If one thing about society as a whole perturbs me more than any other, it is the constant threat of offence. For someone who cares whether they unintentionally offend someone, they must maneuver through euphemisms every time they voice their opinion on a controversial topic. As for myself, I don’t have that problem — in either direction. I can’t remember the last time I was offended by someone’s opinion. I have no trouble hearing someone’s view and addressing the view itself without becoming emotionally entrenched. I also don’t tread lightly when pontificating my opinion either. Not that I make an effort to offend people, I actually try to be tactful in my approach — more so in person than here on Sifting Reality. Society wasn’t always like this — we didn’t always need to walk on eggshells. What happened?
Political Correctness is the byproduct of breaking people into groups based on shared qualities. Rather than seeing people as a stand-alone individuals, they are categorized according to race, gender, sexual preference, age, weight, marital status, and scores more categories and sub-categories. This in turn creates the feeling that we are defined by these qualities. Treating individuals as members of groups and classes we can no longer address an individual person and their circumstance without having it perceived that you are also addressing the group they belong to as though every member is somehow responsible.
An atmosphere for perpetual offense is created by inviting other members of the group in on the discussion. Classification trains people to ignore individuality. And criticizing one person who belongs to a group incites others within the group to become collectively defensive.
Because of class-creation, discussing the black-on-black crime epidemic is deemed racist and so criticizing affirmative action; the promiscuity and STD epidemic in the gay community is homophobic; and attempts to limit abortion is a war on women.
Individuals may share certain characteristics, but categorizing them according to these characteristics actually serves to strip people of their identity. You are no longer Steve who happens to be black; you are a black man named Steve. I accidentally possess many characteristics, but they don’t define me. Allowing yourself to be compartmentalized, allows yourself also to be exploited.
Take this recent example of high school choruses being barred from singing with the Atlanta orchestra because it’s not diverse enough. Were students of color refused spots in the chorus? Probably not. But now chorus students cannot showcase their talent because not enough of them are the “right color”. Or the softball team D2 who is part of the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance had its placing nullified because there were allegedly too many non-gay men on the team.
Those who play identity politics by separating people into groups talk about you like they know you and are on your side. They’ve trained people to listen for “dog-whistles” and the resulting collective outrage is used for someone else’s gain. They want us to believe they have our interests in mind, when really they speak in generalities about groups, which you had better qualify as a member of otherwise your interests hold no political value.
Sifting Reality 
To your shock and perhaps horror, I agree with most of what you say here. I think the concept of politically correct has been beaten and abused beyond recognition. What was intended to protect people has devolved into absurdity and people check their common sense at the door and don’t think for themselves. I of course disagree with your perspective on “black-on-black crime epidemic is deemed racist and so criticizing affirmative action; the promiscuity and STD epidemic in the gay community is homophobic; and attempts to limit abortion is a war on women.”
I don’t consider talking about black on black crime racist, nor talking about promiscuity or std’s homophobic- as long as those discussions are not designed to stigmatize or “inferiorize” a certain group. There’s also a heterosexual aids epidemic in Africa. Today, heterosexual African women are the number one single group which is at the highest risk of contracting aids on the planet. The important point being highlighted is that it’s not the sexuality of the person or their colour that makes them more or less prone to a behaviour. Conversely Christian conservative men are the highest porn consumers in America… We shouldn’t confuse incidence with causality.
The major factor (in my opinion) with PC is differentiating what is qualitative and what is merely descriptive: http://pinkagendist.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/qualitative-vs-descriptive-where-politically-correct-goes-wrong-in-america/
“offended” is the condescending term that many people use to minimize legitimate concerns people have.
“Because of class-creation, discussing the black-on-black crime epidemic is deemed racist and so criticizing affirmative action; the promiscuity and STD epidemic in the gay community is homophobic; and attempts to limit abortion is a war on women.”
You can discuss the black-on-black crime epidemic.
If you say black people are inherently violent and unwilling to change, then you’re racist.
