Racism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImaginaryFriend

i see no problem with pseudonyms on the internet but if people are going to start being petty then i am heather from central scotland. dont quite see what that had to do with anything, let alone the question but ok. . .

seems like you are avoiding the question by deflecting onto another subject.

love the stars :)

---

Ok Heather,
Now I know where you are from I know that your comments are being seen from a UK perspective. Other countries experiences may be somewhat different to our own.

Whilst it is true that that whites and other races generally do better than blacks scholastically, I have never heard it suggested that racism is the cause; the usual reason given is that they are financially disadvantaged.
I think that's wrong and that the actual reason, apart from a few obvious exceptions, is that they are temperamentally unsuited to intellectual pursuits.
I would absolutely hate to be a teacher in an inner City school where the majority of the pupils were black but, as you know, that is the unfortunate situation that some teachers find themselves in.
Coming on to your second point, I also haven't heard it claimed that racism causes unmarried mothers and since there are increasing numbers of white unmarried mothers, obviously racism cannot be to blame.
I completely agree with you that it is down to the indivduals concerned and their communities and that they would rather act that way rather than take responsibility for their actions but the reason they do this is because there are people who keep making excuses for them.

:eek2: Anyone?

No thank you!! I got myself in trouble the last time I posted here.

I know I said that I'd support the right of anyone to express any view however vile, but - frankly - it's a tough principle to live up to sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImaginaryFriend

...then i am heather from central scotland. ...

---

Now, we'll just doubt your opinions in case you're a plant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Thank you Saladin. The race card is repeatedly played in the US and the reason for that is there is political power that is gained. Race hucksters such as Jesse Jackson, get revered as some sort of leader and through playing on white guilt get all sorts of financial and political gains. The sociologist that has been extra ordinary in documenting this and pointing it out is Shelby Steele. Here is one of his articles: http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/156.html. I highly recommend looking him up and reading him.

---

Thank you for that article. I found it very interesting. The reason i find this discussion around racism and the over-use of race card a bit repetitive and dull to be honest, is because its putting the real problems in the shadow. As an african which have lived in Europe almost his whole life i cant identify myself with the african-americans or other groups in the US, but there is some similiarities in the problems. I doubt that anyone here is denying that there is racism in our societies, and this racism doesnt go one way as people politically correct say - white racism towards black. But believe or not there is blacks and other non-white groups which have individuals which are racist.

To portray yourself as a victim all the time as some blacks do is not favourable at all. And with some blacks i dont only mean in general african-americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

I think that's wrong and that the actual reason, apart from a few obvious exceptions, is that they are temperamentally unsuited to intellectual pursuits.
I would absolutely hate to be a teacher in an inner City school where the majority of the pupils were black but, as you know, that is the unfortunate situation that some teachers find themselves in.

---

correct me if i am wrong but are you saying that black people cant be educated? i think your comment may have come off wrong. if you are saying that a lot of black kids dont try cos they dont think they will get anywhere then i agree with that and that teachers must have a hard time getting through to some people that there is hope out there. a lot of the problem is how to change attitudes.

i hope that was what you were trying to get across :) but then i might just be a plant, right atheist? lol

John McWhorter seems to think that Gates-gate amounts to little more than static, that most black intellectuals will continue to see it as victimization, and that the real problem is the illegal drug trade which sucks up so many law enforcement resources, at least from what I can gather.

I have sparred with McWhorter a few times; he gets on my nerves, but I respect his level of engagement on this non-existent conversation that whites are supposedly not having with minorities--but that said, my own sense of victimization and entrapment in poverty gets in the way.

Black communities are not that different from white communities of the same caste. They may be less secular, give or take, more stoic, even more conservative. The old ladles really don't like me, and it is not simply my wheelchair. I am a libertine, offend with my lack of religious belief, and so on.

I am very close to just doing something stupid like getting on a bus and not coming back, and if I ever can get out I never will return. But Virgil, I think you understand very little about how the American welfare state punishes people like me, and African Americans who cannot break the cycle of poverty. I live it every day, which is why I cannot quite blame it all on identity politics and having a chip on the shoulder.

There are things that will always be beyond my grasp now, given my physical and economic reality: home ownership, a car. I do not experience ethnic oppression, but I get it, how the system hurts the poor and makes advancement a nearly impossible reality.

now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Unfortunately, you've got no control data to compare it to, so that's kind of a spurious statement, really. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you can't claim it as correct as it has no evidential basis.
You absolutely cannot blame Maori problems on any socio-economic or cultural rationale.

---

Any evidential basis? I am not experienced in Maori matters and can't really discuss them but can you prove that the cultural and social conditions for Maori and for the others are exactly the same? I can't believe it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The easy - and convenient - answer is quite often wrong.
I have no clue what the answer is, but I think your 21st-century friendly answer isn't it.

