The Politics of Racism

[Cyborg]

American Renaissance copyright policy stated at http://www.amren.com/Intro/information.htm:

"Copyright

Articles and essays original to American Renaissance and to this site may be used on the Internet free of charge, with proper attribution (author, title, date, American Renaissance, web address)."

Originally appeared in American Renaissance (http://www.amren.com/), July 1991, Vol 2, No. 7

What is Racism?

Everyone talks about "racism" but no one ever defines it. AR's assistant editor has given it a try.

By Thomas Jackson

There is surely no nation in the world that holds "racism" in greater horror than does the United States. Compared to other kinds of offenses, it is thought to be somehow more reprehensible. The press and public have become so used to tales of murder, rape, robbery, and arson, that any but the most spectacular crimes are shrugged off as part of the inevitable texture of American life. "Racism" is never shrugged off.

For example, when a white Georgetown Law School student reports that black students are less well qualified than white students, it sets off a booming, national controversy about "racism." If the student had merely murdered someone he would have attracted far less attention and criticism.

Racism is, indeed, the national obsession. Universities are on full alert for it, newspapers and politicians denounce it, churches preach against it, America is said to be racked with it, but just what is racism?

Dictionaries are not much help in understanding what is meant by the word. They usually define it as the belief that one's own ethnic stock is superior to others, or as the belief that culture and behavior are rooted in race. When Americans speak of racism they mean a great deal more than this.

Nevertheless, the dictionary definition of racism is a clue to understanding what Americans do mean. A peculiarly American meaning derives from the current dogma that all ethnic stocks are equal. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard-working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.

The dogma has logical consequences that are profoundly important. If blacks, for example, are equal to whites in every way, what accounts for their poverty, criminality, and dissipation? Since any theory of racial differences has been outlawed, the only possible explanation for black failure is white racism. And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, America must be racked with a pervasive and horrible racism. Nothing else could be keeping them--the undisputed equals of whites--in such an abject state.

All public discourse on race today is locked into this rigid logic. Any explanation for black failure that does not depend on white wickedness threatens to veer off into the forbidden territory of racial differences. Thus, even if today's whites can find in their hearts no desire to oppress blacks, yesterday's whites must have oppressed them. If whites do not consciously oppress blacks, they must oppress them unconsciously. If no obviously racist individuals can be identified, then institutions must be racist. Or, since blacks are failing so terribly in America, there simply must be millions of white people we do not know about, who are working day and night to keep blacks in misery. The dogma of racial equality leaves no room for an explanation of black failure that is not, in some fashion, an indictment of white people.

The logical consequences of this are clear. Since we are required to believe that the only explanation for non-white failure is white racism, every time a non-white is poor, commits a crime, goes on welfare, or takes drugs, white society stands accused of yet another act of racism. All failure or misbehavior by non-whites is standing proof that white society is riddled with hatred and bigotry. For precisely so long as non-whites fail to succeed in life at exactly the same level as whites, whites will be, by definition, thwarting and oppressing them.

This obligatory pattern of thinking leads to strange conclusions. First of all, racism is a sin that is thought to be committed almost exclusively by white people. Indeed, a black congressman from Chicago, Gus Savage, and Coleman Young, the black mayor of Detroit, have argued that only white people can be racist. Likewise, in 1987, the affirmative action officer of the State Insurance Fund of New York issued a company pamphlet in which she explained that all whites are racist and that only whites can be racist. How else could the plight of blacks be explained without flirting with the possibility of racial inequality?

Although some blacks and liberal whites concede that non-whites can, perhaps, be racist, they invariably add that non-whites have been forced into it as self-defense because of centuries of white oppression. What appears to be non-white racism is so understandable and forgivable that it hardly deserves the name. Thus, whether or not an act is called racism depends on the race of the racist. What would surely be called racism when done by whites is thought to be normal when done by anyone else. The reverse is also true.

