Doug Wilson’s Race Problem

Abortion is at least as great an evil for black culture as slavery was.

And with that line, Doug Wilson strikes again.

There are all sorts of parallels drawn between slavery and abortion in the so-called pro-life movement, some implicit and some explicit. I’ve heard pro-life speakers call for a second civil war, in fact, in order to “rid the country of the evil of abortion.” The problem, though, is that Wilson isn’t just saying that abortion is at least a great an evil for black people as slavery (which if you accept the premise that abortion is murder on par with the murder of an infant, child, or adult, you can see why someone might make that argument) but rather that it’s at least as great an evil for black culture as slavery was. I’m sorry, what? The decisions some black women make to end their pregnancies is just as harmful to black culture as was chattel slavery? I would like to hope that even those who view abortion as murder would find this suggestion reprehensible.

The context of this statement, of course, is that Doug Wilson is still trying to dig himself out of the hole he created when he published Southern Slavery As It Was in 1996. In that volume (which can be read online here) Wilson argued that antebellum slavery was Biblical, that slave owners treated their slaves well and that slaves lived an easy life of plentiful food and clothing in exchange for very little labor—a good deal all around—and that the abolitionists were horrible people who spread propaganda and lies about slavery in an attempt to foment a pointless war. Here’s a quote: “Slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War [the Civil War] or since. … There has never been a multi-racial society that has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world” (p. 38, 24). Needless to say, Wilson’s arguments flew straight in the face of every piece of historical consensus about slavery, and made a lot of people pretty angry.

Ever since writing this piece of slavery apologia, Wilson, a self-described “paleo-confederate,” has been offering explanation after explanation in a vein attempt to prove that he really isn’t racist. He ceased publication of Southern Slavery As It Was and wrote a follow up book in 2005, Black and Tan. I haven’t read this second book, but based on a scathing review by conservative African American pastor Bryan Loritts (which is a good read, by the way), it sounds like Wilson didn’t do much to change his tune. According to Loritts’ review, Wilson still contents that abolitionists were wrong and that slavery was in practice not all that bad for black people. The difference, it appears, is that Wilson repeatedly insists that he doesn’t think that white people are superior to black people, and also that he does think that it was good and right for slavery to ultimately end, though he objects to the manner in which its end was brought about. On that front, here’s a quote from another of Wilson’s recent posts on the topic:

If anyone would like to read a glorious and detailed treatment of the Pauline strategy for dealing with slavery, I commend N.T. Wright’s commentary on the book of Philemon in the Tyndale series. Warning: Paul’s strategy played out in slow motion, and did not require slaughtering 600,000 people to do it. But that’s not a bug; it’s a feature.

Wilson responded directly to Loritt’s post, and his response speaks volumes about the way the blatant racism of the past has, for many, transformed into a more covert racism in the present:

I have said for some time that America is long overdue for an adult conversation about race. … The conversation should center on the blood of Christ.

The blood of Jesus makes it possible for the white bigot to repent of his idiotic sense of superiority. One of the things that the cross of Jesus crucifies is every form of preening racial conceit. It astounds me that there are people who think that I don’t believe that.

The blood of Jesus also makes it possible for the white liberal to repent of his exasperating and cloying insistence on a soft bigotry of low expectations, coupled with his destructive subsidies of all the wrong things in the black community. But the blood of Jesus makes it possible for the liberal to repent of Margaret Sanger’s war on black children in utero. In addition, it requires that he repent of celebrating, and giving awards to, those rap thugs who want to teach America’s next generation to think of black women as bitches and ho’s who are supposed to be beneath contempt. In the face of this demolition job being run on the black family by progressivism, with black children killed by the million, and black women publicly degraded by black men, and other black men standing by letting them, let’s get out there and rebuke the three remaining people who think that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. Way to keep the priorities straight.

The blood of Jesus makes it possible for those many blacks who have experienced genuine hostility, animosity, mistreatment, and injustice at the hands of whites to forgive their enemies as Jesus taught all Christians to do. There has been much to forgive, and may God richly bless every saint who has been enabled by the grace of God to do so.

The blood of Jesus enables certain other blacks to repent of their opportunism. I speak of those who play the perpetual victim even though they have never experienced anything worse than a two-day delay in their most recent affirmative action promotion. These are blacks who yell at those who judge them for the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, like somebody is supposed to have said once. I think it was supposed to have been important, but I am not sure anymore. Opportunism is a sin to repent of, and it is one of those things that makes an adult conversation about race so difficult. But the fact that many people can’t afford to say anything about it doesn’t mean they can’t see it.

