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.
Hey, you really need to check out this awesome article about the Casey Santorum debate.
http://pennsylvaniapolitics.blogspot.com/
Comment by Rand — 09.08.06 @ 3:26 pm
I’ll bet Andrew Sullivan went ballistic over that one–how he hates Derbyshire! But it had to be said, and I’d go even further–call me a racist!–but much of what is labeled “racism” nowadays is merely a natural and human tendency to care about oneself, one’s family, clan, culture, over others’ family, culture etc.
Is that wrong? Aren’t we better at taking care of our own needs than trying to figure out what completely different people 10,000 miles away need?
Like Derb says, it makes it impossible to talk clearly about immigration.
Comment by cassandra — 09.08.06 @ 4:57 pm
“Maybe we can improve relations among everyone if we discuss race honestly.”
Some hopes! Until those who make money off of race baiting are out of a job, we’ll never be able to do it.
Comment by ScottG — 09.08.06 @ 5:45 pm
Thanks for posting the Derbyshire article. I believe he is on to the basic truth with his DZGD (doctrine of Zero Group Differences) and his explaination of why “in-group” behavior stifles factual conservative comment on clear racial or ethnic differences.
What wasn’t well expressed in his article is the suspension of DZGD when positive differences are seen in a minority group. “Blacks are far more likely than other groups to show musical talent…Boy, Hispanics work so much harder than other Americans in farm work! Etc.” That is OK.
Nor did Derbyshire get into an exploration of WHY all through the Western world it became so pervasively unacceptable to socially comment on the negatives of a non-Christian or non-white group. It happened fast, sometime in the 50s by the educated elite, which then spread as a sort of an obligation for the less-educated to embrace the same consciousness.
Both may be tied to a misplaced egalitarianism and a conservative acceptance of “negatives only discourage the proper shift to the eventual equality between all ethnicities and races science assures us is coming.”
It may be documented in of all places, acceptance of jokes. Jews, another group that has made criticism of certain Jewish-led groups unacceptable, or unacceptable without disconnecting the group from Jews being heavily involved or dominant - made this a rule that most of the west followed after WWII. That only Jewish comics could joke about Jewish foibles…from anyone else it was anti-Semitism. But Jewish comedians were also “cleared” to make jokes about majority culture. They couldn’t joke disparagingly about blacks though - that was the provenance of black comedians. Who were also permitted to joke about majority whites, but not Jews. Whites of the majority culture were permitted to joke about whites, and also joke about blacks and Jews …but only jokes at the whites expense…the ability of blacks to kick *ss in a fight with a dopey white guy, the old joke about winning a basketball game odds based on how many blacks were on the team, and jokes about Jews only if the Jew was wiser or more ethical than the protaganist.
This pattern of “boundaries” began forming in the 50s and solidified in the 60s. Now comedy is just comedy, and others may explain other venues where “the rules” of making groups untouchable from criticism formed outside comedy being the initiation of society-wide restrictions.
But Derbyshire is right. It is very unhealthy for a society to insist on saying what most believe provately is not true. And time is coming for change. We are becoming a more multiracial society, it’s not just black and white anymore. And the challenge of Muslim Jihad means we either give them the same immunity from criticism Jews expect, or that in challenging behavior of Muslims as a group, we also say it is more American to also remove the immunity of powerful Jewish groups on both the Left and Right from criticism.
With black friends and acquaintances, this matter sometimes comes up in oddball matters, like Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s decision. Where her ruling is discussed in many angles without saying the obvious - she is an intemperate moron, until much later when polite remarks on her missing the basis of past rulings morphs into her not knowing the case law to finally everyone agreeing she probably isn’t the brightest judge…But no one leads with “she’s a moron” something that my crowd and certainly commentators would have instantly said if it had been a white judge. The other case is more interesting…a concern that Hispanics will eventually cost blacks government jobs, where particularly black females are overrepresented. General agreement between blacks and whites that such quotas would be bad, and also grudgingly, that quotas must eventually end.