Examples of this sort of double standard are so common, it is almost tedious to list them: When a white man kills a black man and uses the word "******" while doing so, there is an enormous media uproar and the nation beats its collective breast; when members of the black Yahweh cult carry out ritual murders of random whites, the media are silent (see AR of March, 1991). College campuses forbid pejorative statements about non-whites as "racist," but ignore scurrilous attacks on whites.

At election time, if 60 percent of the white voters vote for a white candidate, and 95 percent of the black voters vote for the black opponent, it is whites who are accused of racial bias. There are 107 "historically black" colleges, whose fundamental blackness must be preserved in the name of diversity, but all historically white colleges must be forcibly integrated in the name of . . . the same thing. To resist would be racist.

"Black pride" is said to be a wonderful and worthy thing, but anything that could be construed as an expression of white pride is a form of hatred. It is perfectly natural for third-world immigrants to expect school instruction and driver's tests in their own languages, whereas for native Americans to ask them to learn English is racist.

Blatant anti-white prejudice, in the form of affirmative action, is now the law of the land. Anything remotely like affirmative action, if practiced in favor of whites, would be attacked as despicable favoritism.

All across the country, black, Hispanic, and Asian clubs and caucuses are thought to be fine expressions of ethnic solidarity, but any club or association expressly for whites is by definition racist. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) campaigns openly for black advantage but is a respected "civil rights" organization. The National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) campaigns merely for equal treatment of all races, but is said to be viciously racist.

At a few college campuses, students opposed to affirmative action have set up student unions for whites, analogous to those for blacks, Hispanics, etc., and have been roundly condemned as racists. Recently, when the white students at Lowell High School in San Francisco found themselves to be a minority, they asked for a racially exclusive club like the ones that non-whites have. They were turned down in horror. Indeed, in America today, any club not specifically formed to be a white enclave but whose members simply happen all to be white is branded as racist.

Today, one of the favorite slogans that define the asymmetric quality of American racism is "celebration of diversity." It has begun to dawn on a few people that "diversity" is always achieved at the expense of whites (and sometimes men), and never the other way around. No one proposes that Howard University be made more diverse by admitting whites, Hispanics, or Asians. No one ever suggests that National Hispanic University in San Jose (CA) would benefit from the diversity of having non-Hispanics on campus. No one suggests that the Black Congressional Caucus or the executive ranks of the NAACP or the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund suffer from a lack of diversity. Somehow, it is perfectly legitimate for them to celebrate homogeneity. And yet any all-white group--a company, a town, a school, a club, a neighborhood--is thought to suffer from a crippling lack of diversity that must be remedied as quickly as possible. Only when whites have been reduced to a minority has "diversity" been achieved.

Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of whites. Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity."

It is, of course, only white nations that are called upon to practice this kind of "diversity." It is almost comical to imagine a nation of any other race countenancing blatant dispossession of this kind.

[The above is only part of the article, the complete article is at http://www.amren.com/917issue/9107issue.html#cover]

[Mav451]

That's nice and all, but reality is probably a little bit different. I don't particularly like how blacks are given a much HIGHER social status then Asians or Hispanics or any other kind of minority when it comes to these issues.

Blacks are ALLOWED to call chinese people chinks without a thought the wiser, while a chinese man FEARS for his life if he says the "n-word". Even my statement right here is a testament to that.

It is UNFAIR that blacks get the higher social/political status when it comes to racism.

When people begin saying the "c-word" instead of being allowed to say chinks, perhaps their will be equality. Until then, I honestly cannot fully grapple this concept of racism until Blacks step off their extra high pedestal.

[Cyborg]

It's not Blacks themselves that place themselves on this pedestal, but rather the media, the government, and acadamia, which for the most part are non-Blacks.

I myself am non-White, not Black though, but Brown.

Regards.

[Neserk]

oh-K... Not sure where that came from.... no one is allowed to call anyone anything... don't know why you think otherwise...

[blackfox]

Racism is really a somewhat inappropriate term these days...the real divisions are economic ones, perhaps they always were. One could make a case that racism is merely an excuse for underlying economic motivators...as in opportunities lost, or extra cost accrued.