According to Wilson, white bigots, white liberals, and black opportunists need to repent, and blacks who have actually legitimately suffered at the hands of whites need to forgive. Now I’m not black, and I’d be really interested in seeing an African American blogger’s take on this piece, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the more words Wilson spills trying to dig himself out of the hole he jumped so willingly in, the wider he’s making that hole.

Note that Wilson puts himself in a category here that needn’t do a thing, the category, presumably, that is righthe isn’t a white bigot and he isn’t an evil white liberal and he isn’t one of those money grubbing black welfare queens and he isn’t one of those blacks who has suffered real wrongs but harbors bitterness and needs to learn to forgive. Everyone is wrong but Wilson, you see. Which leaves Wilson wondering exactly why everyone always seems so angry at him when he opens his mouth on this issue. Can’t they see that he’s the one who’s right here, unlike all those others who are wrong? 

Wilson is still seeing racism as something that is primarily individual—a problem harbored by white bigots—and not something that is, most crucially, systemic—a world of privilege and unconscious racism. Further, when he does speak of racism in a systemic way, Wilson places the blame equally on white bigots and white liberals and black “opportunists.” Of course, Wilson’s inability to understand the systemic and ongoing nature of racism, and his need to place some of the blame for the situation on black people, take second place alongside his constant need to minimize the evil of slavery.

It seems that Wilson only stirred the flames with that post, because when he gave yet another response yesterday he started his post with this:

In the brief moment of calm that has descended upon our discussion about race and slavery, a calm that was provided to us by the weekend, I thought I should insert a quick comment here on what it was that made me think it was a good idea (back in the mid-nineties) to go into print on the topic of American slavery and our current culture wars. There are various theories out there on this subject, including the one that posits that I am an idiot, but this is a theory that I have not found compelling so far. Sure, the evidence is abundant enough, but it is too disorganized. Needs to be footnoted. Somebody needs to go into the archives.

Because Wilson rarely offers links, and because I don’t follow the Christian blogosphere outside of its most progressive wing, I’m unsure where Wilson’s recent pushback is coming from.

In this most recent post, Wilson explains that in the early 1990s there were a variety of people in Operation Rescue who literally talked of igniting a war to end slavery—a very, very literal flesh and blood war. In fact, Paul Hill, who murdered a doctor who performed abortions, saw himself as a modern day John Brown. Many of these individuals drew comparisons between slavery and abortion. Wilson says that he became convinced that this use of violence was wrong, and that the goal should be to bring about gradual change by means of the gospel. This, Wilson explains, is why he wrote a booklet arguing against the use of massive violence to end slavery.

And so this is the background to my standing question. If we could bring an end to abortion in the United States by precipitating a war (or by trying to), should we do that? Abortion is at least as great an evil as slavery was. Abortion is at least as great an evil for black culture as slavery was. If you allow for gospel gradualism now, then why is my urging a gospel gradualism in 1858 a thought crime? And if gospel gradualism was sinful then, why isn’t it sinful now? I ask these questions, not as a cute hypothetical, but to explain an important part of how I came to these convictions in real time, and why I went into print with them. And if I am successfully shouted down by some in the Internet brigade, the question still remains. If it was noble then, we should be doing it now. If we shouldn’t be doing it now, then we should allow reasonable questions about why we shouldn’t have been doing it then. But what we may not do, if we have any integrity at all, is allow our cowardice to become the exclamation mark next to the courage of our ancestors, which for some reason is the option that many modern Christians choose.

Once again, Wilson is arguing that he’s the good guy here. How can anyone not see that all he was doing when he wrote about how awesome slavery was was arguing that people shouldn’t go around shooting abortion doctors? He wasn’t defending slavery, he was just arguing that a massively bloody war was not the right way to end it! But as a commenter points out, this explanation actually makes no sense.

Pastor Wilson, on your first argument, how does showing that Southern slavery wasn’t as bad as people think help your case? If you’re trying to prove that going to violent war on the abortion issue was wrong because going to war on the slavery issue was wrong, doesn’t diminishing the evil of slavery HURT your own case?

As I can see, you’re not really explaining why you spent so much time defending slaveowners and emphasizing (exaggerating) what an amazing society Southern Slavery was. Someone could spend a ton of time showing how we shouldn’t go to war against abortion just like we shouldn’t have gone to war against slavery without EVER minimizing how bad slavery was, and their case would actually be stronger.

