Cowards from National Review dismiss John Derbyshire for trying to have a Courageous Conversation

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote a lengthy piece, entitled "'Courageous Conversations' in a 'Nation of Cowards,'" about the conversations I will need to have with my children about how they should handle their interactions with black people. I wrote that piece in response to several newspaper articles that profiled black parents and their perceived need to have a conversation with their kids about their future interactions with white people.

Lo and behold, not too many days after I wrote that piece, a similar article was written by John Derbyshire, who is (was) best known as a contributing writer to the so-called conservative publication National Review.

Derbyshire didn't actually write his article for National Review; it instead was published in an online publication called Taki's Magazine, or Taki Mag, for short.

As I did, Derbyshire acknowledged the many newspaper articles and blog posts about black parents having "the talk" with their kids about what they will need to know when they deal with white people throughout their lives. And as I did, Derbyshire then detailed a hypothetical conversation he would have with his kids about dealing with black people throughout their lives.

In all his points, Derbyshire provided links to back up what he was saying, but that did not matter. The left side of the blogosphere and media had a predictable conniption fit over Derbyshire's article. What saddened me was the reaction from the controlled conservative opposition at such places as HotAir.com, certain writers at AmericanThinker.com, and of course, National Review. Within just a couple days after Derbyshire published his article at Taki Mag, National Review wiped their hands of Derbyshire. By doing so, National Review simply proved the point I made in my piece about all those people out there who are too cowardly to have these courageous conversations such as Derbyshire attempted to start. What was sadly amusing is that most of the criticism of Derbyshire's article - from either side of the political spectrum - was rather short on substance, but long on emotion. For most critics, their concern did not appear to be that anything Derbyshire wrote was incorrect - like I said, he heavily sourced his article - their concern appeared to be that Derbyshire dared speak that which should not be spoken, no matter how truthful it may be. After all, feelings could be hurt!

As a prime example, just read the following from the blog post written by National Review's editor, Rich Lowry, in which he informed readers that NR had disassociated themselves from Derbyshire:

[Derbyshire's] latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible....

I see some critical statements there, but "incorrect," "wrong," "non-factual," and "liar/lying/prevarication" are not among them.

I am sorry that Derbyshire had to pay the ultimate professional price for expressing his views, but I respect him deeply for taking that plunge. It is one thing for these courageous conversations to be started like a nobody blogger like myself, but John Derbyshire of National Review magazine cannot be so easily ignored.

Unlike the bigwigs at National Review, John Derbyshire chose not to be a coward. My hat is off to you, Mr. Derbyshire.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free... it expects what never was, and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson