting to have hisrncake and to eat it too. He cites the researchrnon cognitive disparities in ThernBell Curve without raising noteworthyrnmethodological objections, and hernquotes approvingly Linda Gottfredson’srnstud- of Labor Department statistics,rnwhich compares the expected level ofrnrepresentation of blacks and whites inrnvarious professions, given their cognitivernabilities, to their present level of representation.rnD’Souza seems to believernthat all that Gottfredson is demonstratingrnis that blacks, given their currentrnintellectual achievements, are overrepresentedrnin the professions. Gottfredsonrnbelieves that the cognitive gap betweenrnAmerican blacks and other groups willrnprobably persist. Thus, absent quotas,rnblacks would be only minimally representedrnin the most respected and lucrativernprofessions. D’Souza’s call for arnmiscegenated America may be an attemptedrnsolution to the tensions such arnrace-neutral society might release. Butrnit is hard to see how this prescriptionrncan be implemented on a massive scalernwithout totalitarian engineering—andrnwithout pulling down the cognitivernelite.rnIn regard to the historv of racial theory,rnD’Souza, quoting the great Scottishrnskeptic and agnostic David Hume whorninsisted from observations that Negroesrnare barely human, usefully explains thatrnit was not the Enlightenment but Christianityrnthat mounted the most passionaternand persistent crusade against slaveryrnand in favor of the humane treatment ofrnblacks. He might also have mentionedrnthat Hume debated this conclusion withrnthe founder of Methodism, John Wesley;rnand that Wesley maintained, against thern”atheist Enlightenment,” that Christiansrnmust stand united in their oppositionrnto the enslavement and degradationrnof Negroes. D’Souza has no trouble liningrnup representatives of the Age of Reasonrn—including Jefferson, Kant, Voltaire,rnand Franklin—among those who werernconvinced of the inherent primitivenessrnof the black race. He brings to light thernwell-hidden truth that the Enlightenmentrncreated, in addition to liberal politics,rnscientific racialism. And some ofrnthe most persuasi’e support for segregationrnin the South, D’Souza observes,rncame from the left: from social radicalsrnlike Tom Watson, and from politicalrnProgressives like Woodrow Wilson.rnD’Souza is methodical in digging uprnembarrassing facts for contemporary liberals,rnin particular, the doubtful scientificrnlineage of environmental social science.rnBut his presentation also lapses intornsloppy error and reckless generalization;rnthe book abounds in misquotations fromrnJared Taylor and Samuel Francis that arernparticulariy inexcusable given that bothrnauthors complained about distortions ofrntheir statements which they encounteredrnin the galleys. Most of the Enlightenmentrnfigures D’Souza mentions hadrnno social theories at all. Kant and Hegelrnwere merely registering observationsrnFEBRUARY 1996/33rnrnrn