For example many immigrant populations all competed for jobs and economic opportunities, and the "others" were to blame for some not finding them. As an example of the former, Asians and Hispanics steal "our" jobs ("our" meaning God-fearing Americans), both the good and the bad ones. Asians are sometimes blamed for "raising the bar", because of their penchant for hard-work and intellectual betterment. Hispanics (immigrants) are sometimes blamed for undercuting good wages because they are willing to work for less. Politicians and Despots have exploited this many a time (Jews are another example) as history shows.

As for the latter, many complain that their tax dollars are sucked away to support those that have a propensity to be poor, as a % of their race, which is commonly black and hispanic communities. The underlying reasons for this are not considered, it is all about economics. Also, if these "leeches of society" were somehow able to compete better in our economic system, they would be accused of that which I mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

This phenomenon (of racism) is better described by the use of the word prejudice, as it is more encompassing and therefore more accurate. Racism is often a simple cover argument to mask the more rational fears that every man faces in competion for resources.

I think racism is a red-herring, and that it is the inherent fear of the "other" stemming from lack of understanding of how they will affect the pursuit of "life, liberty and happiness" that is real. It is lazy thinking, and it is prejudice...and everyone can relate to that.

This is not a contest with scorecards and rules, as to keep tally of who has more advantages than someone else...christ, life will never be fair...to hear whites decry special "priveleges" that minorities enjoy, is to ignore the fact that we enjoy no particular barrier to acheiving success, and have significant advantages in some areas socioeconomically. To hear minorities complain about special priveleges that whites enjoy, is to detract from them working on solving their unjust liabilities.

As I said before, it is economics stupid...the richer you are the more priveleges you have, the more freedom, the more opportunity. The poorer, the opposite. Unfortunately, not everyone can be rich, so there will always be the the division between the "haves" who want to keep it, and the "have-nots" that want a piece of it. Race, or many other factors are increasingly, if not totally irrelevant.

Just my opinion...

[Daveman Deluxe]

Hmm. I was reading another article about a similar topic a few weeks ago. It said, basically, that if non-whites are at a disadvantage, why are we trying to make things equal by holding whites at a disadvantage as well? If life in the U.S. were a footrace, and non-whites start ten paces back from the starting line, whereas whites start on the starting line, why do we try to move whites back ten paces? Why not move non-whites forward ten paces instead, and give everybody an equal shot that way?

[Cyborg]

Hmm. I was reading another article about a similar topic a few weeks ago. It said, basically, that if non-whites are at a disadvantage, why are we trying to make things equal by holding whites at a disadvantage as well? If life in the U.S. were a footrace, and non-whites start ten paces back from the starting line, whereas whites start on the starting line, why do we try to move whites back ten paces? Why not move non-whites forward ten paces instead, and give everybody an equal shot that way?

I'm confused.

[Cyborg]

Racism is really a somewhat inappropriate term these days...the real divisions are economic ones, perhaps they always were.

I think it's both, racial as well as economic divisions.

Asians and Hispanics steal "our" jobs ("our" meaning God-fearing Americans), both the good and the bad ones. Asians are sometimes blamed for "raising the bar", because of their penchant for hard-work and intellectual betterment. Hispanics (immigrants) are sometimes blamed for undercuting good wages because they are willing to work for less. Politicians and Despots have exploited this many a time (Jews are another example) as history shows.

When I graduate from college, I myself am going to go steal a White man's job :D

Actually, with East Asians, there is a common saying: Whites work to live, while East Asians live to work. So if this is true, that East Asians are willing to work longer hours and for less pay, then how can Whites compete with that, since Whites only work to live (work only long enough to pay the bills)?

As for the latter, many complain that their tax dollars are sucked away to support those that have a propensity to be poor, as a % of their race, which is commonly black and hispanic communities. The underlying reasons for this are not considered, it is all about economics. Also, if these "leeches of society" were somehow able to compete better in our economic system, they would be accused of that which I mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

I tend to think that all poor and low IQ people, regardless of race, are parasites upon society. I'm mean like that.