My own rationale for hope also started with a black-white discussion on Hispanics - where it began with one black person commenting on lack of Hispanics getting scholarships in proportion to their race and the discussion going to “how the heck can they if 40% drop out? How can the remaining 60% deliver 100% of the excellence…and admitting the same thing applies to blacks and affirmative action just seeks to benefit a few to mask failure…and the dropouts are still screwed no matter how any college scholarships go to “survivors” with less significant credentials than others passed over.
It doesn’t really matter to the 40% left by the wayside that at the elite level blacks get the proportional number of judges or astronauts or college professorship slots. And that future fixes have to do far more to address helping that lost 40% than throwing sops of elite jobs or quotas of desirable municipal and corporate jobs not based purely on merit to a small number…that doesn’t help a smart kid who ended up as a drug dealer in jail because he wasn’t smart enough or the minority that drops out and becomes a single mother. It is that “lost” bottom part that should be the focus of more attention - not that each Space Shuttle flies a black person. On a gut level, I believe the average white or minority knows this…but discussion has been stifled by elites not concerned with the masses of lost underclass but in laws and actions meant to make certain minority elites “more elite” through focus on jobs and college slots at the top - and the creation of opportunities for reasonably well-off minority-owned business government contract and communications license set-asides, to make the small band of well-off minorities with political power become a lot more well-off.
Comment by Chris Ford — 09.08.06 @ 5:52 pm
I started my public school teaching career is a segregated (black) high school. In the late 60’s, when the segregated schools were closed, I suddenly found that we teachers were forced to accept unacceptable behavior on the basis of “black culture.”
If you fought this (whether you were black or white) you were listed by the black activists and white apologists as an integration “obstacle.” I can not begin to express how much we traditional teachers (black and white) dreaded being named in the black church meetings as “racists.”
Derbyshire is so, so right. All of us (black and white) learned to make treaties and concessions. Suddenly, black students could wear hats to cover unkempt hair. They needed to have notebooks and pencils provided. They needed to have a textbook for the classroom and one for home. They could shout in halls as an after effect of their tribal roots. It went on and on and teachers (black and white) who demanded the quality of high expectations before the massive enabling of counter-productive behavior were left to weep.
Then came the militants, the walk-outs, the race pimps and a whole side show of specialists. I learned to loathe the three words: Race Relations Study.
Black History week morphed into a month and everyone was forced to dig for material. At the same time, George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington, etc. were rejected as Uncle Tom’s in the white man’s tool box.
Social promotion was institutionalized because black noses were being counted. Special Ed and remedial reading classes were under particular scrutiny for racial balance.
In many respects, I think the scars of integration at the hands of liberals who sacrificed quality for statistics is the worst insult delivered to blacks since slavery itself.
Only now are we beginning to see a large, competent and confident black middle class. Thankfully, a lot of them hold conservative values.
My son-in-law graduated from the US Naval Academy 44th in his class. So far as race is concerned, he proposes what he calls the “50 year rule.” You get to moan over something for 50 years and then you have to drop it a move on. He often deals with a race-based grievance that finally reaches his Admiral’s desk. Pity the man who thinks he is dealing with a “brother.” There is no racial bond associated with how the complaint is adjudicated.
I only wish I had had the backbone and the support to have handled my years in the public high school classroom with the same even-handed fairness. But, I didn’t. I caved to the noisy pressures of the mob.
Derbyshire has hit a home run on this one.
Comment by Heliotrope — 09.08.06 @ 6:45 pm
I don’t think blacks need to discuss anything about race with whites. Why do I need to have a discussion with someone who implies that I am genetically inferior (which this guy goes around the world to imply). Wouldn’t a lack of cowardliness just make you come straight out and say it instead of dancing around it? And wouldn’t such honesty demand that our black conservatives also acknowledge that they possess this genetic inferiority? Maybe that is why Alan Keys resorts to loud talking and insults during debates. Maybe that is why Jesse Peterson tends to use poor English in discussions. If I have a personal problem, I don’t go to my neighbor who knows little about me, really couldn’t care less about me, and thinks that I am beneath him. I handle my own with possible support from my family. Blacks need to talk with one another. Not with whites.