Exactly this. Wilson’s insistence that he wrote Southern Slavery As It Was simply to argue that antebellum Americans shouldn’t have let the issue of slavery push them into a deadly war, and that gradual emancipation would have been better, runs into a wall when you recall his glowing defense of southern slavery.

Another commenter made perhaps the best comment in the thread:

If I say something that gets exposed as error or foolish or immature—I then can either have the humility and grace to say, “That was wrong.” Or I can give explanation after explanation to justify my motivation and cast my backing off of those statements in a way that leaves me as highly esteemed as possible by those whose opinions I most care about.

Interestingly enough, the most recent article in the conservative Christian blogosphere to push back against Wilson, posted on The Gospel Coalition no less, makes this exact point:

It seems to me that Wilson’s firmer exegetical ground would be strengthened if it were unencumbered by statements that could reasonably be interpreted as defenses of American chattel slavery. … So much would be gained if Wilson dropped those points or restated them…

Wilson has promised to respond to this question posed on The Gospel Coalition sometime this morning. Reading Wilson’s response will be interesting, but there’s one thing I’m fairly certain of—Wilson’s continual attempts to dig himself out of the hole he created for himself aren’t going to do him much good. As long as he continues making statements like the one I started this post with—”abortion is at least as great an evil for black culture as slavery was”—Wilson is going to have a problem exorcising the demons he released with Southern Slavery As It Was.

Red Town, Blue Town
Biblical, It's Roman' title='Monogamy Isn't Biblical, It's Roman'>
Biblical, It's Roman' title='Monogamy Isn't Biblical, It's Roman'>Monogamy Isn't Biblical, It's Roman
The Cold, Unforgiving World of Geoffrey Botkin
Nine-Year-Old Sluts and Masturbating Dinner Guests
About Libby Anne

Libby Anne grew up in a large evangelical homeschool family highly involved in the Christian Right. College turned her world upside down, and she is today an atheist, a feminist, and a progressive. She blogs about leaving religion, her experience with the Christian Patriarchy and Quiverfull movements, the detrimental effects of the "purity culture," the contradictions of conservative politics, and the importance of feminism.

  • Rain

    I knew I didn’t like the guy, but I never knew how much. How the heck did he ever get to be a rock star. There must be a lot of gullible people out there. Hitchens was way too nice to him when he debated him.

  • Plunderb

    I have so many problems with the abortion/slavery analogy.

    First, it positions enslaved people as voiceless, arguing that they were as helpless as the unborn when, in fact, slaves and ex-slaves were active abolitionists who continually pushed a complacent nation toward emancipation through resistance and self-emancipation (i.e. running away).

    Second, it wholly ignores the evil of reproductive coercion within slavery. The non-consensual breeding, the endless rapes, the forceful separation of families – one of the great evils of slavery was the way in which it destroyed adults’ ability to protect and create their own families. Forced birth indeed.

    Third, the idea that slaves were not human under the law in antebellum America is utter rubbish. It was, in fact, illegal to murder a slave, though those laws generally got enforced when someone murdered someone else’s slave. For a good explanation of how slave owners manipulated the humanity of slaves for marketing purposes, see Walter Johnson’s Soul by Soul.

  • Little Magpie

    “I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the more words Wilson spills trying to dig himself out of the hole he jumped so willingly in, the wider he’s making that hole.”

    Actually Libby I think he’s making that hole *deeper*.

  • LeftSidePositive

    I should point out that in antebellum slavery, I’m pretty sure that slaves were not living off the organs of their masters, much less inside their masters. I’m pretty sure that masters were not compelled to endure extended periods of pain and medical risk in order to keep their slaves. I’m pretty sure that slaves didn’t just set up residence in their masters’ homes (much less bodies) against the wishes and plans of those masters while the masters searched desperately for help getting rid of those slaves who had intruded on their lives. I’m pretty sure the horrors of slavery consisted of a little more than a master saying “No, you can’t have that blood transfusion from my veins, and I’m not going to turn my life upside down so you can be here and leach off my body…” I’m pretty sure the human rights violations of slavery involved the slaves being denied the freedom of using their own bodies, not that they didn’t have free access to other people’s.