But, I do think there is more to race than just economics. Simply compare the success rate and culture of various people, such as Japan versus Africa, and I am inclined to think that there is more than just economics involved.

Regards.

[pseudobrit]

Hmm. I was reading another article about a similar topic a few weeks ago. It said, basically, that if non-whites are at a disadvantage, why are we trying to make things equal by holding whites at a disadvantage as well? If life in the U.S. were a footrace, and non-whites start ten paces back from the starting line, whereas whites start on the starting line, why do we try to move whites back ten paces? Why not move non-whites forward ten paces instead, and give everybody an equal shot that way?

Relativity -- everyone else being moved back ten paces is the same as someone being moved up ten paces.

[Daveman Deluxe]

I'm confused.

Well, let me break the analogy down a little bit better.

Suppose life in the U.S. is a footrace, and you've got a large contingent of people that came out to run, of all races.

So everybody's gathered at the starting line, but all of the non-white people are required to start ten paces back from the starting line--they are given a disadvantage simply because they are not white.

Following this analogy, current attempts at equality seem to be attempts at forcing white people to start ten paces back as well. However, wouldn't it be much more productive for non-white people to be allowed to start at the starting line, rather than white folks being required to start ten paces back?

Paul Kivel, who first put this analogy to paper, wrote, "The benefits of being white [i.e. access to economic resources, freedom from threats of physical violence, etc.] should be enjoyed by every person in this country. No one should have to endure the disadvantages that people of color experience. In leeling the playing field we don't want to hold anyone back. We want to push everyone forward so that we all share the benefits."

[pseudobrit]

I tend to think that all poor and low IQ people, regardless of race, are parasites upon society. I'm mean like that.

I advise travel.

But, I do think there is more to race than just economics. Simply compare the success rate and culture of various people, such as Japan versus Africa, and I am inclined to think that there is more than just economics involved.

I advise travel to Japan and Africa.

[pseudobrit]

Paul Kivel, who first put this analogy to paper, wrote, "The benefits of being white [i.e. access to economic resources, freedom from threats of physical violence, etc.] should be enjoyed by every person in this country. No one should have to endure the disadvantages that people of color experience. In leeling the playing field we don't want to hold anyone back. We want to push everyone forward so that we all share the benefits."

Paul Kivel's a dumbass. When you're playing golf with a handicap, would we call the better player having to start with more strokes than the crappy player a disadvantage? Sure. If you enjoy obliterating your friends like a jerk.

But your friends who play crappy golf see it as a chance to catch up with you.

Without a handicap it's no fun and not very sporting, is it?

Sure, his "rising tide" alternative sounds upbeat, cheerful and flowery, but if you give everyone a generous lift, the people who were behind are still behind by the same amount. Somewhere along the line you have to introduce parity. Only those who hate a fair game hate it when sportsmanship is forced.

[zimv20]

Following this analogy, current attempts at equality seem to be attempts at forcing white people to start ten paces back as well. However, wouldn't it be much more productive for non-white people to be allowed to start at the starting line, rather than white folks being required to start ten paces back?

no, all the non-whites should get better shoes. and how high is the tape at the end? might some shorter people run under it and not get the win? if it's too low, the taller people don't get the benefit of the lean. are we using digital watches? are there time trials?

what's the point of an analogy that's so simplified and vague it doesn't hold any meaning?

[Cyborg]

Since we are discussing different cultures and potential for success, here is a table of the national IQ averages of 185 nations: http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.htm It was compiled by Professor Richard Lynn. You will notice that East Asians tend to show the highest averages, Whites in the middle, and African nations showing the lowest figures. What Professor Lynn found out, working in collaboration with Professor Tatu Vanhanen, was that national IQ average is positively correlated with the National GDP.

Regards.

