Racism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImaginaryFriend

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?

---

You are quite free to find my views vile on this or any other subject, but I think you, along with a few others, have misinterpreted my meaning. I refer you to my post #204.

As for facts to back up what I said, like most other people, I have to rely on the educational pages in the press that obtains the information from the Department of Education annually.

As for communism's effect on the issue, the number of blacks in communist countries such as the former East Germany is tiny compared to other countries, such as the US and UK, so no valid comparison in relation to this thread can be made.

Richard Lynn, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at University of Ulster has discovered in the course of his work that there is a higher average IQ in East Asians than Whites, does that make Whites inferior? No, but as I have already stated,they are by temperament more likely to apply themselves to their studies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

, thus destroying their preconceived ideas that poverty, environment etc. are the cause of racial differences and associated problems.

---

An excellent opportunity to refer to up-to-date epigenetic research I already mentioned. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Why?
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.

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

---

Atheist--I can see that you are taking the empirical scientific stance, which I respect in its motives, and I recognize that you are trying to appeal to logic and to hard evidence. I respect your appeals to logic and to empiricism as a razor for truth. The problem is that we're dealing with human beings, who have, not only logic, but emotion at play, and a double edged razor can cut both ways. One issue that I have with your responses is that there is a long history of "hard science" in respect to race that has turned out to be socially/politically biased bunk. There was a time in my own country, not so long ago, when "science" and "hard facts" suggested that all black people were incapable of being the intellectual equals of white people, and that has been disproved by the fact of social change which has, slowly, allowed minorities more privileges until we see that the "logical" assumptions of my grandmother's generation are in fact patently untrue in my own generation. This has happened elsewhere in the world as well, and for other groups of people. You look at some 19th century "science" and it claims to have "hard facts" that support the claim that women as a group are frail and basically unfit for higher level intellectual activity. Certainly there were Nazi scientists who managed to convince intelligent and apparently logical people of all sorts of things. There may even have been partial truths about differences between the sexes and the races mixed in there, but the product that emerged was a lie.

I do not mean by this that I don't have a lot of respect for the scientific method and the use of hard facts as a very valuable tools, and tools I often use and trust myself, or that I don't think that it isn't important to use logic in order to come to conclusions, I mean that even apparently empirical and supposedly logical evidence needs to be treated with a healthy degree of skepticism. In the case of scientific discoveries supporting racism, the amount of claims that have been made on the part of science and then subsequently proven wrong by the fact that the very groups who were supposedly incapable of succeeding according to these studies are now perfectly successful are so great that I think it is only logical to have a very healthy degree of skepticism regarding such discoveries when it comes to racism.

This said, I think I should express a bit more clearly where the "absolute" quality of my statement lies. I was in some haste yesterday in my reply to you and so did not go into detail as to the grounds of my objections or really address the potential merits of what I gather your stance to be. I do see the logic of your point that certain races are genetically more prone to certain physical traits, such as sickle cell anemia in dark skinned people, and I will even recognize the possibility that there may in fact be certain slight differences in genetic makeup between different groups of people, though not necessarily races: it is a very different thing to say that a group of people from a certain area of the world tend to have a trait than to say that all people of their skin colour have that trait. Thinking in terms of race and skin color may not actually be the most helpful way to approach this topic.

This discussion reminded me of this series of articles, written by William Saletan in Slate magazine a few years back:

http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/

I've just tracked it down online and re-read it because I remembered being struck with his effort to remain logical and unbiased in assessing the different possibilities regarding science and racism, and also with his clear expression, in the third installment that suggest ways that, even it were true that there are different average IQ's among the races, it would not necessarily mean that we can make judgments about individuals based on race, make generalizations about racial groups, or that some sub groups within a race don't follow the pattern of the racial group as a whole. The possibilities he suggests of different kinds of intelligence and skills attributable to different groups of people is an idea that I am at least open to entertaining, that I will not make an absolute statement about (as I said, I am really not someone prone to absolute statements). I am still not convinced that I agree with the idea that there is such a genetically predisposed difference, but it is one that I am willing to entertain on a certain level, to assess as evidence is provided and with certain social understandings about interpretation of data well in place. Saletan seems to be on the fence in a lot of places too, indicating that there are studies that suggest environment and nutrition affect IQ etc. I'm also not convinced that IQ is the way to define a person's potential for social, economic, and spiritual and even, to a certain extent, academic success in this world...but that's another debate. Still in the context of the way he is handling the issue, it is one that I am open to thinking over on a hypothetical level as I would most intellectual ideas. I do note, however, that even an article like Saletan's, which is attempting to responsibly present a balanced view of the possibility that race affects IQ, ends with him offering an apology because he has mistakenly cited a study that looked sound and reasonable to him, but which turned out to have been sponsored by a blatantly racial supremacist group. This is where the human factor comes in and where my statement above about being highly skeptical and unusually vigorous about statements regarding science and race is, I think, justified.