If you say that black people are subject to socio-economic hardships as a result of 400 years of discrimination in this country and we Americans, white, black, etc, all need to fend a way to help these kids, then you’re being realistic and supportive about a problem.
You can discuss promiscuity and the STD epidemic.
If you limit it to the gay community, then you’re homophobic.
You can even highlight increased rates in the gay community.
If you say that’s because gay people ‘deserve’ STDs, then you’re homophobic.
If you say that barriers to stable and loving relationships (family and societal ostracism, lack of marriage and family rights for gays) lead to promiscuity and promiscuity leads to STDs, and that we as a society need to tear down those barriers to save the gay community from these and many other effects of social persecution of gays, then you’re being realistic and supportive about the problem.
Attempts to limit abortion is a war on women.
If you want to provide family support centers, parenting classes, increase abortion options and incentives, real sex education, access to physical and chemical contraceptives, and in general provide education and resources rather than misinformation and shaming, then you will in effect limit abortion without waging a war on women.
When you say someone is offended, you are probably belittling their concerns. They are probably saying that what you are doing is hateful, unconstitutional, illegal, or maybe just ill-advised. You should take time to review their concerns rather than just trying to dismiss the issue.
Jason writes: “If you say black people are inherently violent and unwilling to change, then you’re racist.”
This is interesting, because most naturalists would embrace this exact argument in other (non-race) issues. Dawkins argues that religion is hereditary. Our system of social ethics (morality) is inherited. Our social skills are inherited. Surely our tendency towards violence is also inherited, right? Why is it illogical that some hereditary groups (“gene pools”) would be more violent than others? It makes perfect sense. Moreover, naturalism argues that we are a slave to our genes. I can’t control my destiny any more than I can change my DNA. I’m locked in.
This goes strait back to the point I was trying to make a few days ago. Evolution created us incredibly UN-EQUAL. We all know this to be true. It is only in a religious framework that we can affirm equality. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created equal…” There is no atheistic argument for equality. If you have one, I’d love to hear it.
“Dawkins argues that religion is hereditary. Our system of social ethics (morality) is inherited. Our social skills are inherited. Surely our tendency towards violence is also inherited, right? Why is it illogical that some hereditary groups (“gene pools”) would be more violent than others? It makes perfect sense. Moreover, naturalism argues that we are a slave to our genes. I can’t control my destiny any more than I can change my DNA. I’m locked in.”
Could you clarify the context of what Dawkins means? Is he referring to a proclivity to religion or that children are raised as part of a particular religion?
Human tendency towards violence isn’t race specific. We have seen heinous violence from most races. The problem with that issue is generally reducing it to race without taking into account socio-economic issues. Black on black crime isn’t an issue at prep-schools or in the upper east side of Manhattan, it’s an issue in poor neighbourhoods.
Your interpretation of naturalism is reductionist and not one that most educated people would present. Of course there’s much that’s influenced by our genes (even things like preferring salty or sweet tastes, or loving or hating cilantro), but there is also much that is influenced by our environment, psychological state and will.
I don’t think introducing economics helps. All one has to do is point to other people of differing races in similar circumstances who don’t have the same problems.
You have to introduce economics and background, otherwise you don’t have a full picture and your experiment and theory will be flawed.
Whenever you’re measuring incidence (or causality) you have to take all factors that may affect it into consideration.
e.g. How does black on black crime compare to crime in the bad days of Medellín or El Salvador. In turn how does it compare to the crime riddled areas of Russia or Ukraine or Romania?
Jason,
You’re the most arrogant poster on this blog, but I’ve yet to understand why. You offer nothing but debunked liberal talking points, and feign moral superiority for it. It’s tiresome.
Without researching the issue, you’ve effectively shut down all conversation regarding not only the reasons for black crime, but solutions to the problem. In typical liberal fashion, you’ve threatened people with a stigma should they dare consider an alternative to the liberal logic you’re so fond of spewing.
