About “A Conversation About Race”

Anthony Hilton

June 1, 2009 

“A Conversation About Race” is a film by Craig Bodeker concerning some silly but insidious misconceptions (or misconceptualizations) concerning “race” and “racism” that have become a standard aspect of Western ideology. The film, available as a DVD, was wonderfully reviewed by Greg Johnson in The Occidental Quarterly, and is a good counter to “political correctness.” I wish I had had it before retiring from teaching (e.g., a course in ethnic relations) as a tool for highlighting the “disconnect” between today’s conventional thinking about “race” and  “racism”, on the one hand, and modern scientific conceptualizations and common sense, on the other. 

But there may be a minor problem with the film as a stand-alone educational device — and I’m here corroborating what Edmund Connelly noted earlier in TOO. 

Like Connelly, after viewing it, I immediately bought nearly a dozen copies to send to friends and relatives. I assumed that after viewing it they would all cease writing off their father (or uncle, etc., as the case may be) as a right-wing bigoted kook and move to a higher plane of understanding race and other human relations!! 

So what happened? Nothing! Or next to nothing. For months I didn’t hear a thing from anyone — my son, my daughter, my grandchildren; only from a couple friends who were already enlightened. First, I thought, well, these are all very busy people, and certainly I, too, have a few DVDs that I haven’t taken the time to look at. And then I thought, "hey, they’ve all said to themselves, 'Oh god, what kind of totally non-Pee-Cee crap is Uncle Tony trying to feed us now?'”  

Then I viewed the DVD a second time. The result was that I now accompany the film with a prefatory note saying that (a) neither I nor the film is denying that human beings are prone to bias and “discriminatory” attitudes, both ethnic and personal. But such attitudes are not unique to one part of humanity, and some are legitimate (e.g., if they are based on real differences); and (b) at between one and two minutes into the film Bodeker states something that might easily be missed if the viewer happened to reach for a beer, namely, that “Whites” have indeed done plenty of awful things in the course of history. One should keep that in mind later on in the film where it discusses who has done what to whom. If viewers aren’t warned ahead of time, at least make sure they sort this out afterward. 

Fortunately, the above precautions are not always or absolutely necessary. I had given a copy to someone I consider an excellent organizer for the Republican party, preceded by an email warning that he would receive a DVD. Well, the email may have been forgotten or not read,. so he received the DVD cold. Rather mistrustingly, he simply put off viewing for a couple months. But he finally did watch it. In his words: 

…I have watched this video and was pleased to see the very simple message.  One that shows a double standard has been placed on all of us, without a clear definition of what racism really is.  I have shared this with others and the movie goes hand in glove with the movie Media Malpractice… [available here] 

…I have already passed it on to others to watch and have gotten it back, and continue to ask others to watch it.  It is such a simple message that we all know is true, but the liberal left has made it almost impossible to discuss things in a rational manner any more. 

The above seems to be the exception, so far. And if this DVD is sent to people without the sender being present or without the cautionary remarks, I worry that there is a good chance that the film won’t be seen.  

Does that mean it’s of little use? No. A major feature of the film is that it is constructed as a series of “disconnects” (as Bodeker puts it) in which a conventional idea about “racism” is stated by an interviewee but is subsequently countered by factual evidence or argument that renders the conventional idea absurd or invalid. (And legitimately so; he’s not engaging in trickery.) His discussion of “racism” is a series of rhetorical arguments very carefully and logically organized so as to make clear the weaknesses, and often hypocrisy, of conventional thinking.  As such, the film is a wonderful exercise in rhetoric for anyone engaged in defending sensible views on nationalism and race.

The specific evidence and arguments Bodeker presents are useful in themselves. But his is a good model for how to marshal relevant evidence and rhetorical arguments in general. For example, such arguments can be used individually, on an ad hoc basis, rather than all together.  

We have to train ourselves in these matters to be able to counter stupid or incorrect statements instantly. One of my favorites from the film is the scene when someone mentions that whites from Europe “stole” the Western hemisphere from the aboriginals. One can point out that the aboriginals stole territories from each other and that whites were not at all unique in that respect. That was what nearly everyone tried to do in earlier millennia — and Israelis are still doing it today! One can then appreciate that often a person’s whole frame of reference can suddenly be altered simply by hearing a good argument or fact that he’d never thought about before — arguments and facts that one won't hear about from the mainstream media.