How about just doing what Frederick Douglas suggested? Leave us alone. We will survive. We created Rosewood and “Black Wall street” when you left us alone before. Give us the chance to do it again, but this time, don’t attack and destroy them.
Comment by Shade — 09.08.06 @ 10:08 pm
You speak reasonable words, Shade. I agree. Talking to your own and taking care of your own business are ideal, things we should strive for. But since blacks as a group insist on blaming racism for every little disparity, support despicable policies like skin color preferences, expect entitlements based on sins against their fathers, and demand that whites account for the sins of their fathers, whites will continue to complain and discuss race, despite how you or any black person feels about.
I long for the days of leaders who had high moral character. It would be nice, but men like Frederick Douglass will never rise again.
I, too, want to be left alone. I’ve been saying it since I started this blog, but few people take it to heart.
Comment by La Shawn — 09.08.06 @ 10:12 pm
White and Black pundits don’t want to discuss race honestly because it would mean they would be shown to be without clothes.
Glenn Lourey was right but when he “left the left” the left castigated him. When he “left the right” the right castigated him.
It’s intellectually lazy, thus easy, to “think” that Blacks are lead by media appointed spokesman. It is harder to look at specifics and details, really think, to separate fact from fiction.
Polls of Blacks that I’ve seen over the past few years, show that most Blacks polled don’t believe that racism is a major issue in the Black community. I’ve never seen these polls discussed in the public media by “the right” or “the left” media.
That is telling right there.
But what do I know? Some decide to label me a “liberal” while not knowing my politics. But, that’s just a symptom
Comment by DarkStar — 09.08.06 @ 11:08 pm
How much of differences between groups would you attribute to economic differences between groups La Shawn?
Isn’t it commonly understood that poor neighborhoods have more crime, family dysfuntion, and poor education levels? I wonder if differences between poor whites and poor blacks, for example, would be that different if economic(neighborhood) sampling were used instead of race targeted sampling.
Comment by Jim R — 09.09.06 @ 12:52 am
Shade and Darkstar….wow….right on the money…
My sentiments exactly…
Comment by lukeNC — 09.09.06 @ 3:59 am
white conservatives may be cowards when comes to discussing racial (or gender) differences, but who cares? I for one, am not waiting around for white folks, liberal or conservative, to hold black folk accountable for the problems we have brought upon ourselves. We have black liberals finally bringing these issues out into the mainstream (Bill Cosby, Juan Williams, John McWhorter). And we have always had the voices of black conservatives, largely ignored by the mainstream (Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, Jesse Lee Peterson, etc.) So who cares if whites are afraid of losing their livelihood even when discussing peripheral issues of race. Remember what happened to Rush when he made an honest assessment on the abilities of Donavan McNabb? Who needs that kind of grief?
If I were white I would let black folks alone to destroy themselves completely. Will we ever learn that the problems that exist in our communities can only be solved by us (FUBU)??? peace! md
Comment by michaelD — 09.09.06 @ 7:44 am
#6.
“Wouldn’t a lack of cowardliness just make you come straight out and say it instead of dancing around it?”
I thought exactly the same, Shade. Methinks Mr Derbyshire was hung by his own petard on that score.
In short, I gather, from his convoluted, pussy-footing puffery, that:
* ‘Blacks’ is just (as a group!) dumberer/less succesful than ‘non-blacks’(sic).
* It’s something to do with Darwinism/evolution.
* To disagree that ‘blacks’ (as a group!) evolved dumberer is an *evil white liberal self-serving social pretence.*
* So there.
Comment by JohnD — 09.09.06 @ 8:14 am
Another reason …
… I totally dig La Shawn Barber. She can express my views on a matter much better than I. Case in point today: She discusses a John Derbyshire article about cowardice when talking about race. Be sure to check it…
Trackback by The COLOSSUS OF RHODEY — 09.09.06 @ 8:28 am
For additional reading on conservatives, liberals and race
Read this by John Derbyshire. Thoughts on this article from La Shawn Barber are also worth a read.
Trackback by PEER Review FL — 09.09.06 @ 9:48 am
“I don’t think blacks need to discuss anything about race with whites. Why do I need to have a discussion with someone who implies that I am genetically inferior (which this guy goes around the world to imply).â€
Actually, a “scientific†argument does not depend on the person making it but the logic, and one may want to point out the flaws in such borderline, racist arguments - but not meet such a person.
