Racism

[Saladin]

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.

[ImaginaryFriend]

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

[Jozanny]

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.

[amarna]

now.

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.

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.

[The Atheist]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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".

[Niamh]

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

[amarna]

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.

[Petrarch's Love]

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.

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…

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.

[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.

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.

[Petrarch's Love]

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

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.

[amarna]

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.

[The Atheist]

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.

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.

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.

[amarna]

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.

[Drkshadow03]

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

(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.

[Emil Miller]

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.