If that’s the only way you can win an argument, you’re even more pathetic than I thought.
Studies clearly show that black people are 7x more likely to commit violent crime and 8x more likely to commit robbery than white people. Attributing this sad fact to poverty and discrimination does not withstand scrutiny. Jewish people are the most hated group of people in the history of the world, yet their crime rates are one of the lowest and their rate of success is not only high, but disproportionately so. This brings me to my next point.
Intelligence. Scientific studies show that black people have the lowest IQs, while Jewish people have the highest.
When Dr. Rushton wrote a book discussing the distinct differences between Blacks, Whites, and Asians, The Anointed cried “raaaaacist.” When Noble Laureate Dr. Watson said research suggests blacks are less intelligent, The Annointed again screamed “raaacist.” When Dr. Bruce Lan’s research said the same thing, The Annoited again screamed “raaacist.”
Scientific studies also show that blacks are genetically wired to have higher levels of Testosterone. Why is this is important? Because other research tells us that animals with higher levels of testosterone have lower IQs and are more aggressive. [1]
1.Black women produce more testosterone than white women and black mothers produce more testosterone than white mothers (Cancer Causes Control. 2003; 14: 347-55).
I’ve barely scratched the surface of this issue. But before I continue wasting my time, I’d like to ask a question: How much is enough? How much research needs to be quoted before liberals admit that blacks are simply genetically inferior to whites?
Don’t bother answering; it’s a rhetorical question. Liberals will never admit to something antithetical to their ideology, regardless the science. And it’s because of discussions like this that I laugh whenever I hear a liberal accuse a conservative of being “anti-science.” No group is as anti-science as liberals.
Liberals are so ideologically driven, it’s almost funny. You guys are like robots. You say the same shit over and over despite it having been throughly debunked. Trillions of dollars have been spent in the black community since the 1960s with little or no positive result. And let’s not forgot the reverse discrimination policies that have been instituted. Nothing has worked.
Lots of people, including myself, have grown up poor – but they’re not more prone to violence because of it. You’re just ignorant.
And let me guess? I’m a raaaaaaaaacist.
There’s a really great free course from Stanford University in September. You can do it online, it’s only 5 hours per week: https://www.coursera.org/course/intrologic
…and you get a certificate at the end. No matter what job you do, it’ll improve your ability to do it well.
Trust me, it’s worth it. You’ll be able to completely re-design how you organize and order information in an argument.
And I’m not even going to bother with your asinine comment regarding abortion.
Consider yourself lucky.
TerranceH,
I’m not sure un-reviewed studies by white supremacist groups are great evidence for any argument.
Do you have studies done by neutral groups, scientists or that at least have been peer-reviewed?
John,
The other day you asked me for composure. I’ve just read “How much research needs to be quoted before liberals admit that blacks are simply genetically inferior to whites?”
Is that sort of thing considered okay here? I’m a bit surprised. Not just because the real research doesn’t really say that but because it seems out of line.
Pink,
I’m glad you provided that link, because I’m always open to learning. But my response was disorganized for two reasons: 1). I was in a hurry; and 2). I don’t like Jason – at all. Whenever I respond to him, I’m always slamming away at the keyboard.
I know he probably gets some pleasure knowing that, but I don’t care. I get pleasure by showing him to be the arrogant, intellectually lethargic piss-ant that he is.
Pink,
Please explain to me which study I provided that was conducted by a “white supremacist” group? Are you talking about the Color of Crime report? You should probably check citations; it’s not a scientific study, but a mathematical deduction based on FBI crime statistics, which are provided in the Source section of the study.
The rest are peer-reviewed studies. Nice try.
Yes, Pink, the “real research” ABSOLUTELY says that blacks are genetically inferior to whites. The same research also says that whites are inferior to Asians.
We’re either going to discuss the research that exists, or we’re going to claim offense, which is precisely what liberals do and why John wrote his post.