[blackfox]

That IQ study is biased to the point or being irrelevent. Even if you believe that this particular method of IQ testing is indictative of actual intelligence, this is still geared for and measured by the standards by which [I]we[I]judge such things. It doesn't mean squat except maybe to say that Asians are good at some things that others are poor at, and some anglos are good at this or that. To use one cultures' measures of competence on others is necessarily unfair, distorted and incomplete...

[Desertrat]

Seems to me that there's a lot of effort at using analogies which don't really apply to the comments in the opening article.

From what I've seen, if one tries to lay out facts about problems within an ethnic group, and just relating the facts elicits cries of racism, we have a problem. If you can't use facts, how can you solve any problem?

As an often-encountered example, if you try to talk about crime rates and point out that one minority is responsible for an unduly large percentage of the total, the racism card is brought in. My question is, how is it racist to point out facts?

As far as reverse-racism, the obvious example is race-norming of test scores when the result of a test identifies qualified people for some particular endeavor. To favor people because of race is supposed to be illegal, for starters. It is also an insult to any ethnicity to tell them they are not competent to compete--and leads to the idea that because of race they are somehow entitled to special favors from government.

'Rat

[Desertrat]

Oh: If you want some fun in debate, take the opening article from here and go over to http://www.stormfront.org and enjoy yourselves...

:D, 'Rat

[Sayhey]

Since we are discussing different cultures and potential for success, here is a table of the national IQ averages of 185 nations: http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.htm It was compiled by Professor Richard Lynn. You will notice that East Asians tend to show the highest averages, Whites in the middle, and African nations showing the lowest figures. What Professor Lynn found out, working in collaboration with Professor Tatu Vanhanen, was that national IQ average is positively correlated with the National GDP.

Regards.

Do you really want to debate this racist crap that masquerades under the guise of scientific research?

Do a little reading about IQ tests, the meaning of the word "correlated," and the history of some of the folks you are posting links to, and then maybe we can talk.

[Taft]

But, I do think there is more to race than just economics. Simply compare the success rate and culture of various people, such as Japan versus Africa, and I am inclined to think that there is more than just economics involved.

Since we are discussing different cultures and potential for success, here is a table of the national IQ averages of 185 nations: http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.htm It was compiled by Professor Richard Lynn. You will notice that East Asians tend to show the highest averages, Whites in the middle, and African nations showing the lowest figures. What Professor Lynn found out, working in collaboration with Professor Tatu Vanhanen, was that national IQ average is positively correlated with the National GDP.

Regards.

I do not like double standards. That includes racial double standards. But I do have a problem with the two statements above.

First, what defines intelligence and how to accurately measure that entity is highly disputed in the scientific community. High correlations between IQ test scores and national GDP or standard of living could be easily explained as deficiencies in our methods of intelligence testing.

In fact, the inventor of the IQ test held that a low IQ score meant that the person needed further education, not that the person was destined to be stupid.

Futher, cultural and environmental conditions are thought by many to be overriding factors in the formation of a young mind. If a person grew up in a culture were intelligence was held as utterly unimportant (in favor of, lets say, strength), would that be a factor in that person's IQ score? Is it possible that IQ tests are biased toward (relatively) new and sophisticated concepts in science and mathematics which aren't relevent to people in many cultures?

Wikipedia has a great entry about IQ, its successes and shortcomings. Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ

Here is an interesting idea for a completely unethical study. Lets go to Africa and randomly kidnap one of a pair of twins from dirt-poor families. We'll do it 100 times to improve our sample size. We take the twins that we have kidnapped and "plant" them in affluent Asian households. Then, after 30 years, we measure the IQ of the kids raised in Africa to the kids raised in Asian households. Which kids do you think will have the higher IQ? I know where my money would be...

Unless more compelling arguments are put forth, I utterly reject the notion that heritage or race is the overriding determining factor for intelligence.

Taft

[zimv20]

If the aborigine drafted an IQ test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it. -Stanley Marion Garn, anthropologist (1922- )

[Desertrat]

My mother was involved in development/refinement of the Stanford-Binet IQ test during her tenure with the Psych Dept of the Univ of Texas, Austin, in the 1940s. In discussions through the years, she has remained convinced that the value of an IQ test--or the definition of IQ--has to do with showing one's ability to learn.