---

ok, then lets deal with questions, not with answers.
a discussion on lack of social success a minority has is actually a discussion on guilt and on the ethic self-concept of modern allegedly meritocratic societies and its members. it is implying the questions:

• are the rules of career advancement fair ones and does equality of opportunity really exist or is it only an ideological fiction?
• what properties a person or an ethnic minority must have to climb the social ladder? (intelligence? luck? connections? money? diligence? karma? unscrupulousness? trust in god? emotional skills? balanced diet basing on fish? protestant work ethic? early education in harpsichord playing?)
• is success or lack of success resulting from an innated intellectual or moral inferiority, from socio-economic and institutional reasons or from cultural and habitual influences which are passed down from one generation to the next (the influence semi-literated alcohol abusing families will have on their offspring may be a little different from the influence whealthy academic parents would have.)
• can an individual or a minority be blamed for its failure, for its deviance, educational deficites, pauperisation, drug abuse, for the way it is, and if yes, to what extent?
• guilt is a moral legitimation to despise and to punish someone. so the next question would be how to handle social losers. is it allowed to despise and abuse them, because they're culpable, or is it inappropriate, because they're innocent victims of an injust society?

i am sure that everybody will answer these questions in another way and dependant on his emotional and moral needs. no winner will be pleased to hear that the play he won in was not fair, that he was not the fittest but only the most privileged. on the other hand no loser wants to hear that the play he lost was a fair one and that he could have done better. this longing for apology on both sides is distorting any discussion on matters like racism or in general on inequity of men.

personally i tend to think the old-fashioned Bourdieuian way. Habit, educational ambitions, mentality, properties, which have a major influence on social success, are mainly learned in childhood and youth, from parents and other relatives, teachers, peer groups and mass media. if these authorities fail in passing values and skills necessary for success, the kid will probably fail as well (i think that is causing a lot of the maori problems you've mentioned). i do not think that the innate intelligence or mentality differs depending from phenotype, gender, skin color or size of foot. i mean, even the holy iq is not a fixed property but influenced by education in early childhood, nutrition, drug abuse etc. maybe there are some epigenetic influences (that's especially for lovers of 21th century thought ;) ) but epigenetics is still in its infancy, so i do not want to speculate about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

Any evidential basis? I am not experienced in Maori matters and can't really discuss them but can you prove that the cultural and social conditions for Maori and for the others are exactly the same? I can't believe it.

---

No, I can prove they're different, not the same. The similarity is in the outcomes, not the causes.

At least you see the futility of using one group as a control for the other - it just can't happen, which is why any conclusions drawn are likely to be false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

ok, then lets deal with questions, not with answers.
a discussion on lack of social success a minority has is actually a discussion on guilt and on the ethic self-concept of modern allegedly meritocratic societies and its members.

---

What?

A discussion is no such thing. A discussion is just a discussion and has nothing to do with guilt, ethics or meritocratic societies. This sounds as though it's coming straight from a textbook, which is probably why it makes no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

it is implying the questions:

are the rules of career advancement fair ones and does equality of opportunity really exist or is it only an ideological fiction?

---

This is a red herring. Unless racism is institutionalised, individual employers will have individual rules of advancement. You're trying to draw a generalisation where none is possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

what properties a person or an ethnic minority must have to climb the social ladder? (intelligence? luck? connections? money? diligence? karma? unscrupulousness? trust in god? emotional skills? balanced diet basing on fish? protestant work ethic? early education in harpsichord playing?)

---

What social ladder?

Again, this seems like a red herring rather than a point. Where equality is legislated for, the question is irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

is success or lack of success resulting from an innated intellectual or moral inferiority, from socio-economic and institutional reasons or from cultural and habitual influences which are passed down from one generation to the next (the influence semi-literated alcohol abusing families will have on their offspring may be a little different from the influence whealthy academic parents would have.)

---

There is no such thing as innate intellectual or moral inferiority or superiority, so again, it's a question which doesn't need asking. Parental influence is another thing, but since many people escape their beginnings, it's not a valid question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

can an individual or a minority be blamed for its failure, for its deviance, educational deficites, pauperisation, drug abuse, for the way it is, and if yes, to what extent?

---

Given that people choose to exercise their choice on what they do with their lives, of course they can be held accountable. If the majority of a group chooses that same path, then yes, the group is resonsible for their own [in]action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

guilt is a moral legitimation to despise and to punish someone.

---

Not the description I'd choose to give the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

so the next question would be how to handle social losers. is it allowed to despise and abuse them, because they're culpable, or is it inappropriate, because they're innocent victims of an injust society?

---

If they are "losers" through choice, then sure, derision is fine. I have no respect for prison inmates and drug abusers, nor would anything encourage me to have empathy with them. I don't see poor life choices as anyone's fault but the chooser.

You'd need some pretty hard evidence to show that people are innocent victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

i am sure that everybody will answer these questions in another way and dependant on his emotional and moral needs.

---

I try to leave moral and emotional influences out and answer questions in accordance with logic and evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

no winner will be pleased to hear that the play he won in was not fair, that he was not the fittest but only the most privileged. on the other hand no loser wants to hear that the play he lost was a fair one and that he could have done better. this longing for apology on both sides is distorting any discussion on matters like racism or in general on inequity of men.

---

Wow, you come out with some amazingly generalised positions. Who's "longing for apology"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

personally i tend to think the old-fashioned Bourdieuian way. Habit, educational ambitions, mentality, properties, which have a major influence on social success, are mainly learned in childhood and youth, from parents and other relatives, teachers, peer groups and mass media.

