ideological uses to which “publicspirited”neducators have put the Westernncivilization curriculum. Already atnthe beginning of the century IrvingnBabbitt was railing against the vulgarizersnof humanistic studies, and he had innmind the advocates of the very curricularnreforms that Sykes applauds. Westernncivilization courses, as typified byntheir insertion at Columbia in the contextnof a crusade for democracy, havenalways been both political and timenbound. Sykes disregards this fact eithernout of ignorance or because of sympathynfor the political doctrines associatednwith the curriculum he defends.nMy observations dealt with historicalntrends and had nothing to do withntrying to discredit Mark Van Doren asnan English teacher. Nor should they beninterpreted as support for Joe McCar­nWINNIE MANDELA’S recentnconviction shows that something likenthe rule of law survives in South Africanafter the unconditional release of hernhusband. On a visit to Johannesburgnseveral months ago, I found myselfnmore than once, to my amusement,narguing the court had to convictnWinnie Mandela, to South Africansnwho smiled at me in disbelief, a measurenof their demoralization. The releasenof Nelson Mandela without thenrenunciation of violence P.W. Bothanhad required of him served to put thenslogan that had carried Mandelanthrough 27 years of imprisonment onnthe lips of ordinary white South Africans,nand worse still, maybe in theirnminds: I mean the notion that thenso-called violence of the government,nusually called apartheid for short, justifiesnmurder and terrorism, a simplisticnview of Western history more currentnin our universities than in the townshipsnof South Africa.nSouth Africa is a difficult country tonvisit because almost everything you seencontradicts, or at least raises questionsnabout, what you have heard. I wentnthere for a three-week visit in March,nalmost two years after I had completednthy or his brand of apocalyptic anticommunism.nThe older I get, the more Inappreciate Frank Chodorov’s thoughtsnon a misguided politician. McCarthynmight have done better to help parendown the welfare state instead of complainingnabout those who worked for it.nOn the ‘Constitution’nWhile George W. Carey (Opinions,nApril 1991) reached the right conclusionn(“the Constitution of which hen[Russell Kirk] writes in this book is, innfact, dead”), referring to Kirk’s ThenConservative Constitution, the headlinenwriter could have done better thannquoting only the first sentence —n”Your Constitution is all sail and nonanchor” — of the paragraph fromnCULTURAL REVOLUTIONSnPrisoners of a Dream: The South AfricannMirage, a book that had turned outnan unwitting defense of this country Inhad never visited. I went to see thenliving country with the dread that Inwould have to acknowledge horrors Inhad denied in writing but that a visitnwould force me to see. Once there Infound that the country was better thannI expected, and even harder to understand.nSome of the best South AfricansnI met told me the country bewilderednthem also. I was moved by how often Inwas asked what I thought of them.nAlmost nobody I met spoke as if he hadnthe answers.nI came to South Africa little morenthan a year after Mandela was releasednand the ban lifted from the ANC,nSAC, and other terrorist groups onnFebruary 2, 1990 — “Red Friday,” asnsome of the tougher-minded people Inmet called it. Nineteen-ninety was anyear accurately perceived to haventurned everything upside down, mostnof all the way people spoke andnthought, the hardest thing to change.nBut I met nobody who sounded as if henwere repeating a party line, except occasionallynsomeone in government.nThe most dangerous tendency I sawnnnMacaulay’s letter to H.S. Randalln(May 23, 1857), which stated why he,nMacaulay, felt our Constitution wouldndie.nThe important statement that Macaulaynmade was: “Either some Caesarnor Napoleon will seize the reins ofngovernment with a strong hand; ornyour republic will be fearfully plunderednand laid waste by barbarians innthe twentieth century as the RomannEmpire was in the fifth; with thisndiflFerence, that the Huns and Vandalsnwho ravaged the Roman Empire camenfrom without, and that your Huns andnVandals will have been engenderednwithin your own country by your ownninstitutions.”n—Richard L. BarkleynPalo Alto, CAnwas the tendency to reject the entirenpast, especially on the part of Afrikanernpolitical leaders, whom a South Africannjournalist described as “toolingnaround the country on bended kneencrying mea culpa, mea culpa.” Thisnwholesale rejection is extremely dangerousnbecause unless South Africannleaders know the strengths of their pastnthey will not be able to face down thenincreasing irrationality of the present.nThe very capacity of ordinary Afrikaners,nthe obvious backbone of thencountry, to doubt themselves, and tonadmit they may have been wrong, innpart, without repudiating themselves,ntestifies to the strength of their past, notnto its weakness. I met many peoplenwho were as much for change as theynwere against negotiations with thenANC, an attitude that shows up markedlynin government polls not only ofnwhites, but of coloreds and Indiansnalso. By April 1991 there were signs ofndisillusionment with the ANC evennamong blacks, disillusionment the terrornin the townships probably keptnlargely silent.nOne of the best journalists I know innSouth Africa says the country is in anrevolutionary situation, probably a cor-nAUGUST 1991/5n