While it’s true that some feminists and liberals did overplay their hand in that everyone was a blank slate and everyone was or could be equal, Derbyshire goes on to make claims about differences with very little or disputed evidence.
Washing over the entire controversy over what IQ/intelligence tests measure, he then presents snapshot statistical evidence, and claims without evidence that 1) the differences are permanent, fixed and 2) are due to genetic, not cultural, income or other differences.
I could present similar statistical evidence that blacks can’t swim as well as whites. I would/should be laughed at if I claimed – without evidence - that there is some genetic reason for blacks not being able to swim.
For being a statistician, Derbyshire also uses extreme examples about the upper tails of distribution, fastest runners, to imply something about the total distribution, which he should know is not a valid argument – but he knows people often fall for it. The best X in the world are Y so Ys on average are better at X (not to mention the unknown cause of the difference) is not a valid argument. (it depends on a nonrepresentitive sample of the top .0001% to make claims about the entire distribution, and causes of the distribution)
Comment by UNK — 09.09.06 @ 11:52 am
Also, as a thought experiment, even if blacks are slightly less intelligent than whites (which I have seen no evidence of) I don’t think low intelligence can explain much of the problems in the black community.
It takes a controversial socialbioliogy argument to argue that many specific behaviors (crime, violence) are genetic.
Comment by UNK — 09.09.06 @ 1:42 pm
#6. Shade notes: “I don’t think blacks need to discuss anything about race with whites.”
I wish that it would be possible for that to be so. However, so many blacks have a hardened distrust of whites that turning one’s back on dialog is to perpetuate the status quo or the perception of the status quo.
It is not easy to be distrusted simply because of your skin color. In the case of whites, many blacks consider a conservative white to pine for the days of slavery and a Republican white to have a KKK outfit in the closet.
This whole “genetic deficiency” business is as phony as a nine dollar bill. No one can scientifically and/or genetically define “black” in terms of a separate race of humans, so neither can there be any scientific determinations of superiority or inferiority based on race.
Of course there is the tendency by some people to take pride in their “race” and to promote it. I suspect that to do so is not far from the biases of racism.
I find that in most of my travels throughout the world that race and ethnicity rarely comes into the discussion. I also find that when whites and blacks get together in social groups in the US that something usually creeps up that concerns race.
Race is a notable hang-up in the United States. It seems that nobody quite knows what the rules are.
I have long noted that white teachers “threw in the towel” years ago when it came to holding all students to the same standards of learning and behavior. I believe that is what Bush is referring to when he speaks of lowered expectations being a perverse form of discrimination.
I really do not see the advantage of not talking about “race” with your fellow man—-even if you see him as “white.”
I do think that breaking down a lot of black hostility will take an effort to get the ball rolling by blacks who will be trusted. At the same time, I think it is unfair to put the burden squarely on one’s shoulders simply because he is black.
Do not misunderstand me concerning the “white” responsibility. There is racial prejudice there that must be confronted.
However, (deep breath) the prejudice among many blacks and their willingness to place blame on the “whites” is almost never reported, addressed or confronted. And refusing to talk about it is a non-starter in my opinion.
Comment by Heliotrope — 09.09.06 @ 5:32 pm
It’s been nearly 50 years since the movie, “12 Angry Men,” but one condition in the movie hasn’t changed. When one of the 12 jurors (all white males, which HAS changed) starts saying the defendant is guilty because “You know what those people are like,” two jurors sit there dumbfounded and appalled. The other nine stand up and turn their backs on the man who is using a racist argument, in clear disgust at what he is saying.
So who gets noticed, and is likely to get the publicity?–the racist. And who will be lumped in too many minority minds with the one nut case? The other eleven, who now themselves become the victims of “You know what those people are like…”
Comment by Dave — 09.09.06 @ 6:49 pm
Shade said;”I don’t think blacks need to discuss anything about race with whites.”