---

That's all reasonable, but I'm interested that you've left out possibly the biggest one of all - genetics. Again, I note that many people outgrow their origins and change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

if these authorities fail in passing values and skills necessary for success, the kid will probably fail as well (i think that is causing a lot of the maori problems you've mentioned). i do not think that the innate intelligence or mentality differs depending from phenotype, gender, skin color or size of foot. i mean, even the holy iq is not a fixed property but influenced by education in early childhood, nutrition, drug abuse etc. maybe there are some epigenetic influences (that's especially for lovers of 21th century thought ;) ) but epigenetics is still in its infancy, so i do not want to speculate about it.

---

Which gets us back to "don't know".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Now, we'll just doubt your opinions in case you're a plant.

---

:eek: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Which gets us back to "don't know".

---

You "don't know" because you are just unwilling to use your brain. :( Well, it's your problem, not mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

A very good post Petrarch. But I have to disagree with one thing. I see nothing, nothing wrong in anything the cop did. Not a single thing. I don't know if you've read the transcripts, but there was no racial suggestion either by the dispatcher or Officer Crowley in response. However, Prof Gates went way over the line in first accusing the cop in something he didn't do and then insulting him at the top of his lungs repeatedly, even swearing at the Officer's mother. If anything Crowley was incredibly restrained in his apporach. In my book, anyone that insults a cop in the pocess of him doing his duty, then that person deserves to be arrested and his a$$ thrown in jail. The police department should never have dropped the charges. There may have been over reactions here, but the only person who was racial in their thinking and arttitude was Gates And Obama too for jumping to the conclusion that a white cop was being racist. Let me tell you, Obama has seriously lost whatever police vote he might have enjoyed, and that goes for black cops too.

---

Hi Virg.--Just to get back to your reply to my post. I'm glad that you liked most of it. As to where we disagree, to be clear, I don't believe there is evidence to suggest that the officer was being racist or that there was racial profiling going on. I also agree that it sounds like Prof. Gates was in a foul mood and the first to over react. What I disagree with is the notion that any person who shouts an insult to a cop on duty should be thrown in jail. It is not actually illegal for someone to yell at the police. Indeed, I've known police officers who talk about, and sometimes even laugh over the things people yell at them, since it’s not actually unheard of that people are upset to have to be dealing with the police. I certainly don’t think it’s right to yell at officers and do not advocate being disrespectful to the people who serve our communities so well. All the same, I think a disorderly charge has to be more than an intemperate guy who throws out a few “yo mamas” (a level of insult I doubt would merit detention if thrown out in a school yard). In this case the police had already seen the professor’s identification, knew he had commited no crime and was sitting in his own house. If they had just said nothing and driven off, the prof. would most likely have just gone back in the house and cooled off, or let off some steam on his blog or something and the whole thing would have stayed the essential non-issue it was. The reason the officer arrested the man had nothing to do with public safety or police safety. It was personal because the prof’s insults got under his skin. As a citizen, I do not think that arresting some 58 year old man because he yelled something at the police really is a great use of police or court time. I understand that the officer is only human and let his temper get the better of him in his response to what the prof. said and I certainly don’t think it’s such a terrible call that the officer needs to be reprimanded in any way or that there’s a case for false arrest. I just think it was a little stupid and that the legal grounds for arresting Gates were a bit flimsy. Was the professor personally an unjustly insulting to Officer Crawley? Yes. Was it probably a good idea for him to offer an apology man to man for flying off the handle? Absolutely. Was it action worthy of being carted off to jail? Nope. Part of the reason that people first hearing about the case, including, I would imagine, the president who has a strong legal background, were inclined to think there might be something to the charge of racism was because the charges did look pretty flimsy. As it turned out, conflicting personalities and world views rather than racism were the real issue here, but I maintain that, though the words of Prof. Gates were intemperate and a bit stupid, the actions of the police were also intemperate and a bit stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Holding views and institutionalized racism are two different things. Everyone holds views on everything, on whether you have tattoos or wear jeans with holes in it. That is relatively meaningless in the the nature of hiring and promotion. You don't live in the US, so I don't know how to persuade you. All one has to do is look at how successful all other ethnic groups, even those that people are prejudiced towards, in the US are in comparison to African Americans, and that goes for the blacks that come from the carribean and Africa.

---

I also just wanted to respond to this part of your argument. While you are right that there is a line between personal views and institutionalized racism, I think it is important to keep in mind that it is a thin and often blurred line. How do you think institutionalized racism comes about? It isn’t as though it just happens, or some evil sprite comes along and creates racist laws. It is people and their personal opinions which allow something to become institutional. When enough people agree with a certain view it becomes mainstream and, if enough people are elected into power with the same views it becomes law. I agree with you that there have been tremendous strides in terms of curbing institutionalized racism. It is not the problem it once was in our country and we have much to be proud of in that regard. I also agree with you that the problems of poor African Americans and other minorities are not exclusively attributable to race. I agree, too, that there are cases when people cry racist too readily, and that this is probably most harmful for the cause of those who are not listened to when they are crying racism in earnest. I cannot, however, agree that personal views on race do not influence our society in subtle ways (yes, for the most part I agree that hiring practices in the US are pretty fair, but do you actually think someone whose personal beliefs are that certain races are better than others isn’t just quietly selective when they are in charge of hiring?) or that ignoring and tolerating personal views that are markedly prejudiced could not potentially allow such views to have a very real effect on our society.