I don't know enough about advancements or modifications to various IQ tests in the last 20 or 30 years. I have read that there are now tests which are valid for those who are as yet non-verbal; small children as a for-instance.

Reading between the lines, somewhat, of the first 12 or so chapters of The Bell Curve, and observing from other writings on the subject of IQ: The earliest years' quality of both nourishment as to food, and interaction with adults as in holding/cuddling and "Goo-goo dah-dah" speech sounds, are necessary to maximize whatever inherent intelligence is available at birth. That is, without a quality diet and without the interactions, a baby will not fully develop his native upper limits--but definitely can see them reduced.

IQ-test questions don't pertain to what one has learned, if properly set up. For instance, a Mensa test question is, "How is a housefly like a tree?" The question calls for reasoning, not learning.

'Rat

[Daveman Deluxe]

Are we talking about racism or about IQ tests? :confused:

There needs to be a serious debate about racism in the United States. Virtiolic hatred of whites and "white society" will do nothing to solve the problem--in fact, it will only make the problem worse.

zimv20: You're taking the analogy way too far. This isn't an analogy about short people, the timing method, or time trials. This is an analogy about the pre-birth lottery. In the United States, some people have automatically lost the pre-birth lottery by being born to a family of non-European descent. These people are moved back ten paces, in my anlogy. That's not right. But it's also not right for those of European descent to be moved back ten paces to match. Instead, everybody should start at the starting line. From there, it's up to the individuals involved to decide whether they want to sprint, or run, or drink beer and curse at passers-by.

pseudobrit: Did you realize that handicaps in golf don't add strokes to the score of the person who is a better player? Golf handicaps subtract strokes from the scores of the worse players. And, for that matter, moving one group back ten paces is not the same as moving the other group forward ten paces. If white people are moved back ten paces, then everybody has to run ten paces longer. The proper solution is for non-white people to be moved forward ten paces to the starting line so that everybody runs the distance marked, and not more.

The point is that white people should not be made to suffer the same disadvantages suffered by those not of European descent. Instead, those of non-European descent should be offered the same advantages enjoyed by white people. It's not easy, and I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime, but it's the only right result, although the question of how we get there is up for debate.

[sparkleytone]

There can most likely be no serious debate in our country about racism. Sensationalism, propaganda, and conspiracy theory rule any and every topic these days. I only hope the average Joe American has the common sense to wade through the bull.

There can most definitely be no intelligent criticism from outside our country about racism within it. It is a problem quite unique to our country. There is no diversity in any other country as great as there is in ours. Non-americans can complain all they want, but it falls on this deaf ear. There is a clear cycle of the way 'racism' works in our country. I don't feel like getting into specifics at 1:30AM. Read a history book and spare us your propaganda. Native-American, Italian, Irish, Chinese, African-American, Hispanic. HELLO!?!?

Talk to the Kurds about racism in America. Try not to get shot.

[zimv20]

those of non-European descent should be offered the same advantages enjoyed by white people.
please enumerate a few concrete examples of what those might be.

[sparkleytone]

please enumerate a few concrete examples of what those might be.

champagne and parties when there are only white people on the bus.

getting free stuff all the time.

[pseudobrit]

pseudobrit: Did you realize that handicaps in golf don't add strokes to the score of the person who is a better player? Golf handicaps subtract strokes from the scores of the worse players.

I don't play golf. What is the difference (between adding strokes to good players or subtracting them from crappy ones), other than the final score?

And, for that matter, moving one group back ten paces is not the same as moving the other group forward ten paces.

Let's see. Everyone starts from 0m except Mr. African-American, who starts at -10m. We'll move everyone up ten metres. Now Mr. A-A is finally equal to everyone else, right at 0 where everyone started, but for the fact that they're now at 10m.

