“So, I use the theme of people wearing black skin and you somehow get off on a philosophical, inter-galactic sarcasm romp with that.”

You mean my very direct question to regarding your statement about the Bell Curve author’s ‘race’ identifier?

It’s ok, you chose not to answer it.

The Bell Curve authors either meant the black ‘race’, or they didn’t. Such a question is no ‘romp’. My sarcasm was inexcusable and for that I apologize, but in fairness it was prompted by your dismissive and misleading statement.

To suggest, as you did, that they didn’t *literally* use the identifier ‘black skin’ (they actually use ‘black’ )is not only the beginnings of a ‘romp’ but appears dishonest. You must see that? EVen if you are not letting on?

As to your assumption that I ‘like’ to talk about ‘black and white’, well, this is a primarily racial discussion board, that is by LaShawn’s choosing not mine, but I *will* address the issues raised, and I *will* try and add to the discussion with real questions and answers.

For the record, I personally find racial politics useless, mostly dishonest, and mostly frustrating, (you will find this borne out by my posts) hence my problem with politicking purveyors of dishonest works such as the Bell Curve and The G-factor’. I feel people are way too fast and loose with their colour-generalizations, hence my question to you regarding your statement about ‘blacks’ being victims waiting for welfare.

Again, you claim my questions to be like putting a fork in Jello, yet my questions were prompted by your confusing and contradictory positions. let me make it perfectly clear without the confusing sarcasm (for which I apologize):

a. You say there is scientifically no such thing as ‘race’.

b. You defend The Bell Curve by claiming they made no broad distinction of black-white IQ’s.

c. You say that their exclusion of the word ‘skin’ proves this.

d. You claim that many ‘blacks’ are victims waiting for Government to help them.

I disagree with both ‘b’ and ‘c’ and the broad generalization/racial claims of ‘d’.

Regards,

John.

You love to talk about blacks and whites. I will play your game. I have pointed out that science can not substantiate the race classification that falls neatly into skin tones. You say you are on board with that. (Whatever! Your logic is like trying to chase Jello with a fork.)

So, I use the theme of people wearing black skin and you somehow get off on a philosophical, inter-galactic sarcasm romp with that.

Then, you leap for a non sequitur: no scientific evidence of a patriarchal God or pantheon of Gods & Goddesses either.

If you take a peep at the basic definition of “faith” you will perhaps get a small insight into why this is not germane.

If your mind is made up about the Bell Curve, then ignore me and move on. I find hitting my head on the bed post to be neither amusing nor enlightening.

You have a nice day.

That’s great, Redbeard!

But imagine where we could be if those Jews/Blacks/Gays/Whites/Rich/Poor/Disabled/Multiculturalists/Dems/Repubs/Homeless/Commies/Feminists/Europeans/Canadians/Muslims/Illegals/Conservationists/Scientists/Eco-lovers/Politicians weren’t trying to get more of their slice of the pie!!!???

I mean, my mind boggles with the wasted possibilities!

The Black Irish are not even identifiable in a superficial way, and probably don’t even exist as any sort of subset, yet the attempt to segregate them was real. Supposedly the Spanish survivors of the Armada landed in Ireland and passed on their dark-haired genes to some of the locals. Pure speculation, myth if you will, yet the concept still exists even today.

Even if there were some way of identifying a specific group of Irish who have a tendency toward dark hair, what’s the point? Talk about a complete waste of time and energy. But yet, over the last deveral hundred years, the Irish have been segregated into a number of bizarre pigeonholes. Black Irish. Bog Irish. Shanty Irish. Scotch-Irish. Plantation Irish. Not to mention religious and geographic divisions. Good grief.

This Irish microcosm, with its silly artificial divisions, seems to me to be a prime example of why racial distinctions used in a social sense are worthless in a civilized world. We’re not talking about scientific study of origins, human migration, etc., but rather of ways we have artificially divided ourselves, pitted us against ourselves.

If I look around the room at my next family reunion, I’ll see faces from translucent library paste white to the color of walnuts. I’ll see big noses and small noses. I’ll see tall and short. All related, and nobody caring about the differences. The primary concern is whether the apple pie will last until everyone gets some.

My greatest wish is that society as a whole would stop with the ridiculous artificial divisions and just worry about the apple pie. That we can solve.

Sorry, that should have stated:

The book:

*Used research material funded by the Pioneer Fund.