Which brings me to a post I must respond to…

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

Whilst it is true that that whites and other races generally do better than blacks scholastically, I have never heard it suggested that racism is the cause; the usual reason given is that they are financially disadvantaged.
I think that's wrong and that the actual reason, apart from a few obvious exceptions, is that they are temperamentally unsuited to intellectual pursuits.
I would absolutely hate to be a teacher in an inner City school where the majority of the pupils were black but, as you know, that is the unfortunate situation that some teachers find themselves in.
.

---

If you are actually suggesting that black students are “temperamentally unsuited to intellectual pursuits” then you are sadly mistaken. That is not only an intolerable but an irrational stance. Oh, but perhaps my black colleagues will be thrilled to know that they can count as one of the “few obvious exceptions?” I hardly think there’s anything more to say except that this statement is wrong.

petrarch are you actually saying it is ok to be disrespectful to the police? these people do a valuable service for society and deserve to be protected from foul-mouthed, ill-mannered people such as this prof seems to be.

no one should have to take that and in fact if you are in the uk the police can arrest you for swearing after they have told you to stop even if you are not swearing at anyone in particular. it is a public order offence.

Quote:

---

petrarch are you actually saying it is ok to be disrespectful to the police? these people do a valuable service for society and deserve to be protected from foul-mouthed, ill-mannered people such as this prof seems to be.

---

I am not saying that it is OK to be disrespectful to the police. I am saying that I do not think that in all cases it need be an arrestable offense, which is a bit different than saying that it is a behavior to be encouraged. I personally have never been anything but respectful to officers and think that other people should be too so long as the police are, in fact, conducting themselves in a professional manner (which, I'll agree it looks like Officer Crowley in the Gates case was) . I do realize that there are some instances in which it is probably in the best interest of the police to arrest someone who is behaving in a belligerent manner toward them, and clearly the disorderly conduct charge is there for a reason. I can well imagine some cases in which allowing someone to mouth off to them could directly relate in the instigation of problematic behavior and/or undermine the authority of the police in a harmful way. It is, however, in my opinion a rather gray area, with this particular case falling into the realm which sounds to me like an unnecessary arrest. However, I'll admit that I don't know the exact wording of the law, the degree to which it is open to judicial interpretation, or the facts as to how often or in what situations disorderly conduct charges are commonly carried through. I would be interested to know more about these things, since it might sway my opinion of this case some to see the larger legal context and, much more importantly, the reasoning behind such an arrest. As it is, I still don't see how the public was being served by having this man in this situation arrested and can see having the charges dropped. Indeed, though this does not appear to have been one of them, there are some cases in which arresting a person for making charges of racism (even the police report does not record the professor as having used any foul language or cursing. Most of what offended the officer were the accusations that he was racist) could be deeply problematic. What if something bad really was going down? Surely it is important for a citizen to have the right to question the motives of the police verbally?

Edit: Because I was interested in the status and use of the "disorderly conduct charge" I poked around a bit and happened upon this recent article from the Los Angeles Times which indicates that it is, as I suspected, a rather gray area law which at least some legal minds seem to think was uncalled for in this case and which appears to be the subject of debate. The article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,7956470.story

Also an op-ed piece by Maureen Dowd, the opening of which I found interesting given that she is the daughter of a police inspector and cites the Miami chief of police's views on how officers should react to such a situation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/opinion/26dowd.html

Quote:

---

no one should have to take that and in fact if you are in the uk the police can arrest you for swearing after they have told you to stop even if you are not swearing at anyone in particular. it is a public order offence.

---

Interesting. I can see how having such a law would be handy, but knowing people I have to wonder whether it is actually enforced every time such behavior occurs. ;)

Quote:

---

black students are “temperamentally unsuited to intellectual pursuits”

---

I wonder whether black litnetters - I met several from Africa here, for instance - will feel offended by the shamefully low-down turn this thread has taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

You "don't know" because you are just unwilling to use your brain. :( Well, it's your problem, not mine.

---

Aside from being somewhat abusive, your post is so far from reality that even "fantasy" is a poor description.

If you take the stance that brainpower can answer the questions, give us an example, because the best sociological brains on the planet have no idea why some people win and some people lose.

I strongly suspect that you're merely indulging in defensiveness because the facts and evidence don't support the premises you've advanced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

If you are actually suggesting that black students are “temperamentally unsuited to intellectual pursuits” then you are sadly mistaken. That is not only an intolerable but an irrational stance. Oh, but perhaps my black colleagues will be thrilled to know that they can count as one of the “few obvious exceptions?” I hardly think there’s anything more to say except that this statement is wrong.

---

Now, don't take this the wrong way, but what if it's true?