Frankly, though I understand the desire to pursue scientific truth, I think this is an area in which it is not unreasonable to be extremely cautious. To begin with, the motives of both organizations and individual scientists for starting such an inquiry are in some (I do not say all) cases justifiably suspect. To end with, the interpretations of the results of even the most admirably clean and balanced study could be easily spun into erroneous social constructs and have very ugly social consequences. The problem with such studies is that people do not usually respond to them in anything like a logical way and the door is very quickly flung wide open, sometimes or even often perhaps unintentionally, to admit very problematic real world ideas. We can see this in the example of the statement that I absolutely rejected, which was that of Brian's suggesting that poor black students (with maybe a few exceptions) are temperamentally unfit for intellectual pursuits due to their race. That statement, as it stands, is generalizing and does not come across as a valid and nuanced expression of reactions to a hypothesis based on empirical scientific findings. It is also a very old chestnut that has been used many times in human history to suggest that it is impossible for a group of people to better themselves or, one very easy step further, that they are an inferior group. This sort of judgment about a group of people being temperamentally unfit for this that or the other sends a message to society that we should give up on this group and a message to the group in question to give up on themselves. It can also very rapidly lead to even more dangerous conclusions about racial superiority. Not to mention, even if one were to fully concede the hypothesis that there is some disparity in average IQ based on genetic group (which I am not yet convinced enough to do) that does not mean that many individuals in that group do not have the potential for very high performance or that those of any race who do indeed have low IQs are not in any way suited for intellectual activity. They may, in fact be highly suited for a particular type of intellectual activity but not for others. Such a statement is, I will always maintain, both morally and factually wrong.

As for inquiry into the more delicate grey area of perhaps not absolutely wrong genetic studies, there are lots of directions that we can put our energies into when it comes to genetic research, and I think that we need some very compelling reasons for the potential for positive results from such inquiries and the way to properly address such results before placing our energies in the direction of race studies rather than another because mishandling such a topic could have very real and possibly terrible effects on the lives of many people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

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.

---

Brian--I have responded rather extensively to Atheist above in a way that I hope will help to explain my objections to your initial post. I do agree with your assessment that some people, race aside, are not interested in learning, especially in their youth, and that some don't have the talents in the direction of intellectual skills. I disagree with the line that you draw with regard to race. The thing I really don't understand about the post I quote above, however, is the difference between saying that people are genetically "unsuited to intellectual pursuits" and that they are genetically "temperamentally unsuited to intellectual pursuits." Isn't the upshot either way that their genes predispose them to be bad in school? I really don't get the difference, apart from the fact that the first statement means they are dumb and the second statement means that they may or may not be dumb, but are certainly incurably lazy. The charge that a group is one or both of these things has been foundational for any number of racist groups for a long time. It is the first step toward degrading and dehumanizing a group of people as worthless. As I tried to say in an earlier post, I realize this may not be the kind of statement you meant to make, but it is the way I and many others will interpret it. Again, if I am misunderstanding, if there is some more nuanced idea that you were trying to convey, please let me know.

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: 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 http://www.online-literature.com/for...=45837disabled 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.

---

Jozanny--I think you bring up a very good point. Re-evaluating the way we judge and value different kinds of intelligence and skills could, indeed, go a long way toward more tolerance and harmony in our society. If one were to work toward an ideal world, surely part of that would be to recognize each person for the best talents that person possesses and to value those talents and the potential they have for contributing to society. Alas, as you know, we live in a rather far from ideal world and there doesn't seem to be large level system that addresses such an issue with any success (didn't someone on this thread predict that communism would come into it eventually? :p), but that's no reason our individual attitudes can't be both accepting and encouraging of the best talents in each person we encounter. I'm with you that the issue of race, society, potential for success, intelligence, status etc. all form a very complex and often vexing web...not surprising when exploring any single person can mean excavating a maze of complexity and society is nothing but a group made up of people. :) One would think each of us hade enough on our plates worrying about the flaws and graces of the individuals we know without having to try to figure out the problems with whole groups of people, but apparently not.

Bill--Thank you also for your very thoughtful and considered posts. Wanted to let you know that I read and appreciated your contribution.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Hi Imaginary Friend (didn't think I'd have call to use that phrase again post grade school :D)--First of all, as I think I posted elsewhere, I agree with you in that I think the Gates incident was not an instance of racial prejudice on the part of the officer and that it was an incident based on misunderstanding and tempers getting out of hand. As I said before, I can also see why this is a grey area and how the police might sometimes be justified in arresting a person for disorderly conduct. If I thought that every single officer on the police force was as honest as Prof. Crowley seems to be, and if I thought every incident was as free of problem as this one, and if I had the sense that the things Prof. Gates was shouting were truly disruptive and uncalled for in any case, then I might be in greater agreement with you on this issue.

However, having read the transcript of the police report available here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...092gates1.html which I presume presents the side most in favor of the officer's point of view, I am struck by the fact that Gates is not anywhere accused of using foul or unusually insulting language. The one vaguely insulting thing he says (which Gates claims he didn't say anyway, but which it is possible he could have) is "ya, I'll speak with yo mama outside" which, if you are not familiar with American vernacular, is a pretty tame, even dated, comment that I doubt would really get most people that upset, and in a lot of situations isn't even really used as an insult but a mild form of protest, or a kind of joke or game. (To give it some context, kids in the schoolyard play "yo mama" games, also known as "the dozens" where they make up hyperbolic insults--"yo mama so fat she sat down and crushed a house"--with the idea that they try to one up the other with creative and humorous insults. It's a phrase associated with a black way of talking, though I remember white kids at my school doing the "yo mama" thing sometimes too. In short, I can't imagine anyone finding it that offensive). Apart from this phrase, the vast majority of what Gates is accused of shouting is that the officer is being racist; that he wants the officer's name and badge number; that the officer doesn't realize how important he is. The last of these is an egotistical failing, but hardly so lewd or insulting (or unusual in police work, I would assume) that it merits arrest. As for accusing the officer of being racist and demanding his name, I can certainly understand how Officer Crowley could find that insulting and get angry about it, but I think is absolutely essential to protect the rights of all people to make such claims. If a cop can arrest anyone just for saying (or shouting, most people don't make claims of injustice, valid or not, in a quiet fashion) that the police are behaving in an unjust or prejudiced manner, then we're opening ourselves up to some scary potential for abuse of power. It is not unreasonable to suppose this might happen. It was not very long ago (within the living memory of Professor Gates and of my parents and grandparents) that in areas of the United States the police were treating black people differently, were both driven by and used as the tools of racial segregation and prejudice. The dramatic images of police letting lose power hoses and dogs on peaceful protesters in the south during the civil rights movement symbolize and indicate a very deeply problematic attitude of some (I am sure not all) police toward black people, and part of the problem was that no one could question the judgment of the police in making arrests that, I am sure were sometimes justified but sometimes not.