    Rather, in this abortion-slavery analogy, there is in fact a party in the abortion debate who has their liberty stripped away for the benefit of someone else’s benefit and development (disclaimer, of course, that analogizing does not mean one is making an argument for equivalence). There is a party whose pain is minimized and ignored and cast as their duty to civilization. There is a party whose suffering is rationalized as just due to past sins, laziness, and untrustworthiness. There is a party whose humanity and agency is simply ignored or talked around to or just plain erased and who are seen as a means to an end. There is a party in this analogy who are literally forced to labor against their will. The trouble for the pro-lifers is that this party is the pregnant women, not the fetuses.

    It’s also pretty damn insulting to compare the real pain and suffering of millions of people who were worked to death, deprived of liberty and basic human dignity, and tortured–all while feeling it keenly and trying to survive, rebel, or escape–to some beings that quite literally don’t have brains yet.

  • Malte

    Wilson’s point about a peaceful end to slavery is utterly disingenuous. Secession preceded war. Secession was a deliberate, conscious attempt by slaveowning Southern elites to pre-empt any future peaceful abolition of slavery, and that attempt to sever the union led to war. Abolitionists didn’t start the Civil War; indeed abolition wasn’t prominent in the Northern cause at first. Wilson is disagreeing with an entirely fictional scenario, and he’s doing it to justify his own lionisation of Southern slavery and demonisation of abolitionists.

  • shortcake

    I can’t really comment thoroughly on this until after class today, but right now, I’m just going to say that Doug Wilson needs to have a seat and stop taking about cultures about which he knows absolutely nothing.

    The whole “white savior” thing that happens surrounding people telling black women what to do with their bodies sickens me. Grinding poverty tends to make women hesitant to bear children, but nobody wants to talk about why black people are statistically in poverty at a much higher overall percentage than any other ethnicity in the country. Everyone just wants to trot out the “black people are just lazy” trope instead of dealing with deeply ingrained cultural problems we still struggle with in this country.

    Now THAT is an adult conversation about race.

    • Nicola

      ‘The whole “white savior” thing that happens surrounding people telling black women what to do with their bodies sickens me.’

      That’s what I was thinking, too. Does he not realise how racist – not to mention sexist – it is to say (or imply, anyway) that black women are incapable of making their own decisions about their bodies? Because that’s what he’s doing when he says allowing them to have abortions threatens their culture (what culture is that, anyway? Black people, even in a single country like the US, aren’t a homogeneous group with one culture between them).

      And you’re right, he fails to acknowledge the reasons black women have abortions more often than do white women; according to the Guttmacher Institute, it’s a 5:1 ratio, driven not only by the fact that black women are more likely to be unable to afford children but also that they have a harder time getting the more effective (aka more expensive) contraceptives, and therefore are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies – three times as likely as white women, in fact ( Rather than addressing the problems of race-related poverty, of course, Wilson thinks it will all go away if we just strip black women of their rights.

  • TarnishedHalo

    This may be a minute point here, but I see another gaping flaw in Wilson’s argument. In general, historians agree that slavery itself was not the cause of the Civil War. The Civil War was no fought to end slavery but rather was a fight about the rights of the states including the right to own slaves and secede from the Union. Suggesting that the Civil War was only about slavery is an extremely shallow way of looking at a very complex problem in a difficult time in American History.

    • plunderb

      If you ask an American historian what the cause of the Civil War was, he or she will almost certainly say slavery. Of course it’s complex — you could say it was not slavery per se, but the expansion of slavery into new states and territories in the West that precipitated the crisis at the Federal level — but there is not a lot of question among professional historians. The Civil War was about slavery. Not tariffs, not States’ Rights, not cultural or economic differences between regions, except in the sense that all of these issues are other ways of stating the main problem, which was slavery.

      • Chris L. Robinson

        Exactly what I would have said!

      • Lucreza Borgia

        While slavery was a factor, I’d say that the real reason for the Civil War was economics. People in the North, in general, didn’t give a rat’s ass about African Americans. The North was free, but it wasn’t without it’s own restrictions and issues. What people in the North didn’t like was the fact that a slave economy is a direct threat to a capitalist one and any expansion of slavery would give the South more and more economic and political power. Southerners wanted slavery expanded because they needed to export (and greatly profit from!) their excess slaves somewhere. That somewhere had to be new states because exportation was illegal.

      • Lucreza Borgia

        *international exportation

      • The Other Weirdo

        Wait, are you suggesting that a slave economy is not a capitalist one?

    • David S.

      South Carolina was very clear about state’s rights in its declaration of seccession. It didn’t like them one bit, whether it was states letting blacks vote or not engaging their police force to retun slaves to their owners. South Carolina also complained that northern citizens could exercise their rights in openly discussing abolition.