You can either read the research I did provide, or reject it out of hand (which appears to be the route you’re current on). Either way, I don’t care. I used to be one of those guilt ridden white guys, until I decided to actually research the issue for myself.
But Pink, I’m glad you’re responded in so timely a fashion. I actually didn’t need to wait long before the point of John’s post was absolutely made. You tried to shut down discussion by raising a stink about a comment of mine you felt was offensive. That is precisely the plague John is talking about!
Kudos, however, for completely missing the point of the post!
Sorry Terrance, but having reviewed some of these studies before I’d say the methodology is highly flawed.
The mathematical deduction doesn’t prove an absolute (that once race is inferior to another), it simply reflects the conditions (many environmental) in which races have lived in the past century. I’d argue that if you take a child from an unstable environment and place them in a stable one their chances at success would sky-rocket and virtually erase the minor racial issues.
Louis Pasteur was a genius and he wasn’t Jewish. Einstein was a Jewish genius… Dr. Daniel Hale Williams was the first doctor to perform open heart surgery successfully and he was black etc. etc.
I think you wouldn’t argue that Condoleeza Rice is an incredibly intelligent woman, would you?
Once we identify there are so many exceptions to an alleged rule we have to consider there are other factors that are more determinant than race itself.
Hold on, hold on TerranceH. I didn’t read the studies you are talking about, but even if you are interpreting them correctly, you are stating the conclusion incorrectly. It seems that the data would suggest that some people are DIFFERENT than others – not INFERIOR to others. Science doesn’t make value judgments – only people do that.
Genetics does NOT determine value. But the atheists are left with no choice but to determine value by genetics or by behavior – because that is all we are. We are a bag of chemicals (genetics) that makes particular choices (actions). Value = genetics + actions. There is no alternative since the atheist assumes that the physical body is the totality of existence.
As Christians, however, we affirm value in a completely different way. We say that people are valuable INDEPENDENT of their genetics and their actions. They have equal value because they are equally made in the image of their creator and are equally loved by their creator.
Pink,
Picking examples that are exceptions to the rule does not diminish the truth or validity of the rule.
But I, too, would argue against the conclusion of the studies cited by Terrance that blacks are genetically inferior. I would say, however, that it is true to say that they are genetically different. Skin color alone confirms this. There are aspects of their genetic makeup that are surely superior to parallel aspects of the white physiology. So, one race could indeed be superior is certain aspects compared with another race, while simultaneously being inferior in others. I wonder if Terrance would amend his position in this direction or stand pat with what he stated and how.
Pink,
Explain to me what particular study you’re talking about – and why it’s methodologically flawed.
The Color of Crime report was only one study referenced – and it wasn’t a scientific one at that. It was a compilation of FBI crime reports/statistics that show blacks are 7x more likely to commit violent crime, and 8x more likely to commit robbery. Since that study is based on FBI crime data, explain the problem – outside of it not jiving with your ideology.
That is false. Simple poverty does not increase the chances of behaving aggressively. Secondly, the poverty itself lends credence to my conclusion – and the conclusion of the studies I linked. Why are black communities unable to lift themselves up? Trillions of dollars spent on welfare programs and community investment – all for naught. Nothing has changed in their communities.
Rushton’s study addresses this argument. Perhaps you should have read it.
Of course there are exceptions. A good many blacks can trace their ancestry back to find some white genes in the mix, or North African, etc…Read about genetic diversity.
tumeyn,
Your point is well-taken. I meant genetically inferior with regard to intelligence. Studies do show that blacks have lower IQs than whites, and also that whites have lower IQs than Asians. Obviously a low IQ doesn’t necessarily mean totally inferior.
Like I said to Tumeryn, I meant genetically inferior with regard to intelligence. I went off on a tangent in my head and wasn’t clear enough.