Again, I will resort to the example of Maori. Despite affirmative action by universities and government departments, graduation rates for Maori remain appallingly low. They have been passed by another racial group - Samoans - despite Samoans clearly having to overcome racism, low socio-economic status and lack of privileges.

I don't necessarily agree with Brian, but the potential that some races are suited to certain pursuits is compelling. Otherwise, how do we explain Ashkenazi Jews, whose outstanding IQs and successes in science and Nobel Prizes are factual? Given the small size of their populations, genetic mix through inbreeding should be weakening the strain, not strengthening it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImaginaryFriend

petrarch are you actually saying it is ok to be disrespectful to the police? these people do a valuable service for society and deserve to be protected from foul-mouthed, ill-mannered people such as this prof seems to be.

---

That would work fine if all cops were polite, non-confrontational and non-judgemental. Alas, their line of work precludes those traits a lot of the time, and there are plenty of cops in jail to show that they aren't necessarily knights in shining armour.

Quote:

---

Aside from being somewhat abusive, your post is so far from reality that even "fantasy" is a poor description.

If you take the stance that brainpower can answer the questions, give us an example, because the best sociological brains on the planet have no idea why some people win and some people lose.

I strongly suspect that you're merely indulging in defensiveness because the facts and evidence don't support the premises you've advanced.

---

sorry for being unfriendly but i was angry.
well, i certainly will not spend my time for argueing with someone whom i suspect being a wannabe top dog and who is not willing to respect (i do not mean agree with) my point of view. that would serve no purpose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I don't necessarily agree with Brian, but the potential that some races are suited to certain pursuits is compelling. Otherwise, how do we explain Ashkenazi Jews, whose outstanding IQs and successes in science and Nobel Prizes are factual?

---

The G-d you don't believe in made us that way! J/K :angel:

(there's a smiley face you don't believe in either).

On a more serious note, I still think culture (read: nurture) plays a major role in all this. In Jewish communities you're constantly encouraged by family and the larger community to either pursue law, accounting, banking, medicine, or higher education. I am still not convinced Jews are genetically predisposed to be smarter than everyone else, except for me of course. :goof:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

I wonder whether black litnetters - I met several from Africa here, for instance - will feel offended by the shamefully low-down turn this thread has taken.

---

I don't know how old you are but I have noticed that you live in East Germany. Therefore, it is quite possible that you have received a communist education, which runs contrary to the western experience.

W a r n i n g

Posts containing personal comments will be deleted without further notice.

Please discuss the topic, not each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

Which brings me to a post I must respond to…

If you are actually suggesting that black students are “temperamentally unsuited to intellectual pursuits” then you are sadly mistaken. That is not only an intolerable but an irrational stance. Oh, but perhaps my black colleagues will be thrilled to know that they can count as one of the “few obvious exceptions?” I hardly think there’s anything more to say except that this statement is wrong.

---

The whole purpose of this, or any other forum, is that members can agree to disagree and we must each form our opinions on the basis of our own experiences rather than be conditioned by those of others, which may be different to our own.

Quote:

---

Now, don't take this the wrong way, but what if it's true?

Again, I will resort to the example of Maori. Despite affirmative action by universities and government departments, graduation rates for Maori remain appallingly low. They have been passed by another racial group - Samoans - despite Samoans clearly having to overcome racism, low socio-economic status and lack of privileges.

I don't necessarily agree with Brian, but the potential that some races are suited to certain pursuits is compelling. Otherwise, how do we explain Ashkenazi Jews, whose outstanding IQs and successes in science and Nobel Prizes are factual? Given the small size of their populations, genetic mix through inbreeding should be weakening the strain, not strengthening it.

---

There are very few absolute statements that I would make without feeling that there was some justice for an alternate point of view. Saying that a person's race has nothing to do with their intelligence or other moral or intellectual traits is one of those few statements that I will say and will continue to say absolutely. As Drkshadow has pointed out, there are many possible factors such as a difference in cultural attitudes and upbringing that could and do influence differences in success that appear to be linked to race. I don't know much about the Maori, but I know that people sometimes make similar statements regarding the academic success of Asian Americans versus African Americans in this country, and there are indeed many cultural factors, both external and within the communities of these respective groups, that are far more likely to be the cause of a gap in performance than a difference between races.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

I don't know how old you are but I have noticed that you live in East Germany. Therefore, it is quite possible that you have received a communist education, which runs contrary to the western experience.

---

Silly me. And I thought I'd have to be black to be unsuited to intellectual pursuits. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

sorry for being unfriendly but i was angry.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

well, i certainly will not spend my time for argueing with someone whom i suspect being a wannabe top dog and who is not willing to respect (i do not mean agree with) my point of view. that would serve no purpose.

---

I find the "wannabe top dog" pretty insulting as well. So far, I have tried to deal with the subject on an evidentiary basis, and have concluded that we have "no idea".

But in the circumstances, I agree that going no further is a good idea as it seems to be stiking a personal chord with you. I'd love to know why, but c'est la vie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

The G-d you don't believe in made us that way! J/K :angel:

(there's a smiley face you don't believe in either).