We have come a long way since that time, and I do think that the majority of our societal attitudes and those of the police are not tainted with this kind of prejudice. However, in order to maintain this level of justice it is important that the right to verbally question the motives of the police remains intact. This is important, not just for the people who perceive prejudice against themselves, but for the many officers who are upright and doing an honest job because it keeps everything above board and free from the possible taint or appearance of covering something up. In the Gates case it turned out that the accusations of racism were baseless and mistaken, but if someone were making such accusations in a situation where they were well founded then I would not want there to be precedent wide open to not only conveniently shut that person up but to make the police seem perfectly justified in doing so. As a citizen, I'm far less concerned about being protected from an old man who makes some mistaken accusations in a fit of temper than I am about being protected from being unable to shout out about an injustice should I ever find myself the victim of one.

Edit: A little article I came across that I thought was an interesting historical reflection on this case in regard to the opening example he cites of a different case of mistaken assumptions about the motives of the police:

http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=78&aid=167612

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

One issue that I have with your responses is that there is a long history of "hard science" in respect to race that has turned out to be socially/politically biased bunk. There was a time in my own country, not so long ago, when "science" and "hard facts" suggested that all black people were incapable of being the intellectual equals of white people, and that has been disproved by the fact of social change which has, slowly, allowed minorities more privileges until we see that the "logical" assumptions of my grandmother's generation are in fact patently untrue in my own generation.

---

I guess it all depends on how you qualify the science.

To me, unless it's peer-reviewed and published, it's not science, as any number of pseudoscientists will show you. I think you're confusing the two as the examples you give don't conform to that. What you describe are theories advanced by scientists which have later been shown to be wrong.

A classic example is Darwin's contention that Turks were somehow less evolved than white people - it's simple racism disguised as fact. Naive racism, but racism nonetheless. That's why it's important to separate the fact from the fallacy, which is bloody difficult.

You even note that here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

I mean that even apparently empirical and supposedly logical evidence needs to be treated with a healthy degree of skepticism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

....it is a very different thing to say that a group of people from a certain area of the world tend to have a trait than to say that all people of their skin colour have that trait. Thinking in terms of race and skin color may not actually be the most helpful way to approach this topic.

---

Yep, that's a good point. Maybe we need a new terminology? We could get quite Orwellian about that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

... even it were true that there are different average IQ's among the races, it would not necessarily mean that we can make judgments about individuals based on race, make generalizations about racial groups, or that some sub groups within a race don't follow the pattern of the racial group as a whole.

---

As far as IQ goes, I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that all we know is that some people are better at doing IQ tests than others.

However, while we can't make judgemental calls on either individuals or cultures from the results of scientific enquiry, we can (and do) make statements that certain races/cultures are more likely to display a trait than another race.

There's an interesting contrast between sociology and medicine when it comes to race - sociology is ****-scared of making conclusions, while medicine does so because of the clear evidence that certain racial types are susceptible to certain diseases and medical weaknesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

The possibilities he suggests of different kinds of intelligence and skills attributable to different groups of people is an idea that I am at least open to entertaining, that I will not make an absolute statement about (as I said, I am really not someone prone to absolute statements).

---

Fully agree.

I doubt we'll ever be able to make definitive statements, but it shouldn't stop us looking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

To begin with, the motives of both organizations and individual scientists for starting such an inquiry are in some (I do not say all) cases justifiably suspect.

---

yes, and it's not as though there's much evidence to show that science has been perverted throughout history to give the desired results. I think we've Godwinned this thread already, haven't we?

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

This sort of judgment about a group of people being temperamentally unfit for this that or the other sends a message to society that we should give up on this group and a message to the group in question to give up on themselves.

---

It's the thinking which carried Apartheid in South Africa for decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

As for inquiry into the more delicate grey area of perhaps not absolutely wrong genetic studies, there are lots of directions that we can put our energies into when it comes to genetic research, and I think that we need some very compelling reasons for the potential for positive results from such inquiries and the way to properly address such results before placing our energies in the direction of race studies rather than another because mishandling such a topic could have very real and possibly terrible effects on the lives of many people.

---

Well put.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

Brian--I have responded rather extensively to Atheist above in a way that I hope will help to explain my objections to your initial post. I do agree with your assessment that some people, race aside, are not interested in learning, especially in their youth, and that some don't have the talents in the direction of intellectual skills. I disagree with the line that you draw with regard to race. The thing I really don't understand about the post I quote above, however, is the difference between saying that people are genetically "unsuited to intellectual pursuits" and that they are genetically "temperamentally unsuited to intellectual pursuits." Isn't the upshot either way that their genes predispose them to be bad in school? I really don't get the difference, apart from the fact that the first statement means they are dumb and the second statement means that they may or may not be dumb, but are certainly incurably lazy. ]

---

I must again refer to my post #204. If nobody is able to adequately explain the disparity, we must all draw our own conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

I must again refer to my post #204. If nobody is able to adequately explain the disparity, we must all draw our own conclusions.