I meant to add…
As for economics, introducing it into the discussion demands comparisons with other groups experiencing the same situation. It is irrelevant to bring up “400 years” as no black person has lived that long or experienced poverty for that long. One can only compare how the poor of different groups behave and go from there. Indeed, there was a time not so long ago that the strength of the black family was a point of envy. It was during a time with fewer civil rights laws in their favor. It would seem that the black crime rate should be less these days as a result of affirmative action type considerations those from before the 1960’s did not enjoy.
I don’t understand why people have such difficulty discussing these issues. Liberals are comfortable sticking with whatever conclusion mingles best with their ideology, regardless the facts.
While I did indeed misspeak earlier, I would suggest that if superiority among races is decided by economic and educational success, then blacks are indeed inferior. For crying out loud, 85% of black fourth-graders are either functionally illiterate or reading below grade-level. Discrimination is not too blame for this.
If superiority is defined with different paramaters, such as physical ability, then whites are inferior to blacks.
However, society doesn’t measure success based on how physically strong or fast you are. Generally, intellectual ability is the “fit” (Darwinian term) in human society.
Terrance,
There’s a difference between causality and incidence. You’re welcomed to say that violence in whatever group is X times more likely than in Y group, but that reflects incidence rather than cause.
For example, what would you guess is the state with most internet porn subscriptions (percentage-wise) in the US? California? NY?
Nope… it’s Utah, a state that also has one of the most conservative religious populations in the country. I can’t take that data and say that conservative Christianity causes interest in porn. I can’t do that because although there may be a co-relation there is no evidence to show one thing is the direct cause of the other. The same is true of blacks and violence.
If we apply the logic you’re using, I could say that where I live in Western Europe, we have very low levels of violent crime, drug use, prostitution and abortion- could I take that one point further and say that Western Europeans are more intelligent or more civilized than Americans? I can’t, it’s too general a point. There are extremely civilized and intelligent Americans- enough exceptions to the rule (this part of the answer is for you Marshal)- note ENOUGH exceptions that the rule isn’t really a rule.
Pink,
This is meaningless noise.
The only problem with your logic is that I’ve shown causation via three different studies. They show that blacks have lower IQs and higher levels of testosterone; the former being associated with poverty and the latter, aggressiveness. These are genetic realities whether you want to admit them or not.
Since Western Europe has far fewer blacks than America, it’s not fair to compare crime rates without acknowledging racial disparity. However, you can start claiming the high road just as soon as Western Europe brings home the lions share of Nobel Prizes….
Terrance,
Causality and incidence aren’t noise, they’re the deciding factors in reaching a valid conclusion.
Testosterone alone doesn’t determine violence, it determines a pre-disposition to aggression, but not necessarily violence. Our environments teach us when violence is or isn’t acceptable. In the middle-east honour killings have been deemed acceptable (historically) independent of testosterone levels. In the West we reject that notion and people of all (most, hopefully) races also reject the notion.
Violence is very much dependent on environment and social acceptability. The IQ factor, I would also argue, is related to environment. There are enough intelligent and successful black people around to prove that it’s not an issue of causality but one of incidence.
I know that my family background & social group, my private school, my tennis classes and language classes etc. were the major factors in my development. My sector of society just can’t be fairly compared to other sectors- and I don’t really see where it would take us to do that. There are so many variables that have to be considered when making these assessments it’s extremely difficult to arrive at a consistent result- and even if we could, I don’t think it’s a productive, humane or compassionate approach to life. People from abusive homes are more likely to be violent and abusive and that doesn’t mean I think they should be treated or regarded in any way different from myself.
As for Nobel prizes, if you add just 3 EU countries together (UK, Germany & France) it’s less than half the population of America and about the same number of Nobel prizes, if you subtract the American immigrants who were born in Europe and educated in their home countries… ;)
I’m not getting involved with the inferior debate, but I dont see how poverty can be an explaining factor. Black rappers are notoriously wealthy and notoriously in trouble with the law. Whether it’s gun possession, drug possession and trafficing, murder, assaults, etc. Their elevation from poverty doesn’t seem to have relieved them from their previous lifestyles.
