American Renaissance - 2 - January 2008
Letters from Readers
Sir—In the “O Tempora” section of the October issue you ran an item—“Taylor in Lansing”—that referred to themurder of white college student LauraDickinson by a black student. The cover-up of this murder by the officials at East-ern Michigan University, probably allwhite, shows how far the “diversitygang” will go to ignore and/or concealcrimes committed against whites. TheAR story failed to mention if universityofficials were arrested for the cover-up.And if not, why not?Kenneth Reynolds, Bronx, N.Y.
The president of EMU, John Fallon,was fired when the extent of the cover up came to light, but he was not charged with any crime. —Ed.
Sir — In your review of MichaelHart’s
Understanding Human History
(Dec. issue) you cite Prof. Hart as as-serting that Northeast Asians are moreclosely related to Caucasians than toSoutheast Asians. This is almost cer-tainly not true. In fact, the genetic chartin your March 1997 issue (“Diversity inthe Human Genome”) shows the oppo-site, as do most recent studies of geneticclustering. I understand that accordingto Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza’s 1994analysis, some Northeast Asian groupswere found to be closer to Caucasiansthan to Southeast Asians, but that’s prob-ably the result of methodological error.Surprising assertions require convinc-ing evidence, and since 1994 there hasnot been, in my opinion, evidence tosupport the view that Koreans are moresimilar to Englishmen than they are toVietnamese. At the very least, can we notbe agnostic on the issue, instead of sup-porting an uncertain interpretation thatmay be incorrect?Ted Sallis, Tampa, FloridaSir — I expect that everyone who hasread Prof. Michael Hart’s magnificentbook,
Understanding Human History
,will have been as impressed as I was byits powerful combination of facts, argu-ments, and overall vision.However, there is one assertion I findunbelievable. On page 101 Prof Hartquotes, and seemingly accepts, a 1973study of Australian aborigines that putstheir mean IQ at 85. I believe the usualfigure quoted for that group is around62, which is far closer to what one wouldsuspect on the basis of intellectual andtechnological achievements.Anthony Young, London, EnglandSir — I read with interest JaredTaylor’s two-part series, “What ScienceSays About Diversity” (November andDecember issues). However, he seemsfar more optimistic than I that the eliteswill admit the reality of racial differ-ences. I’m still waiting for them to ad-mit that the uplift programs of the Six-ties were failures. Or even that the NewDeal was a failure. There is no doubtthese policies failed, but good luck try-ing to find a liberal—and our elites areall liberal—who will admit it.Rather than concede that they arewrong about race and diversity, our elitesare far more likely to follow the Euro-pean path and criminalize dissent. Afterall, “hate” speech is not free speech, andto our rulers, any discussion of the sci-ence of racial differences is hate speech.James Collier, Boston, Mass.Sir — I applaud those Swiss who hadthe courage to vote for the SwissPeople’s Party (SVP) despite the inter-national media’s underhanded attempt todismiss the party and its supporters asracists (see “Switzerland for the Swiss,”Dec. issue). Other European nationalistparties—especially the French NationalFront—should study the SVP’s cam-paigns over the past several years. Theyhave become the largest Swiss party be-cause they do not back down or giveground in the face of leftist criticism. Idoubt very much that in a future cam-paign Christoph Blocher will be replac-ing his white sheep with North Africanimmigrants in pink underwear in orderto “soften” the party’s image.Kent Lodge, Laramie, Wyo.Sir — I liked Mr. Taylor’s survey of the research on “diversity” in the twoprevious issues. Of course, like mostsocial science, the findings are obvious.It is interesting to know that the amyg-dala lights up when blacks appear, butanyone who has wandered into thewrong part of town knows
ishappening in the brain. If scientists aresurprised by their findings, it is onlybecause they have been bamboozled bytrendy myths.Whites seem to have an insatiablecraving to believe things that are obvi-ously untrue, and the diversity-is-a-strength story is perhaps the most obvi-ously untrue. That men and women havethe same inclinations and abilities comesa close second, and that people of allraces are interchangeable, would be anonly slightly more distant third. The listgoes on: There is nothing wrong withhomosexuals, people are poor becausesociety failed them, every child can bean A student, etc.All these obviously nutty ideas havetwo things in common: Only whitepeople fall for them, and they are partof what we call liberalism. Robert Frostonce defined a liberal as someone whocan’t take his own side in an argument. Iwould add—not as cleverly, I’m afraid—that a liberal must be capable of believ-ing things that are patently false.Tom Takahara, San Diego, Calif.