---

Yeah, why to bother with epigenetic research explaining disparity. Uh, oh, it's so complicated and boring. Silly egghead stuff.

:brickwall

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

Yeah, why to bother with epigenetic research explaining disparity. Uh, oh, it's so complicated and boring. Silly egghead stuff.

:brickwall

---

I have already said the there may be something in it, but the idea that genetic changes take place because of environmental factors remains unproven. Especially as the example of the identical twins used in your abstract was taken from a very small sample. No doubt the research will continue but until it produces more conclusive results,it will not alter many people's opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

As for facts to back up what I said, like most other people, I have to rely on the educational pages in the press that obtains the information from the Department of Education annually.

---

Ah - the statistics. Surely you don't set any store by those?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

As I have had cause to mention on these forums before, Disraeli's statement that there are lies,damned lies and statistics needs to be born in mind.... I prefer to believe what my own eyes tell me and will continue to do so.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

Ah - the statistics. Surely you don't set any store by those?

---

Unfortunately, in relation to the figures concerned it is a question of 'faute de mieux' and, yes, I wouldn't mind betting that they have had a good polishing before being presented to the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

Unfortunately, in relation to the figures concerned it is a question of 'faute de mieux' and, yes, I wouldn't mind betting that they have had a good polishing before being presented to the public.

---

And, of course, these statistics broadly support your argument, so you allow them (even faute de mieux) whereas those I cited contradicted your argument, so you dismissed them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

but the idea that genetic changes take place because of environmental factors

---

You didn't get anything, did you? Good heavens, there is no such an idea. These changes are NOT genetic. The sleight you didn't get is that genes remain the same but are switched on and off by environmental influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkBastable

And, of course, these statistics broadly support your argument, so you allow them (even faute de mieux) whereas those I cited contradicted your argument, so you dismissed them.

---

Allowing for the kind of hyperbole that government departments practice when showing how they have performed each year, I do accept that the Education Department's figures have a certain validity.
However, I will continue to dismiss figures regarding race, whether from the Office of National Statistics or any other govenment agency when figures for the numbers of various races that are shown to be currently living in the UK do not allow for the huge number of illegal immigrants who are already here and those queuing up at Calais and elsewhere in Europe to come here. Clearly, those are the kind of statistics that give ample credence to Disraeli's dictum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amarna

You didn't get anything, did you? Good heavens, there is no such an idea. These changes are NOT genetic. The sleight you didn't get is that genes remain the same but are switched on and off by environmental influence.

---

Are you saying that there is not a change taking place when genes are either
being switched on or off ?

Just struck me this morning. Here we are politely [most of the time] talking about racism and the basis for race.

Seems all a bit pointless in the face of actual racism.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10589251

Whoa, I've been away and this conversation has taken a turn. I want to make it clear that in no way am I saying that any ethnicity or race is genetically predisposed to be better or worse than any other. I am not supporting anyone making that claim, nor do I endorse it, nor do I want to be associated with it. I do not believe it.

But I do want to respond to Darkshadow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

It's not obvious at all what my viewpoints are from the post, actually. If you read the quote in context that you’re responding to, I was merely pointing out the contradictions of YOUR assertions. I said nothing about my views concerning the relationship between poverty and race.

---

Yes you did. Yes you absolutely made that equation. Here’s your post from post #80:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

So the last 40 years have been nothing but prosperity and moving on up for blacks, but at the same time they are plagued by poverty, unmarried mothers, valuing the wrong aspects of culture, low graduation rates, etc.? You try to square these contradiction away by pinning this on a sub-group within the larger community that makes up the black population of America…

---

That is exactly your equation: blacks are poor because of racism. There is no other way to interpret your language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

You’re the one that implied in the last forty years racism hasn’t prevented African Americans from prospering back in post # 49:
“Their claim that racism has held them back, while once true, just doesn't square with the facts of the last forty years.”

---

I am saying it. Racism has not prevented them from rising out of poverty. It is their list of social dysfunctionalities that has prevented them from getting out of poverty. What do you think I’ve been saying?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

While simultaneously arguing that they are plagued by issues of poverty and education, despite all this so-called evidence that nothing is holding them back:

“I believe the race consciousness will end when African-Americans break out of the problems that have plagued them and do not have the high crime rates, go on to high college graduation rates, and are prosperous.”

---

What in God’s name have I been saying? I’ve been saying that their poverty is a result of high crimes rates, school drop rates, unwed motherhood, and a host of dysfunctional behavior. Race consciousness is not the cause of their poverty but race consciousness perpetuates a mentality that the problem is racism when in reality it is their dysfunctional behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

In other words, I never said anything about my own viewpoint. I simply noted that there is something contradictory in implying that the last forty years have shown racism hasn't held African Americans back, but then also claiming huge issues of poverty plague African American communities.

---

Of course you have. I’ve already pointed it out and it’s all over. But feel free to re-evaluate your position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

It’s your responsibility to provide actual references/statistics with citations. Burden of proof is on you.

---

Well, I don’t have access to them. If you live in New York City, and you go to school and work with both groups, you would notice the difference. I got my engineering degree at the City College of the City University system in NYC. That school is right in the middle of Harlem, the very center of black culture in the US. Here was a college for engineering right in the center of Harlem and do you think I had any African Americans in my classes? There was remarkably none. The only blacks in mechanical engineering were from the Caribbean. Period. I can’t vouch for the other departments but it was astonishing and noticeable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

I did show you. I provided two links highlighting examples of institutional racism (one in a country club, the other in the publishing industry) that also serve as evidence supporting the existence of institutional racism. Ironically and unsurprisingly you failed to place them in your quoted material from my post, which makes me think you're being a tad disingenuous.