One final note on the Bell Curve, then I will allow people to defend it some more:

The author of the Bell Curve, Charles Murray, cited J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen’s ‘comprehensive survey’of the Bell Curve (in the Psychology, Public Policy and Law journal) as the “strongest argument” yet made by ‘race realists.

I note that Rushton has been retailing the idea of black inferiority for decades.

Rushton claims that the study of racial intelligence is a ‘taboo’ “that has `no parallel … not the inquisition, not Stalin, not Hitler’. Rushton argues that evolution has made people of African descent less intelligent, more violent and more promiscuous than Europeans or East Asians.”

http://www.ferris.edu/ISAR/arcade/araceapart.htm

Yet, rather than suffer the gulag or gas chamber as he claims, Rushton still gets paid to disseminate his theories. This may go to demonstrate that the political pundit and the pseudo-scientist are mutually beneficial.

I have no time for either ‘low expectations’ or ‘proof of lowness’, it is a shame that people are politicking by using such random ‘racial realism’ as the ‘G-Factor’ and the ‘Bell Curve’.

I honestly question the sanity of anyone defending these books.

Likewise, the author of the controversial ‘G-factor’, Chris Brand, seems to have strange methods of communicating hi ideas, amply exhibited on his own webpage:

http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/index4.htm

As he quite bravely declares : “Welcome to the fight against Political Correctness*, Multiculturalism** and Feminazism:

Q.E.D?

Regards,

John

Thanks for your considered and civil response Heliotrope.

There does seem to be some misunderstanding as your response addresses many theories/attitudes to which I do not subscribe.

Also, it does not address the fact that certain republicans court racist theories and literature, and that such courting arguably does not help their political careers with the so-called ‘black vote’. For instance, Trent Lott and the Council Of Conservative Citizen’s race-based politicking being one issue that is not ‘taken by the horns’, but either excused or mumbled away…

“JohnD, there is NO scientific evidence of race. None. Zero. That means that the old skin color, eye shape, hair texture, cheekbone stuff is useless.

I am in full agreement here. Additionally, there is no scientific evidence of a patriarchal God or pantheon of Gods & Goddesses either. However, that doesn’t stop people using religion as an excuse to generalize about groups of people because of their gender, skin colour or sexual orientation.

Neither does it stop ‘scientists’ from trying to prove that the more ‘white’ a ‘black’ man has in him, the more likely he is to have a higher IQ than a ‘real’ black man.

Heliotrope said: “It has been fashionable to presume that blacks in the United States are incapable of racism since they are the minority”

And such a ‘fashion’ is also inexcusably racist according to my philosophical position. Maybe we agree on this point? I have never had the slightest doubt that pretty much anyone can be racist/bigoted, irrespective of their genetic make up.

Heliotrope “You run amok with my construct of talking about a person covered with black skin. You entirely miss my point.”

I thought your point was that The Bell Curve authors, as you stated in #44: “did not say or imply that if a person is covered with black skin, that person will not be as intelligent as those people who are not covered with black skin.”

That statement does sound like you are denying that Charles Murray and Dick Herrnstein state that there is a black-white discrepancy in IQ. Blacks being lower than whites?

Let me quote again, Charles Murray (who actually co-wrote the Bell Curve)and his opinion on this fact:

“With regard to race differences, nothing has happened to change our conclusions about the cultural fairness of the tests, the equal predictive validity of the tests, or the persistence of the 15-point gap. Recent data from the NLSY indicate that in the next generation not only is the black – white gap failing to shrink, but it may be growing.”

Source: http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mssel.html

Why, Heliotrope, would you be so (apparently) coy as to claim Charles Murray and Dick Herrnstein don’t actually literally state ‘black skin’ when they say ‘black’?

When La Shawn supported her belief in the G-factor and the existence of a ‘black-white’ discrepancy, I asked the question ‘what is ‘black?’, you know, in these race-studies? No-one answered. How do they define black? From what family, from what township, from what region, country? It seems that ‘black’ is good enough for the ‘scientists’.

Which brings me to your statement:

“Being English, you may not realize that the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Germans, etc. have had plenty of prejudice heaped on them as they assimilated in the United States.”

Heliotrope, I understand you may think I do not see bigotry outside of the UK, yet I do read extensively, and I have travelled, lived variously in America, Europe, and I have seen racial prejudice. What you don’t address is my point that ‘Irish’ were once considered ‘non-white’ in the UK. They were called the ‘Black irish’.

