The racial underpinnings of DSouzas argument
So, D’Souza’s primary examples used to demonstrate Obama’s fealty to anti-colonial dogma can all be applied to President Bush and in some instances are better applied to President Bush. Quite clearly, then, D’Souza’s examples are not prima facie evidence of an anti-colonial ideology. The same examples, applied to two different individuals, yield different conclusions. I assume D’Souza would argue (as noted above) that the distinguishing factor between Bush and Obama is that only Obama was profoundly affected by colonialism, but that’s insufficient to reach D’Souza’s conclusion. Clearly, a profound experience with colonialism is not necessary to take the actions taken by Obama (as they have also been taken by Bush without requiring a profound experience with colonialism). Neither D’Souza nor Gingrich ever explain how we can be certain that Obama’s acts are only explainable by anti-colonial sentiments (he could have done those acts for the same reason Bush did them, or for any other number of reasons having nothing to do with colonialism). In attempting to discern why D’Souza and Gingrich would differentiate between Obama and Bush beyond an experience with colonialism, there is one significant and clear differentiating characteristic: race.
In attempting to discern why D’Souza and Gingrich would differentiate between Obama and Bush beyond an experience with colonialism, there is one significant and clear differentiating characteristic: race.
Bingo was his name-o.
update 9:30am 9/15:
More take downs on D’Souza and Gingrich.
Publius totally destroys him here:
Adam Serwer has a go:
David Frum get’s it right
Matt Ygelsias wants to know what’s wrong with being anti-colonialist:
Ta-Neshi Coates points out anti-colonialism is a thin cover:
Texas In Africa comments on Newts thesis on colonialism in Congo and guess what he finds? Yeah, Newt’s a Red Coat. Can we tar and feather him now?