On a more serious note, I still think culture (read: nurture) plays a major role in all this. In Jewish communities you're constantly encouraged by family and the larger community to either pursue law, accounting, banking, medicine, or higher education. I am still not convinced Jews are genetically predisposed to be smarter than everyone else, except for me of course. :goof:

---

You could be right, but then again, the centuries of deprivation should have meant that those traits failed if there was absolute truth in the nurture scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

Saying that a person's race has nothing to do with their intelligence or other moral or intellectual traits is one of those few statements that I will say and will continue to say absolutely. As Drkshadow has pointed out, there are many possible factors such as a difference in cultural attitudes and upbringing that could and do influence differences in success that appear to be linked to race.

---

Why do you take an absolute stand on it then? You're supported by no hard evidence and there is no more or less basis for certainty on the subject than many others. I'm sure upbringing is a major factor, but I'm equally sure it isn't the only one. We have sufficient examples of different outcomes from the same upbringing to show that it isn't just that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

I don't know much about the Maori, but I know that people sometimes make similar statements regarding the academic success of Asian Americans versus African Americans in this country, and there are indeed many cultural factors, both external and within the communities of these respective groups, that are far more likely to be the cause of a gap in performance than a difference between races.

---

Again, you could well be right, but I'm not ready to rule genes out just yet.

Quote:

---

The whole purpose of this, or any other forum, is that members can agree to disagree and we must each form our opinions on the basis of our own experiences rather than be conditioned by those of others, which may be different to our own.

---

I gather you objected to the fact that my post was worded as a statement rather than an opinion? I will rephrase: It is my opinion that any person who values tolerance toward others, wishes to see a society as free as possible from bigotry, and has spent any time at all interacting with people of different races from their own should find the statement that, due to their race, black students are “temperamentally unsuited to intellectual pursuits” a wrong statement.

Brian--In all my other interactions with you on these forums I have found you an intelligent, reasonable and well intentioned person whose opinions I may or not agree with but can, none-the-less respect. I do not intend my posts as a personal attack on you as a person but on the view that you suggested with that line. If I have in some way misunderstood the view that you were trying to convey, if there is some more nuanced thinking there than what I am following, then by all means correct me. If you are trying to say that some groups perform less well than others based on their race, then this is an opinion that I deeply believe it is very important for myself and others to speak out against. Surely you are aware of the line of thinking and action concession or silence regarding such a statement could open up? Surely you have noticed that statements like this have been made about all sorts of groups in the past and then subsequently proven untrue? I'm not sure I quite follow what you mean about being "conditioned" by another's opinion, except that, as I said above, you objected to my phrasing my response as an absolute statement rather than an opinion. I did not intend to "condition" you, but to make a public statement condemning an opinion I feel is deeply wrong. I also do not really follow what you mean about not letting another person's experience change the opinion you have formed from your own experience. If we all formed opinions based on personal experience of the world alone we would be very narrow people indeed. That said, it is possible that I do not understand the form of experience that would lead a person to make a statement such as the one I objected to and to think that's a reasonable thing to say. Perhaps you could explain why this is a view you feel the need to defend, either here or via PM?

[QUOTE=Petrarch's Love;758305]There are very few absolute statements that I would make without feeling that there was some justice for an alternate point of view. Saying that a person's race has nothing to do with their intelligence or other moral or intellectual traits is one of those few statements that I will say and will continue to say absolutely.

Which you are perfectly free to do so, except that it doesn't invalidate beliefs held to the contrary by others whose experience may be different to your own.

Here are a few thoughts about how we might find reason for believing that racism is still negatively impacting minoritites in the U.S. and other places, despite an official end to obviously racist laws and the enactment of laws outlawing discrimination. The capital letters are just an attempt to organize this long post, sorry for the weighty or shouty appearance.

CONQUERED PEOPLES
The native populations in the U.S., Canada, and (well, i did 10 minutes of Wikipedia research) New Zealand have suffered similar fates in many ways. They all have higher than average rates of suicide, alcoholism, unemployment, and child/spouse abuse. They all have lost land to the colonizing people. They all have, to certain extents, had their cultures and languages devalued and discouraged. I think it would be fair to say that there is a certain "demoralization" involved in having one's land occupied by foreigners, and seeing one's culture fade in significance. I think that this sort of demoralizing history and a sort-of cultural confusion (at best) probably accounts for the similar outcomes, moreso than any genetic link between the groups.
NOTE: I'm using the word "demoralization" strictly in the sense that the word "morale" is used other more conventional contexts, such as in a military unit. I mean it as a substitute for the not-quite-right-word "humiliation."

I also saw Samoans mentioned in this discussion (in comparison to the Maori), but they are different from the others discussed above in that they are the majority population on their home islands. I haven't looked into the case of the Australian Aborigines. If anyone can add anything regarding that case, or any others, I think it'd be interesting to hear.


THE LEGACY OF INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM
It wasn't until 1965 that African-Americans were protected from discriminating voting policies (such as literacy tests coupled with grandfather clauses allowing white illiterates to vote, as well as inconvenient polling times/locations, etc) and other Jim Crow laws that allowed separation of races at various facilities (schools, bathrooms, restaurants, etc.). Only a few generations (in the South, in fact; and in the North, in spirit) have lived free from those circumstances, and I think it is perfectly reasonable (as amarna pointed out) to say that they are still finding their feet.