As you note, Poles experience/d prejudice in America. But ‘white’ people, to my knowledge, aren’t required to address the ‘white’ problems because of this?

I wear no ‘white shame’ because my ancestors exterminated the Tasmanian people just over a hundred years ago. I wear no ‘white’ guilt because my ancestors wore the body parts of those people as ornaments. Neither do I expect ‘black’ people to be answerable to any crime done by someone with a similar coloured skin to themselves.

As to the book, the Bell Curve, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. I think, from what I have read of the book, it very plainly states that blacks (as a ‘group’) have a lower IQ than whites, furthermore, they attempt to prove that it is up to 80% genetic. In my opinion, the authors using the denomination ‘black’, and not ‘covered with black skin’ doesn’t change the fact that the book:

* was funded by the Pioneer Fund

* Has a political premise

* Offers ‘racial’ results.

In that, I concur with your earlier statements that ‘social science’ is often very pseudo indeed.

One thing I cannot understand is that above, you mention ‘race’ not being scientifically proven, yet you also say that many ‘blacks’ are waiting for ‘government’ to benefit their ‘victim’ mentality.

With respect, is there not some discrepenacy in your reasoning?

Regards,

John

Some people have a racial view of the world where race explains most everything. From #7 which I think introduced Duke to this thread:

“But, the bottom line is whenever an incident that has even a hint of a racial element to it Republicans go running. The Bill Bennett, situation, why were conservative columnists defending him on that? The Duke rape case (one of this blog’s favorites). I don’t think the guys raped the girl either, but why was the GOP so aggresively trying to defend the guys..”

—————————
Not that the GOP is involved as a party, but individuals may be trying to defend the guys because they think they are not guilty. I am open to the possibility that there might be slightly less support of if the AV was white, just as Rodney King might have been beaten slightly less if he was white.

The funny thing is, Michael Steele is using race to try to get him into office. Instead of just using his issues, he is also saying that the Dems have, yet again, taken Blacks for granted by not having Mfume as a running mate.

That letter was a joke when you posted it on my blog Darkstar, and its still a joke on LaShawn’s blog. I can take exception with everything that Shannon Reeves said.

Actually, it’s not a joke and wasn’t taken as a joke at the time. In fact, Bill Back lost his campaign to be a part of the California GOP leadership because of the issues raised by Shannon Reeves. If you took the time to investigate the matter instead of ignore it, you would have found this information out. You would have also found out that Shannon Reeves is on the GOP and conservative speaking circuit.

I would give anything to debate Shannon Reeves on this topic. One thing is for certain, he doesn’t speak for all black republicans only himself.

And he has support from some Republicans in California. He also had support from Michael Steele. Or, as Steele said, “Yeah, I know Shannon! We’re friends!”

You say your not a democrat, but you seem to always go out of your way to attack the republican party.

I just gave you a link earlier where I went against Dems. Did you read it?

OK, here’s is a link discussing my meeting with Gov. Erhlich’s aides on eduction:

http://darkstarspoutsoff.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/09/talking_educati_1.html

Follow all of the links in that post homeboy.

Then read this one I just did today:

http://darkstarspoutsoff.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/09/what_the_md_dem.html

See what happens when you make the silly assumption that just because a person disagrees with another on a topic, it brands that person as the political opposite?

This embarrassment is different for a black Republican. Not only do I have to sit in rooms and behave professionally towards Republicans who share this heinous ideology, I have to go home to a hostile environment where I’m called an ‘’Uncle Tom’’ and maligned as a sell-out to my community because I’m a member of the Republican Party. When I go to the barbershop on Friday or my church on Sunday–wherever I go in the black community–I have to explain that Trent Lott’s affiliation with the Council of Conservative Citizens doesn’t represent all Republicans, that it was just an isolated incident. When they then question me about the scores of Republicans who visit Bob Jones University, I tell them that Republicans visit black universities, too. When they ask how I can serve in a party where the second in command, the man seeking our top spot distributes bigoted literature, I tell them that Bill Back doesn’t represent the grassroots of this party–he’s just one man. Black Republicans are expected to provide window dressing and cover to prove that this is not a racist party, yet our own leadership continues to act otherwise. People judge people by their experience of them, and by their actions, and when those actions do not match their words, actions become the more honest means by which to measure a person.

