Forbes magazine’s cover story “How Obama Thinks” by Dinesh D’Souza offers a brilliant explanation of the inexplicable behavior our 44th President. The strange policies, bizarre actions and general oddities have frustrated and befuddled Americans (both critics and supporters alike).
D’Souza identifies the president’s Father and his anticolonial dream as the impetus for all that Obama does. The author is from India and his perspective and insight into the Asian and African idea of anticolonialism. Here is his description
Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America. As one of Obama’s acknowledged intellectual influences, Frantz Fanon, wrote in The Wretched of the Earth, “The well-being and progress of Europe have been built up with the sweat and the dead bodies of Negroes, Arabs, Indians and the yellow races.”
The theory explains Obama’s mysterious rejection of American exceptionalism and the piece shows how it influences other policy decisions.
The article is fantastic and I strongly urge all to give it a read. The opposition to this piece is an indication that it is on the mark. White House press secretary Andy Gibb Tweeted in protest of the Forbes article.
Gibbs is citing a very weak critical review by Ryan Chittum of the Columbia Journalism Review. The CJR uses the Alinsky Rules in an attempt to discredit D’Souza and Forbes. In this passage they embarrass themselves by wrongly equating African anticolonialists to our founding fathers (American colonists rejected the British colonialism but it had no resemblance to the invasive colonialism of Asia and Africa).
The veneer of respectability, if you can call it that, that D’Souza and Forbes put on this noxious near-McCarthyite junk is that Obama is an “anticolonialist.” It’s thin gruel. And, hey—I’m an anticolonialist, too. And so were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the rest of the gang.
Chittum then goes on to claim that D’Souza’s Indian roots, the very reason he is uniquely qualified to write this article, somehow disqualify his ability to comment on the topic because Obama is native-born. I really think he knows that made no sense but he just wanted an excuse to mention that Obama was born in America.
But D’Souza has some real nerve here: Obama is a native-born American and D’Souza is not. When he says “Here is a man who spent his formative years—the first 17 years of his life—off the American mainland,” he could be referring to himself. According to Wikipedia, anyway, he was born in India in 1961 and never came to the States until 1978. That adds up to about “the first 17 years of his life—off the American mainland.” Somehow the first-seventeen years thing raises questions about Obama’s Americanness but not about D’Souza’s qualifications to question somebody’s degree of native-born Americanness.
The Columbia Journalism Review’s shameful piece on Forbes.
The worst kind of smear journalism by Ryan Chittum