In’t the issue there that their previous lifestyles? Living in a world where they were “trained” to accept guns, drugs or whatever as a normal part of life?
You’re using valid factors in a way that suggests you’ve made a point, when in fact the point you’re trying to make has already been addressed by the studies I’ve linked and you’ve failed to read. You’re feigning knowledge in an area in which you are wholly, and sadly, ignorant.
So you admit that blacks are likelier to act aggressively? Good. Glad you finally admit this genetic reality. And what do you mean “not necessarily violence?” The damn definition of “aggression” is “hostile or violent behavior.”
Ugh.
You’ve yet again missed the point. Nobody is suggesting that environment is totally irrelevant. However, I am suggesting, based on numerous scientific studies on behavior, that genetics plays a much larger role – at least in this discussion. If you had read my Rushdon study, you would have discovered that many of these differences are present at birth, making your “environment” blather all the more irrelevant.
Since you don’t care to read my studies, I’ll post a few snippets.
In some instances. But explain why blacks are 7x more likely to commit violent crime than whites? While poverty is higher in the black community, it’s not a decidedly black phenomenon. In sheer numbers, white people are the poorest race – yet we’re not 7x more likely to commit acts of violence.
How old are you? Did you really just suggest that an exception to a rule disproves it?
And most behavioral scientists say that 75% of intelligence is inherited. So I don’t really care what you would argue.
Most of our Laureates received their post-secondary education in America. :-) I guess our colleges are just better.
The study also said:
So your entire premise – environment – has been thoroughly destroyed.
Even if that were true, Pink, you’d be obligated to wonder why “guns, drugs, whatever” are part of their “normal life.” You can’t blame it on poverty, since white people, in sheer numbers, are the poorest race and don’t have the same problems.
Terrance,
I’m gonna have a look at the studies you mention in more detail because you’re right, I haven’t considered everything they say- but while you and I are having this discussion there are white idiots in trailer parks playing with fireworks who will probably lose a finger doing so and Oprah Winfrey is probably pouring herself a glass of champagne from a special gold faucet in her living room and flying in Chateau Lafite to wash her feet with.
I think there are enough exceptions to invalidate these “rules”- but I’ll withhold judgement until I read further. Interesting you mentioned child nourishment because that plays a huge role in IQ.
I would still argue that it’s an unproductive and destructive line of thinking. In society we should be finding ways to move forward together and benefit everyone, not marginalizing or excluding any group.
“Most of our Laureates received their post-secondary education in America. :-) I guess our colleges are just better.”
The laureates in the UK, Germany and France were educated in their respective countries- so that means that with half the population they’ve achieved the same thing as the US.
Terrance,
Have a look at Russia, Ukraine etc… Incredible levels of violence, drugs, prostitution- and they’re as white as could be.
Yet again you mention exceptions rather than the rule. And Oprah, in my view, is an affirmative action success.
What are you basing this on? How many successful black people do you know? And where are these successful black people located? If America or Europe, then look into their background and discover the racial diversity. To put it somewhat rudely, they have more white blood in them. I hate to put it that way, but the study I linked also showed that sub-Saharan Africans, who are much darker because there is less genetic diversity, have lower IQs than American and European blacks.
Not as much as the race of the child to begin with.
Black people are not incapable of being successful. Nobody is suggesting they’re a lost cause. We cannot come to an agreement on a solution if we can’t come to an agreement on a cause, so the discussion is very productive.
Not really. The United Kingdom has 100, German 100, and France 50. That’s 250 or a little higher. The United States is over 300. And let’s not forget all the medical breakthroughs which happen in the U.S. But regardless, I don’t see how any of this matters since the people in the United States that are winning these prizes have ancestors that came from European nations. especially our Jews who have German ancestry.
Okay… I wanted to give you a thorough and thoughtful response so I’ve been looking at the studies you mentioned and the methodology that was used.