---

The country club example is hardly an example of institutionalized racism. If that story is correct (and frankly I’m skeptical) and that club was open to the public, then those people that were turned away have legal recourse. That’s why it’s not institutionalized racism, because the institutions provide legal ramifications.

As to the publishing industry example, big deal. You expect me to believe that the publishing industry is inherently racist? People in the publishing industry are as liberal as they come. Obviously they made a marketing decision to try to appeal to the broadest possible market. Sure the world is not perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I can point out all the Equal Opportunity laws, the EEO's in every company that ensures blacks get equal consideration for promotions and hiring, all the law suits that have gone on in the past forty years to ensure this is enforced, the afirmative action that goes on in hiring and college entrences. Today we have a black president, the biggest media star is Opra (and media is a genre that requires visual idnetification), the biggest musical star is Michael Jackson, and there are black CEO at a number of companies. That's on my side of the ledger, what's on yours?

---

Well, for starters the incidents that I linked to that you disingenuously failed to quote are on my "side."

---

If that’s what you got, that’s hardly much. One is clearly not an example of institutionalized racism, and the other pretty singular and specific to certain micro-demographic concerns. I can turn around and say why are 90% of the basketball players in the NBA black? Isn’t that racism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Secondly, you’re naming a few select individuals, which at best proves only that a few select individuals have managed to transcend the limitations of racism. Not to mention all these individuals have claimed to experience racism at one point or another in their life (rightly or wrongly), and would agree that institutional racism exists (such as racial profiling), despite their own success (see Obama's comments in the Gates case).

---

Not at all. Those people I mentioned are examples where white people either have to vote for them, watch and identify with them, or purchase their music. Those examples show that white people are not racist. How many racists do you actually know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

However, I don’t see race and poverty as necessarily the same thing; ironically, contradicting your strawman claim that I held such a view. The African American Middle-class experiences institutional racism, which has nothing to do with poverty. Likewise, just because institutional racism exists doesn't mean blacks and other racial groups aren't at all responsible for some of their own issues.

---

That’s not what you said before. But I’m glad you agree now. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Oh sure, there are laws addressing these problems. Sometimes they work when they are enforced. Sometimes they don’t; when they are not enforced. And it is always difficult to enforce laws legislating racism, hate-crimes, discrimination, etc. because it's difficult to fully get into a person's head and truly know what caused them to perform a specific action. They were instituted because we have a race-problem, which is inherent in the fact that such laws are needed in the first place. This tells us nothing about whether these laws have successfully ramified racial discrimination one way or the other; it tells us only that attempts have been made to fix the problem.

---

Between me and you, I bet I’m the only one that has interviewed people to be hired, hired people including a black person, and had promoted people including a black person. I bet you don’t have a clue as to what the EEO and affirmative action rules are and how they are enforced and appraised. Managers actually get points on their records for having diversity. My division is about 150 people and in the entire division there are three black engineers and one black secretary. That’s it. We would love to hire more black engineers. There aren’t that many with engineering degrees. And out of the three, one is Caribbean and the one I hired and promoted is half Caribbean. In our division we have an incredible diversity. So many immigrants become engineers. We have Muslims, Egyptians, Vietnamese, Chinese, Indians, Pakistani, Greeks, Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and other Hispanics, as well as the more traditional ethnic groups. We would love hire black Americans. The problem is they don’t qualify. If we were racist why do we hire all those other people, and foreign born at that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

However, fixing one problem doesn’t fix all the problems. If a person were to announce, “It is wrong to stereotype Jews as cheap money-horders, but I understand why some people can’t stand looking at them since most of them are really ugly.” It is perfectly possible and reasonable to denounce one stereotype, while reifying another. Secondly, the example is more personal racism than institutional. You acknowledge that personal racism exists, so why is it so hard to believe that some institutional racism still lingers in our society? Basically, personal racism and institutional racism feed each other.

---

I’m not stereotyping anyone. I judge people for who they are. I didn’t stereotype the person I hired and promoted. I promoted him not because he was black, which is what he gets with all this affirmative action, but because he is a damn fine engineer. I’ve even asked him if he has any friends that would want to work with us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Indeed, poverty is an issue. But racism doesn’t begin and end with issues of poverty. There are plenty of middle-class African Americans who have experienced racism; hell, there are plenty of conservative African Americans who admit to experiencing racism. One example of institutional racism that Africans Americans of the middle-class experience is the phenomenon of “shopping while black.” They did a whole TV show depicting this situation to see how shoppers around such an incident would react (http://www.bvblackspin.com/2009/03/2...true-feelings/ ). Many middle-class African Americans can attest to experiencing this phenomenon.

---

They experience prejudice, not racism. Shopping while black is a prejudgment given the high rate of crime from African American. That doesn’t happen to Asians or Indians. That doesn’t happen to Orthodox Jews with yarmulke and attire. That happens because people have made a calculation, a human assessment. It’s not based on a thought process which says, “I want to hold blacks down.” It’s based on a human association of the dysfunctional behavior coming from a substantial segment of the black community. When blacks end this dysfunctional set of behavior then these prejudgements will go away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Your comments about business ignore the problem. People’s ideas of what are “beneficial” shifts with context and personal biases. As in the case of the publishing industry that I linked to in the previous post, which you ignored, they whitewash characters on covers to appeal to what they believe to be a white purchasing public. They are clearly doing it because they believe it will sell more books, that it will be more beneficial for them. It doesn’t make it any less racist.

