Dr. Patrick L. Cooney

I am going to engage in a bit of speculation, but speculation based on some of my limited experiences with European sociologists and publishers in sociology.  I get the definite impression that the European sociologists are just as alienated and politically biased as their American counterparts (who have endorsed a new system of segregation similar to the Booker T. Washington system that they had previously endorsed around the beginning of the 20th century).  

Being completely censored by American sociologists and publishers, I tried to get my work published in Britain.  To my slight wonder, the Europeans gave the same excuses as the Americans.  (These interactions with our present-day sociologists are experiments from which I learn a great deal -- lessons that other sociologists cannot learn because they are accepting of the racist status quo and never ask these questions.)  It occurred to me that the Europeans must be pushing this multicultural nonsense as much as the Americans.  I then started looking for European authors in the area of multicultural segregation and found a number of such books.  This confirmed my impression that the European social scientists were being just as racist as the Americans.  (Also, in some limited personal interactions with some Swedish sociologists via reading papers at sociological conferences, their refusal to follow-up on further contacts, was simply more confirmation of the uselessness of sociology as it is practised these days.)

Rather than trying to deal with the problems of integration in Europe, the modern European Booker T. Washingtons are basically accepting segregation for the different immigrant groups in the name of  a "plural but equal" system of segregation.  So instead of trying to deal with racism, they basically accommodate themselves to it.  Like Booker T., they take the stand that in exchange for racial peace via segregation the government will in turn grant greater outlays to the separate minorities.    

Every occupation has its version of "the right stuff."  The astronauts were people who innately could withstand severe bouts of  enclosure and isolation and considerable stress. The "right stuff" of the sociologists seems to be an enormous need to assert themselves against government and cultivate an idolatry of the poor and disadvantaged.  The sociologists seem to have a "need" or a personality disorder to confront powerful people and institutions with little awareness or appreciation of the actual needs of the poor.  They fight for a "romanticized" version of the disadvantaged.  

To give an example: I found myself being very embarrassed by the sheer gushing of self-praise for sociology and sociologists in the "Footnotes."  Never have so few praised themselves so elaborately and effusively.  Perhaps, no one else in the larger society will praise the sociologists, the sociologists figure they have to do it themselves.  The "romanticized" view of the disadvantage shows up in the great interest of the sociologists in going to dinner with each other in "ethnic" restaurants.  Whenever the annual ASA meetings come up, "Footnotes" carries these elaborate articles about how great it will be to be in a "multicultural" city with plenty of ethnic restaurants.  And then they go on to list all of these places where they can go to feel "multicultural."  

Being very cynical, I often get the impression that what sociologists really want from the continuation of racial and ethnic separateness is that this will continue to allow them to have "ethnic" places at which they can eat dinner with others of their own kind.  This allow them to continue their illusion of  being morally superior to others -- to those who "refuse" to see the romanticism of loving the poor.  Tom Wolf could write another critical book -- this one about these sociological  "Leonard Bernsteins," engaging in activities equaling in foolishness those parties thrown by society people for the Black Panthers (which, from recent books about Huey P. Newton and the Black Panthers, we now know was founded by a homicidal psychopath).  


Return to Main Page Table of Contents

Return to Home Page