In regards to violence you ignored the social acceptability factor, but that’s clearly demonstrated by differences even within Africa. Botswana, Ghana and Tanzania have significantly lower levels of violence compared to their neighbours. From that we can deduce socio-economic factors play a major role in violence levels, more so than race.
Now to IQ.
Firstly we have to take into account what IQ is. It’s a very narrow measure of one form of intelligence. It doesn’t measure memory, or mathematical skills or vocabulary independently. In real life a good pairing of skills can be sufficient for a person to be considered “intelligent” despite their IQ score. In fact I’d even venture to say that success in today’s market is a lot less about IQ and more about social skills and background. I’m fairly (absolutely) confident I have a higher IQ than Paris Hilton, Perez Hilton or the Kardashian sisters, yet they are more financially successful than me, the art historian who spent (and still spends) most of his life learning.
A theory equating IQ and success + genetic IQ would reflect a stagnant society in which social mobility didn’t exist and as we know that’s not the case of humanity. Every year there are new millionaires across the board and former millionaires (and children of) who are bumped down on the list. In fact I remember correctly in the Rushton study you mentioned it stated that the children of people with IQs of 115 and above tended to have lower IQs than their parents. But in the more average IQ rate children will score above their parents (Flynn 1987).
Then what we have to take into account is same-ethnicity variation, meaning that in the same ethnic group you’ll find a wide variety of IQs. 95% of the population scores between 70 and 130. That’s a dramatic difference in itself. In practice it means that if a black person moves next door to you, you can’t presume his IQ or intelligence in more general terms based on the average. He may be at the higher end of his racial scale and you could be at the middle or lower end of yours- or vice versa.
Then I think we have to take reciprocal causation into account. From the Brookings Institute:
“People whose genes send them into life with a small advantage for these abilities start with a modest performance advantage. Then genes begin to drive the powerful engine of reciprocal causation between ability and environment. You begin by being a bit better at school and are encouraged by this, while others who are a bit ‘slow’ get discouraged. You study more, which upgrades your cognitive performance, earn praise for your grades, start haunting the library, get into a top stream. Another child finds that sport is his or her strong suit, does the minimum, does not read for pleasure, and gets into a lower stream. Both of you may go to the same school but the environments you make for yourselves within that school will be radically different. The modest initial cognitive advantage conferred by genes becomes enormously multiplied.”
…and the you have a vicious cycle that develops. This is where I think the most important factors come into play. The Asian IQ is also fed by a strict culture that keeps perpetuating it.
Blacks deal with a culture that excludes and marginalizes them regularly. I live in one of Europe’s least diverse countries. In fact a study a couple of years ago showed that over 75% of the population wouldn’t even consider marrying someone from another country- and when they say country here sometimes they don’t even mean country, they mean region. I live in a small community of 2500 people. A couple of years ago we had our first black person, a British trader. I could observe how people systematically dehumanized him. Here was an educated, well dressed and well spoken guy, and people kind of stepped back when he approached. Can you imagine the psychological damage? And then the repercussions on education levels and opportunities for success?
I started to agree with this paragraph until you said, “From that we can deduce socio-economic factors play a major role in violence levels, more so than race.”
You’re changing the wording of things you’ve already said. I responded to this notion by factually asserting that though white people are the poorest race in sheer numbers, we are not 7x more likely to commit violent acts.
I would also critique something you said about Africa, particularly Botswana.
Botswana is, unfortunately, a dying country due to an egregious HIV epidemic. If you indeed read my studies, you would know that it predicts this sort of problem: blacks are genetically wired to be highly sexual.
I also take issue with the idea that Botswana has low levels of crime. I don’t believe this is accurate. According to Michigan State University, levels of violence against women are extremely high – and underreported – in Botswana.
You’re using individual situations – of which you cannot be sure – to disregard scientifically validated genetic realities. Furthermore, you seem unaware that while IQ is not the end all, be all, it is one of the best predicators of success.
