Update II (9/10): Commenters who call anyone a racist in this comment thread — Derbyshire, other commenters, etc. — will be deleted. If you don’t see your comment, that’s why. Second offense, banned. Long time readers know I don’t allow it. It’s a conversation killer used to intimidate and an easy way to avoid challenging an argument. If you don’t know how to fomulate and articulate one, learn or leave.
——————————————————————-
Before I sign off for the weekend, I wanted to point you to an article by NRO contributor John Derbyshire, who’s probably too conservative for NRO.
In a lengthy essay titled “Race and Conservatism,” Derbyshire says that conservatives are cowards when it comes to discussing race.
After the Civil Rights movement, people who cared about racial equality thought, idealistically, that after barriers were lifted, blacks would “swiftly distribute themselves across America’s class, income, and status structure in the same proportions as their white fellow-citizens,” Derbyshire writes. That hasn’t happened and likely will never happen.
I don’t believe proportional distribution or representation is possible, given that black crime and out-of-wedlock birth rates are through the roof. These things have a negative impact on group, though not necessarily individual, advancement.
Without stable families supporting, teaching, disciplining, and loving, the road to life success for any child is very difficult to navigate, though not impossible. With obvious disregard for marrying before having babies and the apparent acceptance of out-of-control crime rates –and charges of racism and “self-hater” against anyone who expresses such facts — black as a group will never reach levels of achievement they could have reached had the promise of the Civil Rights movement carried over to subsequent generations. High moral character, strong families, hard work, educational attainment, and self-sacrifice for future generations — these are vital to any race of people.
Derbyshire covers a lot of ground but focuses on the loss of “in-group status” among whites who have “incorrect” views about race. Whites, even conservatives, tend to ostracize other whites for talking about racial differences. If true, why is it so? Is the “racist” label that traumatic? Derbyshire contends that because of this stigma, white conservatives, like white liberals, lie to themselves and pretend differences don’t exist.
Instead of challenging “liberal orthodoxy,” white conservatives say nothing or utter the same inane liberal “psychobabble” if they do discuss race, says Derbyshire. He calls this cowardice. So do I.
Derbyshire dubbed this liberal orthodoxy the Dogma of Zero Group Differences. There are statistical differences among racial groups that shouldn’t be controversial in themselves; the problem is that most people don’t think statistically. For example, when talking about IQ differences, statistically speaking, whites tend to score higher than blacks, Asians higher than whites, and so on. Someone will say, inevitably, that they know a black person who scored higher than a white person on such a test. This doesn’t negate the fact that whites tend to score higher than blacks. The liberal orthodoxy denies statistical differences when it comes to race, but recognizes such differences when the focus is not on race. Some white conservatives repeat the dogma. It’s dishonest and counterproductive.
Sadly, many charges of racism stem from stating mere facts. Why should we keep harping on race at all? Because it’s the proverbial elephant in the room. As long as differences exist between racial groups, and the more distinct racial groups there are, people will always talk about what one group is doing to or isn’t doing enough for the other. Racial conflict is part of The Fall.
Why talk about differences? Because the differences are causing the disparities usually blamed on white racism. Maybe we can improve relations among everyone if we discuss race honestly. Perhaps differences (the kind that cause academic achievement gaps or foster acceptance of out-of-wedlock pregnancy and child-rearing) that result in disproportionately negative consequences for one group can be dealt with and negative consequences lessened in some way.
Then again, maybe not.
“Race and Conservatism” is quite lengthy and once again, I ask that you read the whole thing before you comment.
Update (9/9): Here’s a sure-to-irritate write-up about the event that inspired Derbyshire’s essay.