---

Would it have happened to an Asian writer? Or an Indian writer? Clearly when one lives in a country with a huge differential in demographics, marketing is going to get slanted. If anything it might have helped that black writer sell more. But frankly I think it was just stupid on the part of the publishers. But I find it hard to believe that those publishers are thinking let’s keep blacks as second class by doing this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

It isn’t hard to imagine private companies in the deep south not hiring a black person because they don’t believe it would be beneficial to do so. If you have a lot of “personally racist” customers you don’t want to scare business away after all and offend them. Generally any job applicant pool has multiple people that are qualified. It isn't hard to hire a white dude who is equally qualified.

---

Well, that’s just pure speculation. Here click through here and look through several of the links: http://www.blackentrepreneurprofile.com/. You’ll find how many blacks are making it through the executive levels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Your faith in people's desire for profit over their aptitude for prejudice and bigotry is naive, and I say that as someone who mostly supports Capitalism, and thinks that, yes, people are often greedy. If people necessarily cared more about profit than arbitrary differences, there wouldn't be a need for most of the wars fought (with the exception of Imperialistic ones that create additional revenue). What profit will be had from war? The fact is even if we removed "institutional racism" from the equation and talked merely about personal racism, which you accept still exists in your previous post, people make dumb personal decisions all the time because of their prejudices that affect their convenience and wallets. There are plenty of people who refuse to shop at certain stores because, "The Jews own it," or "Only Blacks shop there." There are plenty of people who would sacrifice potential business partners or money-opportunities because of personal prejudices.

---

As to the capitalism part, that’s way off topic (and no I don’t agree; hardly any wars are fought because of capitalism). Yes, there is still personal racism, but it’s really small. I live in NY and we have every ethnicity here. I know of no one who says I will not shop there because a Jew owns it. I’m sure it happens, but people will buy mostly what is of best value, what is in their interest, not to spite someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

I don’t know why you keep quoting that at everyone; it supports my arguments more than it does yours. As an upper middle-class Jew whose father has made it in America and who will probably make it in America himself once the economy gets better, I can say with certainty that anti-Semitism still exists and is a problem, completely in agreement with the Sowell quote. Anti-Semitism still exists, but so does racism. And many blacks who have made it in America, the middle-class, still face racism. Institutional racism. They didn't wait for racism to end just as Jews didn't wait for anti-Semitism to end. The irony is I'm not talking about impoverished blacks at all, and that you seem to think that I am.

---

Look, let’s get African Americans away from the dysfunctionalities. Whether you’re right or not I hope we can agree that those dysfunctionalities are more pernicious to their well being in this time in history than whatever racism may exist. It is my contention that relying on racism as a crutch creates a self defeating rationale before they even attempt it. No I disagree, there are slights, but there is no institutionalized racism either for blacks or Jews.

OK while I have been reading I have been wondering about the connections of Self fulfilling Prophecy, the so called social dysfunctionalities, racism and prejudice.
What is the difference between Prejudice and racism.
I think if this discussion is to go any further working definitions are needed.

Racism is about inferiority Nightshade, like the cop who emailed the phrase *jungle monkey* in relation to the Gates arrest, and the mayor booted him off the force, because phrases like that dehumanize.

Prejudice may involve racism, but it also involves preconceived notions, like inner city black kids are dangerous. Inner city black kids may be dangerous, but they also may just be kids being kids according to the norms they know.

SO all rascism is based on prejudice but not all prejudice is rascism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightshade

SO all rascism is based on prejudice but not all prejudice is rascism?

---

Exactly. To make judgements about someone on the basis of their race, is prejudicial and racist.

To make judgements about someone on the basis of their gender, is prejudicial but not racist.

Hi again Brian. I have a little knowledge (dangerous i know :)) of biology and genetics. The thing with identical twin girls as you may have noticed is that they rarely look as similar as identical twin boys do. This is down to having the double X chromasome.

While both girls will have the same genes for everything, they will express themselves (activate) at different times. For example, one girl may go through their childhood growth spurt before he other does. And even when they both have gone through it one of them still might be shorter as the gene was active for a shorter period of time. The timing of the genes expressing themselves can be affected by any number of environmental factors, even if the twins grow up together.

It seems odd i know but the research is there and you have to admit it does explain the differences. Hope that helped :)

I think it reinforces the fact that we are all a little bit of nature AND nurture. For example, within my family at least, when people have had the same upbringing they have all turned out with different behaviors and temperments (some very scary :)) and so it would be difficult to apply one temperment to one family never mind one race.

Anyhoo, hope i made any sense and dont sound like a blethering idiot :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImaginaryFriend

Hi again Brian. I have a little knowledge (dangerous i know :)) of biology and genetics. The thing with identical twin girls as you may have noticed is that they rarely look as similar as identical twin boys do. This is down to having the double X chromasome.

While both girls will have the same genes for everything, they will express themselves (activate) at different times. For example, one girl may go through their childhood growth spurt before he other does. And even when they both have gone through it one of them still might be shorter as the gene was active for a shorter period of time. The timing of the genes expressing themselves can be affected by any number of environmental factors, even if the twins grow up together.

It seems odd i know but the research is there and you have to admit it does explain the differences. Hope that helped :)

I think it reinforces the fact that we are all a little bit of nature AND nurture. For example, within my family at least, when people have had the same upbringing they have all turned out with different behaviors and temperments (some very scary :)) and so it would be difficult to apply one temperment to one family never mind one race.

