It's hilarious. He wants recognition of the 'white privilege' bullshit to justify the redistribution of wealth through government programs to pay off white guilt to black Americans.
Actually I think D'Sousa tried to dodge an interesting question. My father was a veteran of WWll and the Korean War. The Canadian government was very generous in their benefits for veterans of my father's generation, land grants, mortgage assistance, education assistance for example. My father was a beneficiary of the last two and if still alive would be eligible for a veterans pension on top of the regular Canadian pension. Now I'm wondering, did the American government show the same gratitude to it's war veterans and did it do so regardless of race?
He addressed that several times.
Where does it end?
I already tried to explain why I don't think he did address it.
I'm going to quote a couple lines from my another one of my replies to Jim.
"That's why I don't scoff at that young man bringing up the subject to D'Souza. No, I scoff at D'souza for trying to deflect the conversation to the realpolitik of the British empire and wherever else he tried to take it, as if this particular injustice could be diluted out into an unaccountable fuzzy mist of history."
"This particular injustice" is what the kid brought up, that black veterans of WWll did not receive near the benefits that white veterans did and the quote from wikipedia that Jim gave us is a description and proof of this injustice. So how did D'Souza address it. Actually two ways. One, he tried to dilute it by equating it to some events in "
an unaccountable fuzzy mist of history." He mentions American Indians, Navajo, Hopi, et. al., he mentions the Persian and Mongol invasion of India and mentions the British Empire, all this and more as if to say "it's too complicated, it's history, we have to deal with the world as it is" The kids point is the "particular injustice" he brought up is not washed out and diluted by the mists of history, it's contemporary an quantifiable. Listen I have to run, I'm going to quote one more line from my reply to Jim regarding D'Souza, "He's a parasitic opportunist who's been sucking at the rewarding teat of American conservatism and Christianity for decades." He is a very good debater, very facile, this kid shouldn't stand a chance against him but I thought he held his ground. I've watched D'Souza take on heavy weight debaters on Christian Apologetics, Evolution and other topics, he's tough. He's well versed in debate strategy, when and how to pivot off topic if you're losing and other debate tactics. Being impressive isn't being right though.
I
have to run, I'll return later if you want.