Craig Bodeker (right) is a filmmaker who produced A Conversation About Race, which we have reviewed here.
by Craig Bodeker
On October 8th, and again on October 9th, Sonia Scherr, of theSouthern Poverty Law Center, published two separate and scathingattacks on me and my documentary film, A CONVERSATION ABOUT RACE, ontheir HATEWATCH website.
Ms. Scherr made eight specific points regarding the film’s “errors,”before concluding that I am, in fact, a “racist.” Most critics agreethe film does an excellent job pointing out the vagueness of that term,and that how it has recently morphed into the intellectual equiliventof calling me a “poopyhead.”
But I will still address Ms. Scherr’s eight points here.
Point 1
“Bodeker never says whether he believes that discrimination found bycourts and government commissions also doesn’t ‘really amount toanything.’”
That’s because I don’t. What’s more real to you? Spontaneous answersfrom real people, or proclamations issued by courts and governmentcommissions?
Point 2
“He makes no effort to examine the scientific findings onintelligence and race, which have yet to produce convincing evidencethat IQ differences are caused by genetics.”
That’s because neither I nor any of the subjects said anything aboutcausality. Nearly every interview-subject stated clearly that theybelieve blacks outscore whites in basketball, but that whites outscoreblacks on standardized tests, and that Asians outscore whites on thosesame tests. Are these “beliefs” really radical and bigoted? Or are theymainstream?
Point 3
“After trying to get interviewees to admit that blacks are morecriminal than whites. . . .”
See the film. I don’t “try” to get anyoneto admit anything. Each subject was chosen for their candor.
Point 4
“What he neglects to mention is that it’s unclear how many, if any,of the black-on-white rapes were hate crimes—that is, motivated atleast in part by racial bias.”
According to the Justice Department report cited in the film, blackssexually assaulted white women over 37,000 times in 2005. Whitessexually assaulted black women less than ten times. 37,000 to 10. How“random” does that sound to you?
Point 5
“Moreover, Bodeker asserts that Latinos are deliberately taking awaywhites’ majority status. ‘If we object to the stated agenda ofreplacing whites as the racial majority in America with Hispanics, it’sus who get called the racists,’ he says, ‘not the people who are openlyand actively working to change the racial makeup of our country.’”
Idon’t really see the criticism here. Have they heard of La Raza?
Point 6
“The South Carolina Council of Conservative Citizens—a whitesupremacist group whose national conference Bodeker attended in June inMississippi—recently hosted a big-screen showing of the movie in threelocations.”
And they told me they were Conservative Citizens. . . .! (Idid actually ask the organizer if the CofCC was a “white Supremacist”group. He said absolutely not.) According to the SPLC, whiteorganizations cannot be trusted to accurately stereotype themselves.
Point 7
“Since the documentary’s release last year, Bodeker has giveninterviews to the Romanian National Vanguard News Agency (motto:‘International News for People of European Descent’), Mark Dankof (aradio broadcaster who also contributes to the anti-Semitic AmericanFree Press), and The Political Cespool, an overtly anti-Semitic, racistshow whose guests have included former Klan boss David Duke, neo-NaziApril Gaede and Holocaust denier Mark Weber”
How dare I seek publicity for my documentary! Why don’t I justcalmly wait ‘til CNN or PBS calls me to air it? Seriously, though, am Inow to be held personally responsible for every word ever uttered bythe staff, or even by the guests, of any radio show that I’ve appearedon? I accepted the generosity of those few in today’s media thatactually understand the concept of free speech, warts and all!
Point 8
“On The Political Cesspool’s Jan. 31 show, for instance, one of thehosts asserts that ‘everything that is good about civilization—justabout everything that is good, from literature to works of art to lawis something that came from our [white people’s] minds.’ Bodeker’sresponse? ‘I have to agree.’”
What part of “just about” don’t you understand. . .?
On the next day, October 9th, Ms. Scherr released her follow-upattack. But rather than offer any stronger, or legitimate criticismsof, A CONVERSATION ABOUT RACE, she chose a different tactic. She reliedupon an anonymous cyber-stalker to gather “quotes” attributed to mefrom the comments section of unrelated political videos from Youtube.She called this piece of journalism “A Peek Behind the Curtain: Viewsof a Racist Filmmaker . . ,”
Some pretty strong statements were quoted—as well as MIS-quoted,surgically and deceptively edited,, taken out of context, and even madeup! And once again, these “quotes” that represent proof of my “racism,”were found on the comments section of Youtube.
Have any readers ever been to the comments section on Youtube? Doesanyone NOT KNOW what a mosh-pitt of “free expression” it is? There are,sometimes, actual screaming matches, even though they’re conducted inwritten form. Sometimes people say harsh, mean things there, in thatlast remaining refuge of Free Speech. Am I to assume that the SPLS’sSonia Scherr has never made a sarcastic comment? Or even a distastefulone? Or that anyone who EVER has should be stereotyped, marginalizedand disenfranchised? This seems to be what the SPLC suggests. . . .
Most who have viewed A Conversation About Race, say itsucceeds because of its fairness and clarity. American Thinker’s LarryMiller said, in his positive review of the film, “. . . People inAmerica have no idea how to define ‘racism.’ The word flits about likean evil spirit in our national vocabulary—but none of us knows exactlywhat it means.”
So I will take it as a compliment, that the Southern Poverty Law Center, after viewing A Conversation About Race,(no doubt through a legal microscope) cannot find any genuine aspectsof it to criticize, and end up instead having to resort to that same,tired conclusion, “Craig Bodeker is a Racist.”
Call me optimistic, but I see that as progress. They cannot refutethe film’s basic premise, even though it contradicts the very essencetheir stated mission!
So instead they call me a poopyhead.
[Editor’s Note: The SPLC articles by Sonia Scherr to which Mr. Bodecker is replying can be read here and here.]