Whites long for the day when this will be possible. But, as long as society believes that whites are somehow responsible for “fixing the scenario because they are “on the hook” for disparities, how can one realistically expect the dyanmics of the discussion to change. To me, as long as one “collective” is determined to be responsible for the achievement of another “collective,” it is not feasible to expect the conversational dynaimc to be resolved.
Comment by jan — 09.09.06 @ 7:33 pm
JLP siad; “In fact, I found it amazingly easy to get on welfare and simply live off the system. I signed up in Los Angeles and started receiving $300 a month. In addition, the system paid my rent and supplied me with food stamps, free medical coverage, and other benefits. I was making the white man pay me back for all the oppression I thought I’d been subjected to in the past. So I partied with that money, caroused with women, and lived a fairly degenerate life. I thought I had it made.”
Is this an extreme aberration or is this common???? Whether one supports or denigrates JLP is not the issue here…What is an issue is that this is easy and a way of life for many….
Comment by jan — 09.09.06 @ 8:54 pm
Extreme aberration.
Comment by DarkStar — 09.09.06 @ 9:22 pm
Are you saying that you do not know folks who game the system?
For eighteen months, I interviewed women at my neighborhood beauty shop who instructed me in the myriad ways one could game the system….from bankruptcy abuse to welfare abuse. When fraud units are able to retrieve billions from medicaid fraud alone, it is hard for me to belive that JLP is an extreme abberation….
While one may not like to acknowledge that such happens (I was reeling with shock upon my return to the US to discover the depravity of our society),…..the sad reality is that many folks will go after something for nothing.
Comment by jan — 09.09.06 @ 9:40 pm
Are you saying that you do not know folks who game the system?
No, that is not what I’m saying.
You asked if JLP’s situation was “out of the norm” for those who get on welfare. In that situation, I would say it is out of the norm for those on welfare.
Your question is different from, “Do some people on welfare ‘game the system’?”
Comment by DarkStar — 09.09.06 @ 10:23 pm
JLP simply described a scenario in which he gamed the system just like millions of others. What would make his situation unique?
Comment by jan — 09.09.06 @ 11:15 pm
JLP simply described a scenario in which he gamed the system just like millions of others. What would make his situation unique?
1. What proof do you have that it happens in the millions?
2. Of those who do “game the system,” how does it compare to those who are on the system in total?
For example, as far as welfare is concerned, pre-welfare reform, were their instances of multi-generational welfare receivers?
Yes.
Was this the majority?
No.
The average time a person was on welfare was 2 years.
Comment by DarkStar — 09.10.06 @ 1:54 pm
I spoke about “gaming the system” and did not specify TANF. The width and breadth of poverty programs in the US is enormous.
One prime example of an abuse of the system would be Katrina relief.FEMA made duplicate payments to about half of the 11,000 $2,000 debit card recipients.
Some debit cards were used for “adult entertainment, bail bond services and weapons purchase,” while the majority were used to obtain cash, leaving doubt as to how the money was actually used.
GAO’s visits to over 200 of their “case study†damaged properties in TX and LA revealed “that at least 80 of these properties were bogus – including vacant lots and nonexistent apartments.”
Using Social Security Administration data, the GAO concluded that “FEMA made millions of dollars in payments to thousands of registrants who submitted SSNs that had not been issued or belonged to deceased individuals.†In one case, 17 individuals (some with the same last name and address) used 34 different SSNs that did not belong to them and addresses that were bogus to receive over $103,000 in payments.
Another example of gaming the system:
Experts estimate that abuses of Medicaid eat up at least 10 percent of the program’s total cost nationwide—a waste of $30 billion a year.
Comment by jan — 09.10.06 @ 4:59 pm
I know of black folk who “game the system” also. I know lots of them. And lots of white folk too.
They live off of it, selling food stamps, waiting for that little check every month, and not working. They’ve been on it for over 10 years. Its a sickness. A sick entitlement mentality. You cant reason with alot of them.
Its sad that a system meant to help temporarily is being used to live off and cheat its original intentions. But, thats what us sinful humans do.
These people are personally responsible for their actions, but they should not be singled out as the only ones. Its an American sickness, not just black folk.