That letter was a joke when you posted it on my blog Darkstar, and its still a joke on LaShawn’s blog. I can take exception with everything that Shannon Reeves said. So who would be right and who would be wrong. You say your not a democrat, but you seem to always go out of your way to attack the republican party. Action speaks louder then words Darkstar. I would give anything to debate Shannon Reeves on this topic. One thing is for certain, he doesn’t speak for all black republicans only himself.

It does mean that characteristics ascribed to “black folks” or any other “folks” are folly.

It has been fashionable to presume that blacks in the United States are incapable of racism since they are the minority and the historic subject of the fact of white racism toward them. I find that to be idiotic. Any one, regardless of his past or status is capable of prejudice, bigotry and racism.

If blacks wish to wallow in their past victimization and are determined to find malice on the part of a white behind every set back, that is pretty good evidence of their own racism.

You run amok with my construct of talking about a person covered with black skin. You entirely miss my point. We are all brothers on the same ball spinning in space. If one person is bald and the other one is black skinned and the third is gay, it makes no difference. All are people. If the gays band together and the black skins band together and the bald heads band together it only puts strains on brotherhood and invites the effects of prejudice and bigotry.

If a town were to have a high rate of lung cancer and all its victims were Polish, it would be idiotic to assume it is a Polish problem. In the same respect, the Bell Curve did not anywhere imply that having black skin meant that you were automatically looking at low intellect.

You offer this point: Funny isn’t it how when ‘whites’ are criminal (Mafia, Northern Ireland, Croatia, Russia, Germany) or socially low-achieving, it is never (to my knowledge) called a ‘white’ problem by anyone? But when someone ‘black’ does something wrong, it is said by pundits to be evidence of a ‘black’ problem.

Being English, you may not realize that the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Germans, etc. have had plenty of prejudice heaped on them as they assimilated in the United States.

We have pockets of people who do not seem to get a toe hold in “the American Dream.” It bothers us. We have Asian gangs that are very dangerous. We have Central American gangs that are very dangerous. We have a critically ill series of American Indian reservations. We have a disproportionate population of blacks who are affected by social pathologies.

We can whistle our way past the graveyard on this issue or we can take a proactive role. To do so, we must identify the problems, the problem areas and seek solutions.

The fact is…..by fact I mean scientifically proven…..the government is dominated by white people with huge amounts of tax dollar funding that is overwhelmingly raised from white people.

If white people were acting selfishly, they would spend their money on themselves.

But, in this country, we respect all of us and if part of us is not succeeding, then all of us are not succeeding.

We have to confront the fact that many blacks consider this whole effort to be “intrusion” into the private business of “black folk.”

My gripe with moderates and liberals is that they place a high value on making treaties and smoothing over obvious problems.

In the words of WC Fields: Sometimes you just have to take the bull by the tail and face the situation.

Everything in a free society has to weighed and measured by the current strictures of the moral code. We have places where women have decided to go topless on the streets of town. We have places where there are open air drug markets. We have places that are dominated by overt homosexual behavior. We have places where polygamy is practiced and ignored. It is always a challenge for a society to know when to accept a trend as status quo and when to reject it.

I do not believe that the frailties found in many in our black population should be accepted as status quo and passed over with just another government check and a pat on the head.

I will not begin to upon touch the personal problem of having to choose which “race” you are going to sign onto. It is all so hopelessly stupid and arcane.

Incendiary? Maybe, but don’t blame me. I wasn’t aware of the ‘Bell Curve’ claims about genetics, ‘blacks’, and related intelligence until I read La Shawn’s, and Ann Coulter’s comments about such things.

Assumptive? Demonstrably not. See above.

There are many instances of vocal Republicans pointing the finger at ‘black folk’ for not facing the ‘truth’ of Blacks In America.

Funny isn’t it how when ‘whites’ are criminal (Mafia, Northern Ireland, Croatia, Russia, Germany) or socially low-achieving, it is never (to my knowledge) called a ‘white’ problem by anyone? But when someone ‘black’ does something wrong, it is said by pundits to be evidence of a ‘black’ problem.

Why is this?

Strange how it is never a ‘white’ problem when whites are killing, thieving and dropping fatherless kids with unfortunate regularity and lack of family structure.

Heliotrope said:

“It would appear that many blacks are stuck on waiting for a government solution and they dislike the Republicans, because it is the party that does not enable victimization by passing out goodies.”

Is it about time ‘blacks’ faced that ‘truth’ and began listening to Conservatives like Ann Coulter, Jared Taylor? Michael Savage, John Derbyshire? Pioneer Funded race studies?