If white people are moved back ten paces, then everybody has to run ten paces longer. The proper solution is for non-white people to be moved forward ten paces to the starting line so that everybody runs the distance marked, and not more.

Now you're changing what the original Kivel analogy was. In his statement, "we want to push everyone forward," he effectively nullifying any benefits that Affirmative Action provide. (I realise your analogy didn't specify this tenant.)

The point is that white people should not be made to suffer the same disadvantages suffered by those not of European descent. Instead, those of non-European descent should be offered the same advantages enjoyed by white people. It's not easy, and I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime, but it's the only right result, although the question of how we get there is up for debate.

The problem is that when you give blacks an artificial advantage over whites in order to correct the "natural" disadvantage they suffer, people start complaining about reverse discrimination and how they're being made to suffer. It's all relative. Most people naturally hate losing any relative advantage they have.

Here's another analogy for our culture: if a hungry bear is chasing everyone, you don't need to set a record time or run as fast as you can; you only need to run faster than the slowest guy. Most people in our culture feel this way; they don't need to be their best as long as somone else is worse. It's much easier and requires less effort to bring somone else down than lift yourself up.

Think of Affirmative Action as a mandatory golf handicap, forced sportsmanship, instead of a race.

[Daveman Deluxe]

please enumerate a few concrete examples of what those might be.

-White people can generally count on police protection rather than harassment.
-White people have a far greater opportunity to determine where to live and where their children go to school.
-White people see their own kind in the media, history books, and news in a far more positive positive light than non-whites.
-White people have more recourse to and credibility within the legal system.
-Nothing that white people do is qualified, limited, discredited, or acclaimed simply because of racial background. Nothing that white people do is judged as a credit to our race, nor as a confirmation of its shortcomings or inadequacy.

How's that for a start?

[pseudobrit]

Originally Posted by Daveman Deluxe

those of non-European descent should be offered the same advantages enjoyed by white people.

please enumerate a few concrete examples of what those might be.

I had to think about this challenge for a moment. I thought about finding stats showing how whites are traditionally better paid, employed, educated, nourished, covered by healthcare, treated by police, etc., etc.

Then I realised: there are no real "advantages" for whites, only disadvantages for others.

[zimv20]

How's that for a start?
in your analogy, you were talking of solutions. here, you are pointing out problems. i'm looking for concrete solutions to match your vague start line analogy.

[wwworry]

I should be banned but this article was a topper.

No one is really examining the assumptions of the article posted which, in my opinion, are weak. The article is both a seemingly contradictory apology for white racism and a complaint about black racism.

Despite clear evidence to the contrary, all races have been declared to be equally talented and hard-working, and anyone who questions the dogma is thought to be not merely wrong but evil.

Here the writer states/implies that the races are not equal according to “clear evidence”. He continues, “And since blacks are markedly poor, crime-prone, and dissipated, ...”, stating repeatedly that black poverty is not the result of white racism and implies that it is because of something inherent in the “black” race. He basically admits that he is a racist and discounts any effect that white racism might have on black behavior. Also since white racism is not the cause of black “dissipation” then it must be because blacks are inferior and white racism is justified.

What is particularly annoying is the way he both justifies white racism and then spends the majority of the article complaining about black racism, complaining about double standards and diversity. In short, he seems to be concluding that a return to more open white racism would be a good/realistic thing.

Random quotes:
Let us put it bluntly: To "celebrate" or "embrace" diversity, as we are so often asked to do, is no different from deploring an excess of whites. In fact, the entire nation is thought to suffer from an excess of whites.
That is clearly a paranoid and false dichotomy. ex. “I like salt on my food.” does not equal “I do not want to eat anything other than salt.” Celebrating diversity is by definition NOT exclusionary and NOT deploring of any race. ex. “I think my food is better with salt than without it.”