      I tend to think that state’s rights is and always will be a red herring. Very few people are emotionally invested in the division between state and nation; most just want their choices forced on the states from the federal level, and don’t want the federal level forcing disagreeable choices on them, the later of which is cloaked as “states’ rights” if necessary.

    • Rosa

      The secessionist states themselves claimed that slavery was their cause; they wrote it into their statements of secession and into their constitutions.

      They weren’t concerned about states rights when they were busy getting slave power extended into free states. The concern for states rights is a post-Civil-War era play to erase the past, first at the end of Reconstruction and then in the protection of Jim Crow laws under pressure from the civil rights movement.

  • Red

    I agree with those who said that Wilson’s supposed motive for writing “Southern Slavery” (just to show that the war was the wrong way to end slavery) does not necessitate a defense of slavery as an OK institution. If Wilson truly believes that was his real motive in writing the book, then he needs to re-examine himself and his views on race.

    Something else has always bugged me about that quote, about slavery being the most harmonious coexistence between the races ever. Doesn’t it seem to you that defending slavery by saying it allowed races to get along AUTOMATICALLY ASSUMES that people of different races are soooo different (as humans) that they can’t get along without some kind of structure?

    If I said, “We need some system to allow people with red hair and people with blond hair to get along,” that would make no sense to anyone, because it’s not assumed that redheads and blonds are very different as human beings. To insinuate that two groups will always need help getting along is to REINFORCE the idea that they are “different” and will always experience friction between their oh-so-different beings.

    Maybe I’m just overreacting, but I cannot read that quote without seeing that assumption between the lines.

  • kisarita

    I think the war may not have been entirely about slavery but it certainly played a role in motivating the people to war.

  • smrnda

    I wonder how he defines a ‘white bigot’ – like many white people, Wilson imagines ‘a racist’ to be someone who openly advocates for white superiority and for second-class citizenship for non-white people. A white person who simply accepts a racist status quo which provides Black people with less opportunity than white people isn’t a racist by his standards. It’s a simplistic understanding of ‘racism’ that’s deliberately held so that white people who are racist can deny it.

    ” These are blacks who yell at those who judge them for the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, like somebody is supposed to have said once. I think it was supposed to have been important, but I am not sure anymore. ”

    This is typical nonsense from an obnoxious, racist white person who demands that nobody question whether or not white people actually DO judge people by race or not. As long as the White Messiah says he’s colorblind, we must accept that the White Messiah is always judging people by their character alone, and it must never be suggested that the White Messiah might be lying, or might even be unaware of his own racism. The White Messiah must never be questioned and his views and decision making process must never be examined. Nothing like white people saying “I only see people as individuals! I never judge people by race! No white people do!”

  • Lisa

    I really fancy his pseudo-anti-racism gibberish, supposedly defending the “black women” while managing to be more racist than anybody in a long long time.

  • Niemand

    At least he’s consistent. He favors slavery for black and for women, favors it in the past and favors it in the present.

  • BabyRaptor

    “But the blood of Jesus makes it possible for the liberal to repent of Margaret Sanger’s war on black children in utero.”

    Assuming that were even anything but a long-disproved strawman, why should *I* have to “repent” for it? What connection do I have to Margaret Sanger, or to her made-up war on fetuses?

    • Hilary

      Whenver people talk about the ‘blood of Jesus’ I always wonder what blood type he was. What if he’s B positive and you’re A negative? And wouldn’t it get dry and sticky after a while, and start to smell? Does his blood have extra-special antibodies to cause an immune reaction to sin? I wonder if I could clone those in my lab (I work in a biotech company) and distribute them to everybody, free of charge, no strings attatched.

      Seriously, what a vampire.

      • Christine

        Clearly Jesus is O negative, given the universality of it.

      • Hilary

        Christine, I thought that too – O negative, the universal donor.
        Check out our J101 post on Genesis, I’d like to know what you think. Since you are fairly regular Christian commenter here, I thought of you sometimes when working on it. Is there anything that we said that especially catches your eye?

      • Christine

        Did anyone else ever read a science fiction/alternative history story where there was something in the blood (which seems to be similar to Rh factor) that was found with early microscopes, and Catholics and Protestants used having it/not having it as proof of faith? So intermarriage became potentially deadly to the mother in childbirth? All this talk about blood and religion made it hit me over the head the other day.

