This is not so much an attack on the author of this book, since almost any multiracial/multicultural book for our hapless kids would exhibit the same characteristics.
In Summary:
We read about the teenage black girl, “Sugar is sweet. Sugar is pretty. Sugar has nice clothes and nice hair. People like Sugar. Sugar is happy. ...
Then the white blond girl, “Candy comes to town. Candy is sweet. Candy is pretty. Candy has beautiful hair and new clothes. Candy has money and roller-skates and stereo. People like Candy.”
Okay, Candy’s parents must be wealthy and privileged. Of course there are wealthy black kids, especially those of celebrities and sports figures, who are wealthier than millions of poor or working-class white kids, but of course no one in their right mind would write a book for schools with such a flamingly un-PC premise.
Candy is offered presents from her new admiring friends. “Candy takes the apple and the flowers. Candy Smiles. She has a sweet, pretty voice.”
Tragically, “Sugar doesn't have a stereo. She doesn't have roller skates. ...
Sugar says to her old friends, ‘Come to the drugstore with me! Susie? Billy? Joe? Come and buy some ice-cream, or a hot-dog, or a drink.’
‘Sorry, Sugar, we’re going with Candy. ...”
Once again notice how all these things are irreversible. Imagine a multicultural children’s book where the white girl would be the object of unfairness.
“Sugar is very unhappy. She cries. Then Sugar hears something. ...”
Sugar sees two taller older boys roughing up a younger boy to get his money.
“The little boy is crying. Sugar wants to help the little boy.”
‘Hey stop that! Don’t hurt that little boy!'
So Sugar, the black teen, steps in to rescue a little blond white kid, being pummeled by two thuggish older white boys. Although one of the older boys has a darker shade of skin, he clearly has finely wrought Western European features, so apparently the author was comically trying hedge a bit on the racial issue. Maybe he just has a golden suntan? Or the author was wanting not to be too obvious?
But again, notice the irreversibility. Imagine a children’s book that would show a white teen standing up to black thugs, or the much more typical scenario of black thugs roughing up a little white boy. Had authoress Laird written it that way, the Tolerance Police, the Cultural Marxism Enforcers, or whatever we want to call them, would have come after her, portraying her as a drooling hate-filled ‘white supremacist.’
Back to the story. Sugar is now being threatened by these young toughs, so she whistles for her old friends, who come running back and help Sugar save the day.
The little boy who was saved by Sugar “talks to Sugar’s friends.”
‘Sugar’s kind. Sugar’s brave. ... Sugar’s a great girl.’
Meanwhile Candy is shown in the foreground, with her expensive stereo and stylish clothes and beribboned blond hair, now standing alone and looking disconsolate.
“Sugar’s friends laugh and smile. They forget about Candy. They forget Candy’s pretty clothes and her roller skates and her stereo. Sugar’s brave and kind. They want Sugar now.”
But wait–Sugar again saves the day!
“Sugar smiles. Then she sees Candy. Candy is alone. Candy is unhappy.”
‘Come on Candy. Come and have some ice-cream with us.’
The End
Happy ending? Sure. Teaches good lessons? Okay.
However, what does it say about the possibility of successful multiracial/multicultural societies if these things always have to be written in one direction, never in reverse, even if the way they are written are often far less likely to occur than in the real world? Is it common in schools for big white kids to beat up small white kids as black girls spring to the rescue? Is that why whites, liberal and conservatives alike, try about everything they can to escape from sending their kids to non-white majority schools?
And what does it say about race relations that the only way to keep the peace is for whites to always need to bend over backwards propping up a double standard to please nonwhites and to prove they are not ‘haters’? In fact, even to such an extent that they are expected to celebrate their future demographic demise.
Finally, what will happen when goody-two-shoes whites are not around to take an apologetic stance and run around monitoring polite behavior between a multitude of races, cultures and religions? We already see this happening at some schools where blacks and Latinos are at war. And to make it even more fun and ‘vibrant,’ sometimes these are Muslim blacks from Africa. So we are treated to a racial AND a religious war in the same school. A double hooray for diversity! Alas, there are probably very few blacks or Latinos trundling up and down such school hallways piously saying things like, “No, after you!” in the cafeteria food line.
As the United States and other Western nations become ever more balkanized violent corrupt polluted dangerous teeming third-world anthills, maybe our official grave marker will someday read:
‘Western Civilization: Dead from Good Intentions.”
Posts