Anyhoo, hope i made any sense and dont sound like a blethering idiot :)

---

No, I think you have explained it well enough. The abstract given by Amarna draws similar conclusions, albeit not in layman's terms. There are, however, other considerations to be made when discussing racial differences. We do not know the complete connection between genetics and human psychology but psychology must be taken into the equation when considering factors that condition human activity.
The word Epigenetic, as in the above-mentioned abstract, is applied in non biological studies also. I have given below an extract showing another of its uses and have used bold type to illustrate another possible cause of racial behaviour.

Epigenesis

Epigenesis is the philosophical/theological/esoteric idea that since the mind was given to the human being, it is the original creative impulse, epigenesis, which has been the cause of all of mankind's development.

According to spiritual evolution, humans build upon that which has already been created, but add new elements because of the activity of the spirit. Humans have the capacity, therefore, to become creative intelligences—creators. For a human to fulfill this promise, his training should allow for the exercise of originality, which distinguishes creation from imitation. When epigenesis becomes inactive, in the individual or even in a race, evolution ceases and degeneration commences.

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.
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.

---

I went to a very inner-city school (including riots, stabbings and the occassional 15yo girl arrested for murder). There was zero difference between pass and fail along racial grounds. The financial disadvantage as it manifests itself in other socio-economic areas did make the difference to success and failure however. I had just as many (if not more) white classmates fail than non-white. I find the idea that there is any racial linkage positively absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

I went to a very inner-city school (including riots, stabbings and the occassional 15yo girl arrested for murder). There was zero difference between pass and fail along racial grounds. The financial disadvantage as it manifests itself in other socio-economic areas did make the difference to success and failure however. I had just as many (if not more) white classmates fail than non-white. I find the idea that there is any racial linkage positively absurd.

---

Yes, but your experience is not borne out by the overall scenario as presented by the Education Department for the whole of the UK.
I can only repeat that, in the abscence of any conclusive reason for the disparity, we must all draw our own conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Bean

Yes, but your experience is not borne out by the overall scenario as presented by the Education Department for the whole of the UK.
I can only repeat that, in the abscence of any conclusive reason for the disparity, we must all draw our own conclusions.

---

So the situation in Glasgow (which if not still, at least within the last 5yrs contained 5 of the 10 most socially deprived areas in the entire UK) is completely different from the rest of the UK?

Another issue with the stats is that they do not do a breakdown by percentage of races living in disadvantaged areas. Of course more non-whites fail in areas of socio-economic deprivation because there are more visible minorities in those areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

No, I mean toward other rich people, like would a rich American think himself better than a slightly richer Hong Konger? does that sort of division exist, or is there a sort of mutual respect attached to everyone with money by the rich?

I have a feeling, for instance, a lot of poor people justify their lack of success in racist banter, but how would that form itself in someone who essentially has nothing to gain by being racist, and nothing truly to complain about, relative to his own status in the world? .

---

I guess you're asking whether class trumps race? I don't think it does because society and institutions are organized in ways that privilege whites. For example, when an Asian or Latino individual is promoted to a prestigious post, there is always widespread surprise. It is generally not expected that racialized individuals would excel in certain fields. This reinforces the notion that minorities are 'below' whites. Even if whites and minorities share the same socioeconomic class, the white person may still feel superior because the Hong Konger (in your example) is considered to be an anomaly, whereas he himself is considered to be the norm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

So the situation in Glasgow (which if not still, at least within the last 5yrs contained 5 of the 10 most socially deprived areas in the entire UK) is completely different from the rest of the UK?

Another issue with the stats is that they do not do a breakdown by percentage of races living in disadvantaged areas. Of course more non-whites fail in areas of socio-economic deprivation because there are more visible minorities in those areas.

---

If.as you suggest, Glasgow contained 5 of the 10 most socially deprived areas in the entire UK, it obviously is different to the rest of the country.
Even allowing for such atypical circumstances and statistical discrepancies, the result, as far as it can be determined, remains the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImaginaryFriend

OK this is my first time starting a new thread so please bear with me :)

I know that not all the facts are known about the issue with the harvard professor but the whole thing got me thinking about race relations. Are people too quick to cry 'racism'?

In this particular incident it is hard to believe the man was arrested for being black and easier to belive that he was just being rude to the cops. I live in britain and no matter who you are, if you are rude, aggressive or disorderly towards the police you get arrested.

What im asking is this
Doesnt crying 'racism' over trivial issues like this cause further strains on race relations? I would hate to see a world where police are to afraid to arrest someone because they dont share the same skin colour.

And how will we ever be able to resolve and get past racism if everytime something goes wrong for a member of a minority they blame everyone else instead of taking responsibility for their own lives?

---

In point of fact it is a very interesting thread, and I hope that people take it seriously as the world is divided between racist ideas.

The OP:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImaginaryFriend

OK this is my first time starting a new thread so please bear with me :)

I know that not all the facts are known about the issue with the harvard professor but the whole thing got me thinking about race relations. Are people too quick to cry 'racism'?

In this particular incident it is hard to believe the man was arrested for being black and easier to belive that he was just being rude to the cops. I live in britain and no matter who you are, if you are rude, aggressive or disorderly towards the police you get arrested.

What im asking is this
Doesnt crying 'racism' over trivial issues like this cause further strains on race relations? I would hate to see a world where police are to afraid to arrest someone because they dont share the same skin colour.

And how will we ever be able to resolve and get past racism if everytime something goes wrong for a member of a minority they blame everyone else instead of taking responsibility for their own lives?