Is it time that black folks started facing up to the ‘truth’ about their criminality, their reliance on welfare, their lower scoring X-factor? G-factor? Non-white factor? What was it?

Is it about time blacks started listening to those Republicans who are ‘brave’ enough to point these things out?

Heliotrope states:

“The Bell Curve did not say or imply that if a person is covered with black skin, that person will not be as intelligent as those people who are not covered with black skin.”

No, you got me there. Although I didn’t state that they did.

The authors of the Bell Curve did not say ‘covered with black skin’. Who (when talking about ‘blacks’ as a group) says ‘Africans covered with black skin’? I mean, who would?

Did you yourself type “Many Blacks covered with black skin are stuck on waiting for a government solution…”

No you didn’t, so why should the authors of The Bell Curve? They used the group title ‘blacks’.

http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mssel.html

When defending his writings regarding ‘black – white’ IQ gap (sic)(Please note that he doesn’t say “black covered in black skin’ – ‘white covered in white skin’ I Q gap) Charles Murray says:

“As that happens, it is not just that Dick (Herrnstein) and I will be proved right. We will be proved to have been — if you will pardon the expression — conservative.”

Maybe I will open my mind and realise there is a ‘black’ problem. The fact that ‘The Bell Curve’ is championed and cited so widely by white Republicans says rather more about white republicans than it does about ‘Blacks’ (covered in black skin?).

Regards,

John.

Gem.

But I see nothing today that approximates the racism toward blacks that came from Maddox, Conner, Wallace, Fulbright, Gore, Hollings, Thurmond, Byrd, Faubus, and so many other old deep South politicians.

True, I agree.

An open letter from a Black Republican, who used to head the Oakland NAACP: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/820110/posts

I am sick and tired of being embarrassed by elected Republican officials who have no sensitivity for issues that alienate whole segments of our population. Republican leaders who consort with the Council of Conservative Citizens, highlight stump speeches at Bob Jones University, reminisce about segregationist campaigns, and sympathize with the bigoted views – and the very real possibility that others in our party affiliate with the Free Congress Foundation and groups with similar offensive ideology – perpetuate broad public opinion that Republicans harbor racist and bigoted ideals. Bill Back’s conduct is the most current embarrassment to our party. His decision to distribute bigoted information demonstrates a lack of judgment and political acumen that’s not appropriate for someone in a leadership position, especially as vice chairman of the California Republican Party.

This embarrassment is different for a black Republican. Not only do I have to sit in rooms and behave professionally towards Republicans who share this heinous ideology, I have to go home to a hostile environment where I’m called an ”Uncle Tom” and maligned as a sell-out to my community because I’m a member of the Republican Party. When I go to the barbershop on Friday or my church on Sunday–wherever I go in the black community–I have to explain that Trent Lott’s affiliation with the Council of Conservative Citizens doesn’t represent all Republicans, that it was just an isolated incident. When they then question me about the scores of Republicans who visit Bob Jones University, I tell them that Republicans visit black universities, too. When they ask how I can serve in a party where the second in command, the man seeking our top spot distributes bigoted literature, I tell them that Bill Back doesn’t represent the grassroots of this party–he’s just one man. Black Republicans are expected to provide window dressing and cover to prove that this is not a racist party, yet our own leadership continues to act otherwise. People judge people by their experience of them, and by their actions, and when those actions do not match their words, actions become the more honest means by which to measure a person.

For whatever reason, it seems many, many blacks today have a massive inferiority complex. That is a nasty way to go through life.

You are absolutely correct. One of the indicators of this is the hyper-criticism that comes from Blacks, conservatives and liberals. Another is the absolute inability of many Blacks to see positives happening as well as negatives.

This inferiority complex is taught from within and from without. Here, to me, is a good example.

Jewish voters vote Dems 75-85% of the time. The number of articles blasting Jewish voters for voting Dem is magnitudes less than the number of articles blasting Black voters for voting Dem.

It is also taught by folks continuing to spout this distortion: It would appear that many blacks are stuck on waiting for a government

I noticed no reply to my list of gub’mint programs that white folks also use. CATO has reported, for example, how gov’t backed student loans have contributed to the out of control tuition and how FHA loans have a higher default rate than conventional loans and how FHA loans contribute to the increase in home costs.

And, of course, those familiar with U.S. history would know about the gov’t funding that helped create the suburbs.