Our current immigration policies are structured so that approximately 90 percent of our annual 800,000 legal immigrants are non-white. The several million illegal immigrants that enter the country every year are virtually all non-white. It would be racist not to be grateful for this laudable contribution to "diversity."
Our current immigration policies are structured so that it does not discriminate by race as it did up until 1965. It is actually structured so that ALL countries have proportional immigration access. So if most of the world is non-white and most of the people in “white” countries don’t want to immigrate here, then, surprise surprise, most of the immigrants will be non-white. Weak.

So what about historic lack of representation, red-lining, proven statistics that show un-equal sentencing by race, underfunded schools, and discriminatory hiring practices? If representation, justice, education, and access to work are not equal then wouldn’t it stand to reason that black people might tend to be poorer? Isn’t it true of ALL races that drug-use, crime and government assistence is tied to levels of poverty? The writer should be calling for equally funded schools and equal justice before he goes on about “dissipation”.

[Taft]

champagne and parties when there are only white people on the bus.

getting free stuff all the time.

Is that from an old SNL sketch? Eddie Murphy gets made up as a white person, getting a "secret look" into the white world.

Good stuff. :)

Taft

[Taft]

IQ-test questions don't pertain to what one has learned, if properly set up. For instance, a Mensa test question is, "How is a housefly like a tree?" The question calls for reasoning, not learning.

'Rat

Thats the goal, for sure, but I'm not so sure that current tests are necessarily attaining that goal. Testing is tricky business, especially when it isn't universally agreed on what constitutes intelligence.

Also, the Bell Curve, while a good exploration of intelligence, has been hotly contested over the years. Check out that wikipedia link in my post above for more info.

Taft

[Desertrat]

No real argument, Taft.

I mentioned the first chapters of The Bell Curve, because those are not the ones so hotly contested. :) It was when they got into the discussions about race that folks got excited.

But, that's why I brought in the physiological bit about food/parental nurture. IMO, the odds for comparatively poor treatment of infants would likely be found in the lower economic classes--coupling that with the least educated. IMO, this would be the basis for a part of a group's IQ problems--and by and large, blacks tend to fit more into the group than whites. Note this is purely guesswork on my part, but it seems logical. A group that would otherwise fit within a bell curve without differentiation by racial aspects could be dragged down by a very-low minority percentage of its members.

And if this ain't clear I'll try again later.

:), 'Rat

[Taft]

No real argument, Taft.

I mentioned the first chapters of The Bell Curve, because those are not the ones so hotly contested. :) It was when they got into the discussions about race that folks got excited.

But, that's why I brought in the physiological bit about food/parental nurture. IMO, the odds for comparatively poor treatment of infants would likely be found in the lower economic classes--coupling that with the least educated. IMO, this would be the basis for a part of a group's IQ problems--and by and large, blacks tend to fit more into the group than whites. Note this is purely guesswork on my part, but it seems logical. A group that would otherwise fit within a bell curve without differentiation by racial aspects could be dragged down by a very-low minority percentage of its members.

And if this ain't clear I'll try again later.

:), 'Rat


Yeah, I agree with that. Nutrition and lack of an environment conducive to education are reasons that make a lot of sense to me, as well.

One thing that I've thought might be even MORE important is an environment which offers hope for the future. I don't know if you've ever visited REALLY poor slums or ghettos, or seen reports on them, but living conditions are beyond most American's imagination. Given what else is going on in those peoples' lives, I would have a hard time believing education or mental exercise is even a consideration for those people. And for a child growing up in a place where education isn't even considered and the only focus is on survival (ie, get food and money so we can live or get the heck out of here), how can they possibly develop intellectually? Without hope for the future, I wonder if intellectual development is even relevant. In the long term, these conditions almost seem to be a motivator for evolution. No intellect needed? It (eventually) gets dropped by the genetic wayside. :eek:

I really credit my parents for putting so much effort into creating an environment which expanded my young horizons. And I often wonder: had my parents not given me that environment, or even had they let me watch more TV instead of playtime or reading, would I be the same person today? There are just so many variables that go into a person's personality and intelligence that I'm constantly skeptical when someone thinks they have the "secret formula" for measuring them.

Taft