Look at what we are doing in Iraq, billions of dollars wasted on no-bid contracts, fraud..a few people who “work the system” making a killing. Did you see the recent reports of all the fraud in the Katrina funding?
Looking at all these CEOs who recently got busted, how many did not? Its at all levels of American society.
We like to concentrate on poor black people because its soo easy! And this is not to say they are not responsible for their own actions, THEY ARE.
Think of all the corporate welfare for decades, wealthy individuals and companies always getting unneeded subsidies…its crazy. Wasting probably trillions of dollars.
I’d love to compare the numbers in terms of dollars wasted in our welfare system compared to “corporate welfare”. But thats for another discussion….
I think more enforcement is needed to fix the system. Some people need welfare temporarily, no doubt about it. But so many do not. We need enforcement to check on who’s getting what and how they are using it.
We also need a change in mentality. People at all levels of society have this entitlement mentality.
How can we stop this?
Comment by lukeNC — 09.10.06 @ 5:06 pm
“I, too, want to be left alone…”—La Shawn
There’s an old saying:
“Subsidize or Privatize”
I don’t know who said that, but Blacks overwhelmingly have chosen to go the ’subsidize’ route and simply won’t reject all the civil service entitlement/diversity , and welfare
programs tossed at them.
White America simply won’t acknowledge that goverment institutions that herded in Black employees (example the U.S. Postal Service) to run them……are falling apart.
Yes, I’m doing some reading on our Postal System, the lack of accountability, lack of responsibilty, and general incompetence that goes on in Postal circles.
87 % of U.S. Postal Service employees are Black, and get this: their Civil-Service exams are scored completely different than Whites !!!
Incredible stuff.
And, we can’t privatize the Postal Service, because it hurts Black America!
So now we all suffer through late mail, postal incompetence, and a dying system that’s being eaten alive by email and other digital media.
While tax payers contribute ever more Postal taxes…to a broken, Black-run system.
Anyway, sorry this post is so long…
Comment by Glamchild — 09.10.06 @ 9:23 pm
87 % of U.S. Postal Service employees are Black,
And this statistic comes from?
You’re comical, DS. You’ve been making assertions for the past two days, and haven’t cited one source. - Admin
Comment by DarkStar — 09.10.06 @ 11:09 pm
And this statistic comes from?
I’m curious about this myself and any other info to support Glamchild’s diatribe.
Comment by Shade — 09.11.06 @ 12:05 pm
“Commenters who call anyone a racist in this comment thread — Derbyshire, other commenters, etc. — will be deleted. ”
I know most unmoderated discussions attract trolls, but what do they teach in “black studies” or black schools this days?
Don’t they tell you, fail you, if your only argument is “he/she is a racist.”
They should also fail you if your only argument is he/she (southern whites in the 50s) is an idiot.
I think Malcolm X and many black preachers got a free pass on diatribes since they coached their arguments in religious arguments, in addition to whites not wanting to challenge blacks.
Derbyshire’s argument should be an easy argument for an advanced high school class to point out half a dozen fallacies or unsupported claims without resorting to insults.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence should be one.
Comment by UNK — 09.11.06 @ 12:46 pm
“I know of black folk who “game the system†also. I know lots of them. And lots of white folk too. ”
My guess is that there are more blacks gaming the welfare system largely because a poor black can continue to live in the lifestyle she was accustomed to (not a very good lifestyle) while the average white person would not be able to live their lifestyle on welfare.
Feelings of the white man oweing them may also justifiy freeloading in some minds.
Comment by UNK — 09.11.06 @ 12:56 pm
“In fact, I found it amazingly easy to get on welfare and simply live off the system. I signed up in Los Angeles and started receiving $300 a month. In addition, the system paid my rent and supplied me with food stamps, free medical coverage, and other benefits. I was making the white man pay me back for all the oppression I thought I’d been subjected to in the past. So I partied with that money, caroused with women, and lived a fairly degenerate life. I thought I had it made.â€
“Is this an extreme aberration or is this common????”
Unless it’s a lesbian mom who “caroused with women” it’s not as easy, common for a single man to get welfare.
Comment by UNK — 09.11.06 @ 12:59 pm