---

Not sure how this discussion, according to the OP, isn't supposed to be political.

Racism runs deeper then you think but it is not always black and white.
Racism transcend skin colour age gender and beliefs. Think nazis and then thing of the Jews.
Racism can be hard to shift if everything around you is pointing the wrongs from the rights turning people into numbers and labels. Words such as miniorities ethnicities and tick boxes with labelling people into genders sexuality race and so on. All these small words play very big in the mind of an individual. It teaches the person to see people under a different light make people aware of different people from them.
Countries with different flags each usually indicate separatism and can send messages of conflicts.
All this reminds me of farmers paiting their sheep a certain colour to distinguish them from other sheep.
It is a devisive mechanism that has dire consequences and one of them is definetely racism.

Take the Olympics for example it is an individualistic driven sport. Althought it appears grand and brings people together its main focus is to race one human agaisnt another.
The flip side of the Olympics is that idnividuals are instructed to compete against each others as a mean to achieve success and gold. It is quite a harsh lonesome task because the athlete is on his/her own against the elements.
Then focus is on THREE winners only.
The question is this:
What about the rest? the ones that participated and made it possible for the THREEs to win. Without this rest winning would not materialise. In other words you cannot have winners if there are no losers.
I do think about this majority, in this case the losers, the ones that did not make to the top three ,and I wonder about how they must have felt/feel not having a say/consideration or even an acknowledgment of their presence efforts and endurance in the sports they took part in.
Olympics is quick to reward and quick to forget.
That is what I mean by individualism is that it eventually drives others to drop out.

Another thought.
Think of the word RIGHT it means something the law sets out to give out to individuals as a form of protection but agaisnt whom? one group of people against another group of people.
The idead of ''my right to do this and my right to do that'' only emphasises a type of conflict which may go against another social group which often leads to sanctions and people pursuing other people for the sake of their rights. Suing and the Law is what makes the concept of RIGHTS a bit shaky.

but then there is the same word appearing in FAR RIGHT.
It also appears as the opposite of the word LEFT.
It is a word that implies tension and resistance does it not?

That's a good point, Cacian.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Racism runs deeper then you think but it is not always black and white.
Racism transcend skin colour age gender and beliefs. Think nazis and then thing of the Jews.
Racism can be hard to shift if everything around you is pointing the wrongs from the rights turning people into numbers and labels. Words such as miniorities ethnicities and tick boxes with labelling people into genders sexuality race and so on. All these small words play very big in the mind of an individual. It teaches the person to see people under a different light make people aware of different people from them.
Countries with different flags each usually indicate separatism and can send messages fo conflcits.
All this reminds me of farmers paiting their sheep a certain colour to distinguish them from other sheep.
It is a devisive mechanism that has dire consequences and one of them is definetely racism.
Take the Olympics for example it is an individualistic driven sport. Althought it appears grand and brings people together its main focus is to race one human agaisnt another.
The flip side of the Olympics is that idnividual are instructed to against others individual as a mean to achieve success and gold. It is quite a harsh lonesome task because the athlete is one his/her own against the elements.
Then focus is on THREE winners only.
The question is this:
What about the rest the ones that participated and made it possible for the THREEs to win. Without this rest winning would not materialise. In other words you cannot have winners if there are no losers.
I do think about this majority. in this case the losers, the ones that did not make to the top three ,and I wonder about how they must have felt/feel not having a say/consideration or even an acknowledgment of their presence efforts and endurance in the sports they took part in.
Olympics is quickto reward and quick to forget.
That is what I mean by individualism is that it eventually drives others to drop out.

Another thought.
Think of the word RIGHT it means something the law sets out to give out to individuals as a form of protection but agaisnt whom? one group of people against another group of people.
The idead of ''my right to do this and my right to do that'' only emphasises a type of conflict which may go against another social group which often leads to sanctions and people pursuing other people for the sake of their rights. Suing and the Law is what makes the concept of RIGHTS a bit shaky.

but then there is the same word apperaing in FAR RIGHT.
It also appears as the opposite of the word LEFT.
It is a word that implies tension and resistance does it not?

---

Some well thought out commentary here.

I liked the part about sheep being painted different colors. That really made me think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanEagle

I guess you're asking whether class trumps race? I don't think it does because society and institutions are organized in ways that privilege whites. For example, when an Asian or Latino individual is promoted to a prestigious post, there is always widespread surprise. It is generally not expected that racialized individuals would excel in certain fields. This reinforces the notion that minorities are 'below' whites. Even if whites and minorities share the same socioeconomic class, the white person may still feel superior because the Hong Konger (in your example) is considered to be an anomaly, whereas he himself is considered to be the norm.

---

The whole Majority/Minority is not the material issue. Asians (certainly those of the Orient) are an ecomically dominant minority wherever they are-even as a minority. Lebananse - same thing. Jewish - same thing. Whites - same thing. I can given you dozens of countries and examples that I visit and know very well.

In many countries the Asians are oppressed and taxed unfairly. (Indonesia for example - they burn down Chinese commerical/private property every decade or so). And I know of their history in Indonesia.

The question is not why Certain groups are poor/disenfranchised Rather the real question is why are certain ethnic groups so successful-even with persecution(or without it) as minorities or majorites? It has everything and everything to do with their work ethic, natural intelligence, family structure and network, discipline, and application to skill that causes them to succeed.

Now, most people are going to disagree, but that's no bother. It's what people privately think and do not say that really matters. What people say at cocktail parties is hardly as important as what they are not saying.