  • Niemand

    FWIW, abolitionists tried the “gradual approach”. They tried it throughout the early 19th century. They thought that slavery would die out on its own with a little encouragement–after all, it had in Britain and in Spanish America. Why not in the US? It was only when it became clear that slavery was not ending and was, in fact, becoming more entrenched that abolitionists became radical.

  • BabyRaptor

    And WTF is “gospel gradualism”? Slowly passing laws to force everyone to adhere to christianist standards, a la recent Republican antics, Constitution be damned?

    I guess that order that God gave in the bible telling christianists to submit to the government he put over them is totally ignorable as long as you can claim Jesus wins at the end.

  • smrnda

    I wanted to add that I’m familiar with Paul’s ‘answer’ for slavery in Philemon, and it’s attitudes like that that kept slavery going – believing that the answer is for the master to be a little nicer, not that the institution needed to be abolished. I find it odd that he can tout Paul’s views on how to deal with slavery as somehow superior to using force to end the institution given that we have no evidence that Paul’s approach got results, and the persistence of slavery in Roman times seems to suggest his approach was useless. “Slow and gradual” – probably a glacial pace, which reminds me of the quote of Keynes “we’ll all be dead in the long run.” As patient Christians exhort slave-owners to be nice, generations of people will be crushed and oppressed as slaves. No, people who own slaves should have been shot.

  • saraquill

    Too bad no one was around to test Wilson’s blood and urine for drugs when he wrote that rubbish. I;m sure it would have saved us all from more of his grief.

    Is it safe to say that this man has never heard of the oral histories of former slaves FDR had collected during the New Deal? Reading those is a pretty easy way to verify what it was like to be owned and have no rights.

    I would also like to add that if stopping abortions was so important to him, he’d be making a huge difference right quick my regularly distributing free condoms.

  • Lucreza Borgia

    Is there any merit to the supposed link between Margert Sanger and black eugenics? I’ve never really read anything that I thought was researched well. At the same time, even if that was her aim, how can someone assume that is somehow still the goal of PP and other organizations?

    • Rosa

      Someone who assumes modern Evangelicals have a grip on the one true way historical Christians wanted everyone to live can certainly believe that Planned Parenthood is 100% true to the personal beliefs of its founders.

      Margaret Sanger wasn’t a eugenicist in the sense of wanting to eliminate Black people, but she did use eugenic arguments in her writings – a common 19th century belief was that all sorts of character traits that can lead to poverty and crime were heritable, along with the strange theory that having too many children exhausted some sort of vital essence in the parents and led to weakness and stupidity in their children. She often used that sort of language, arguing that allowing poor women access to birth control would lessen the number of poor people and criminals.

      Of course, Alexander Graham Bell was an outspoken eugenicist who belonged to several prominent eugenics organizations and advocated for public policies of forced sterilizations of “defective” people, and I don’t see any religious people not using telephones for that reason.

    • Jessica

      Margaret Sanger did speak at a ku klux klan women’s meeting about birth control. From a quote of hers I came across a while back, she did seem to harbor some racist views.

  • Rae

    He named his follow-up book “Black and Tan” for REAL?!?

    Like, seriously? It’s not race-related, aside from the fact that maybe he’s trying to dissociate himself from the concept of being “white” but still, no! There is so much nasty history behind that, to try to use it as a clever marketing ploy, to sell a book that promotes racism… ugh, literally makes me sick.

    (And now, on second thought, given Wilson’s lovely worldview I wouldn’t be surprised if he did think the British Army was in the right there)

    • Little Magpie

      Thanks for saying what I was thinking there, Rae :)

    • M

      I stick my fingers in my ears and pretend the title is a reference to the drink.

      A Black and Tan is a beer drink. You put pale ale on the bottom and a stout like Guinness on the top. If you pour it right, they actually are two distinct layers. It looks really cool.

  • Mieke

    I´ve been away from the internets for a few days so I´m a little late but did nobody else think these lines hilarious?
    “There are various theories out there on this subject, including the one that posits that I am an idiot, but this is a theory that I have not found compelling so far. Sure, the evidence is abundant enough, but it is too disorganized. Needs to be footnoted. Somebody needs to go into the archives.” (At the end of the fourth blockquote.)

  • zhnjg

    Ah, the great voice of race relations arising from Idaho, historical African-American home….wait. Do any black people at all live in Idaho?

    Just another ignorant white man yammering on about thing he doesn’t understand.