Native Americans were cruelly (the word doesn't do it justice) herded into Reservations, mostly in deserts, often very far from the non-desert homelands of the particular tribes. The political relations between those on the reservations and the U.S. government were, of course, uneven to begin with, and can only be said to have been improved at the rate of the government's shame. Of course, for all I know the worst mistakes were made by tribal leaders. But I think the crushing poverty and hopelessness of the reservations can hardly be viewed as unrelated to the history of their removal from their lands, and their sad escape from what was, arguably, genocide by the inheritors of their land. In many ways, the unfair agreements (many long since broken) made between Native Americans and the expanding U.S. gov't are still oppressing those people.


FOR THOSE (earlier in the thread) DISCUSSING INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM
Affirmative Action Laws in the U.S. could actually be described, I think, as Institutionalized Racism practiced in order to combat previous Institutionalized (and contemporary informal) Racism (see above). It's a messy thing, but I think it was the best idea for dealing with the problem. It is what gave Barack Obama and Colin Powell and many others (professor Gates, too, I imagine, I'm not sure) the opportunity to take their place on our national stage.

Those who recoil at these policies have a good point, I think. In the end, Obama and Powell made it because of their efforts and abilities. However, at the time of those efforts, affirmative action policies opened doors that would otherwise almost certainly have been closed to them, owing to the momentum of discrimination that was, in fact, perfectly legal not many years earlier. I can tell you from experience, this makes for some uncertainty and perceived injustice in hiring, no matter how perfect and unbiased the process might be. The necessity for affirmative action could only ever recede along an uncomfortable and often suspicious course, and it's understandably difficult for everyone to agree on when it should end.

Also, on a slightly different tack: I am always surprised by it, but it seems that every year I hear some story, maybe about a golf course/club that Tiger Woods has managed to shame into ending its discriminatory membership policies, or a high school dance where the students band together to break with history and stop having separate proms for blacks and whites (a prom is the most important social dance in U.S. high schools, and I saw this news story just a year or two ago...). Old habits die hard in some communities/social circles, and I see no reason to doubt they wouldn't continue in certain workplaces--and whether one should call that "institutionalized" or not is something that people might disagree about, but I don't know if the semantics are as important as the situation itself.



I am an American, and (upon reflection) I am pleased to say that, I have worked for White, African-American, Asian, and Latino managers. I have also managed members of those races, as well as an Arab. And I've worked alongside immigrants from a wide variety of countries.

I have also seen instances of conflict based entirely on race, among employers, employees, and customers. However, I see progress happening, and my overall experience is strongly-colored by the amazingly rewarding feeling I've gotten when individuals (in particular, strangers) from different ends of these ugly issues are able to recognize that they have managed to rise above, and smile at each other--mission accomplished! Well, not quite. But still :)

As contrary as my thinking may be on this subject, and yes, I have tortured myself over it long before any incidents make themselves topics of international discussions, I would be very wary about making any generalized statements about human intelligence on the basis of broad physical (or genetic) traits, or even in contextualized circumstances: I might be able to wade through Petrarch's dissertation with more verbal acuity than a drug dealer working Huntington Ave--but put me on that corner five minutes before a turf dispute, and then ask who has the better survival capacity--the stout middle aged and half cocked disabled woman, or the dealer?

Intelligence in and of itself is a dicey metric, and it gets explosive with the social fiction of race thrown into it.

Well-said Jozanny. Sometimes grammar, standardized tests, etc. count for nothing. And it'd be natural for the child of that drug dealer (or their customer's child) to develop similar skills.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

Here are a few thoughts about how we might find reason for believing that racism is still negatively impacting minoritites in the U.S. and other places, despite an official end to obviously racist laws and the enactment of laws outlawing discrimination. The capital letters are just an attempt to organize this long post, sorry for the weighty or shouty appearance.

---

Good post, cogent points. You might even be right!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billl

I also saw Samoans mentioned in this discussion (in comparison to the Maori), but they are different from the others discussed above in that they are the majority population on their home islands. I haven't looked into the case of the Australian Aborigines. If anyone can add anything regarding that case, or any others, I think it'd be interesting to hear.

---

I should have clarified with Samoans; I was being NZ-centric.

More Samoans live in Auckland than Samoa. They were brought out here as low-income workers during the 1960s and '70s as NZ underwent a boom and there weren't enough people to do the menial tasks. They started from well behind the 8-ball, but have passed [vastly more privileged] Maori in graduation rates and other social indicators. Samoa itself is a horrible mess - although still delightful place - beset by all sorts of political intrigue, as are many Polynesian islands. Note, the Samoa I refer to is Western Samoa, not that place which is still an American protectorate.

As to Aussie Aboriginals, they have easily faced the worst racism, having been shot on sight within the last century - without penalty - and have only had Australian citizenship since the 1960s, even though they'd been in Australia for about 30 or 40 centuries prior to the white man's arrival.

You want true horror stories? Apart from the number of dead, what happened the Aboriginals makes the Holocaust look tame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

As contrary as my thinking may be on this subject, and yes, I have tortured myself over it long before any incidents make themselves topics of international discussions, I would be very wary about making any generalized statements about human intelligence on the basis of broad physical (or genetic) traits, or even in contextualized circumstances: ...

Intelligence in and of itself is a dicey metric, and it gets explosive with the social fiction of race thrown into it.

---

Being a science nut, the idea of genetics really does strike a chord with me. Geneticists will point to the human genome and say that it's impossible to tell one "race" from another by typing DNA, and they generally refuse to acknowledge that race actually exists outside of culture/human construct.

Yet, we know for certain that some races have genetic traits - mainly weaknesses - which apply only to that race of people. Given that some of these things - Bright's Disease for instance, the Samoans again! - are not connected to socio-economic status, nutrition or location, I find it hard to accept.

(In your scenario, I'll have $5 on the dealer!)

:)

Thanks for the response tA, especially the Australia insights.

F i n a l W a r n i n g

Posts containing personal comments will be deleted without further notice.

Such posts will lead temporary or permanent thread closure.

Please discuss the topic, not each other.

Please discuss the topic, not each other.

with pleasure.

I am southeast Asian. A few years ago I went from London to Los Angeles, California on a British Airways flight. When I got into the terminal at LAX (just before arriving at Immigration) there was a man there in some sort of military uniform who pointed his finger at me and said, "You! Come over here!"
Before acquiescing I just had time to look about me in order to ascertain that it was indeed me that he was calling at and I noticed that I was the only Asian in that small wave of passengers making our way through that airport corridor, all the others were Caucasian-looking. I went up to the fellow, he checked my passport and then let me go.
So now my question is, why did he zero in on me? Did my race play a role in his decision to check?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

Silly me. And I thought I'd have to be black to be unsuited to intellectual pursuits. ;)

---

Please don't misquote me. I did not say "unsuited to intellectual pursuits" I said "temperamentally unsuited to intellectual pursuits." Of course, it would be ridiculous to say that blacks cannot be educated, but the experience in this country is that, despite receiving the same schooling as other races, they consistently fail to achieve the same or even similar results. In my view, to blame this on poverty when they are in receipt of the same welfare provisions as others is obviously erroneous. If people, regardless of race, can't be bothered or don't want to learn, there is no way they can be forced to.

here is an abstract on epigenetic discordance (=environmental influences switching genes on and off) in X chromosome inactivation pattern of monozygotic (=genetically identical) twins. if some more evidence is needed in discussing the genes-or-environment-problem, it may be quite useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

here Here is an abstract on epigenetic discordance (=environmental influences switching genes on and off) in X chromosome inactivation pattern of monozygotic (=genetically identical) twins. if some more evidence is needed in discussing the genes-or-environment-problem, it may be quite useful.

---

I haven't the time to do other than peremptorily read the abstract but, although there may well be something in what it says, the introduction of genetics into a discussion of racial attitudes usually results in a complete refusal of liberals to allow it, let alone discuss it. There have been several well-known instances in the UK where very quallified practitioners in the field have been literally shouted down in order to prevent them from speaking at academic meetings held on the subject. Personally, I am in favour of any research which helps us to understand the issue but I suspect that opponents are fearful that genetic differences might prove to be the answer, thus destroying their preconceived ideas that poverty, environment etc. are the cause of racial differences and associated problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

Personally, I am in favour of any research which helps us to understand the issue but I suspect that opponents are fearful that genetic differences might prove to be the answer, thus destroying their preconceived ideas that poverty, environment etc. are the cause of racial differences and associated problems.

---

This is a very good point.

I have a record of several recent instances where science has provided genetic proofs of matters on race which were held to be politically inexpedient and therefore buried faster than a dead dog in Jamaica. In each case, the newspaper reports were removed from the websites and if I didn't have the original hard copies, it would be impossible to prove the existence of the studies.

Well Brian Bean maybe you should explain your reasons for believing in something which seems so vile to most of us. You cant just say that then walk away, it almost seems like you are trying to "stir" things.

Do you have any facts to back it up?
And why would communism have any affect on this?
Are you trying to say that the west is more racist or that black people in communist countries learn better than western counterparts? If so then that would be cultural and not down to blacks being inferior as you seem to be implying.

And according to those beliefs you seem to have does that mean white people are inferior to asian and arab peoples as they perform better?

Hi Petrarch i have finally got around to reading those articles and thank you they were very interesting :)

I would say that maybe the reasons for disorderly conduct laws are to protect the majority of citizens from the few malcontents out there and to teach these people a lesson. Unfortunately by what i read in the second article it looks like gates is one of those people who never learn (seriously, is he living in fairyland? can he hear himself speak? i just wanted to reach through that article and slap him!).

The problem is this whole "free speech at any cost" nonsense that goes on in america. People have the right not to be insulted more than people have the right to be insulting. End of.

This was a case of testosterone gone mad and the prof went too far. If his house WAS burgled and his neighbour hadnt called the police he would still be complaining. Like i said way back in the thread he is lucky his neighbour cared enough to call.