In America, for example, black people are only 13% the population, yet represent a whopping 40% of all welfare recipients. They also comprise over 50% of our prison inmates. And most disheartening of all, 85% of black fourth-graders are either functionally illiterate or reading below grade level. It is clear there exists a problem in the black community that cannot be blamed solely on socioeconomic realities.
Now you seem to be in agreement with me. You’re admitting that races have different IQ scales. You said of the mythical black neighbor, “He may be at the higher end of his racial scale and you could be at the middle or lower-end of yours – or vice versa.”
Finally, we agree. Now, I know the point you’re trying to make. You’ve been making it since we began this discussion, and I’m not sure why. Nobody is saying that individual situations do not vary. I know they vary. But on average, black people have lower IQs, so you predicate, based on genetics, that your black neighbor has a lower IQ than you do. It may not necessarily be true, but genetic indicators suggest it is.
The Brookings Institute quote is irrelevant.
This is not true. Trillions of dollars have been spent on their welfare programs and community reinvestment, and nothing has changed. We’ve instituted reverse discrimination policies so that black people can gain a leg up on white people who are more qualified, et cetera…Nothing has changed the level of plight in their communities. Whatever the individual situation in Europe, it’s not true in the United States, and yet our results are the same.
I’d also like to offer a personal story. Some of you may believe it, while others may think I’m telling it to moderate myself. But for what it’s worth, everything I’m about to say is absolutely true.
I absolutely know that there are exceptions and that not all black people live in poverty with low IQs.
Lately, I’ve been making much of my money by doing auto repair. I didn’t go to school for that; I went to school, originally, for Emergency Medicine, then Information Systems, then History and English. What I know about engine repair, I learned on the job – from a black man,
This man is incredibly bright, articulate, and fun to hang around. But my experience with blacks is not limited to a single man or an occasion; I’ve known and lived around many blacks and I consider my friend an exception. He is aware of my views and he tentatively agrees with me, although not regarding the genetics. He believes there is a moral problem in the black community that can only be solved by spreading the “Biblical truth to the black youth.” His words.
Your point about Botswana doesn’t invalidate what I said. Neighbouring African countries whose populations are almost entirely black have vast variations of crime levels.
Meanwhile here are the world’s ten most dangerous countries “Nations were rated for safety, based on a wide range of factors, including: homicides, violent crimes, violent demonstrations, police activity, perceived criminality in society, political instability, weapons importing/exporting and access, terrorist activity, neighbouring country relations, and deaths from conflicts.”
149) Pakistan (↓ from 146)
150) Israel (↓ from 145)
151) Central African Republic (↓ from 144)
152) North Korea (↓ from 149)
153) Russia (↓ from 147)
154) Democratic Republic of Congo (↓ from 148)
155) Iraq (↓ from 152)
156) Sudan (↓ from 151)
157) Afghanistan (↓ from 150)
158) Somalia (↓ from 153)
How does your race theory contend with that? Are environmental factors not
I appreciate your last comment Terrance, but I think the genetic factor just isn’t enough to support your generalization/conclusion. Some African countries have societies composed of many black law abiding, non-violent, doctors, lawyers, politicians, entrepreneurs and also an underclass which is violent and criminal. That happens in absolutely every ethnicity.
There are violent criminals in Asia too, and Latin America.
Pink
I think terrance is looking for an explanation of why if there are whites in America who are in poverty as well as blacks, but blacks overwhelmingly resort to crime, how is that explained given that they both share the excuse that they are poor.
I’ve never studied this particular phenomena (at least not until this subject began yesterday) so I can’t claim to be an expert by any means. I can only speculate that a wide variety of factors influence it.
I’ve seen rap music on television and that can’t be helpful, neither can the (mutual) antagonism between authority and those communities.
Here we don’t have blacks but our most troubled minority is gypsies. Violence and criminality levels are extremely high and education levels low.
I think it’s a very complex equation that includes them not wanting to integrate and society not wanting them to integrate. Rejection breeding more rejection- if that makes sense?
This is a great post! Thank you for writing it.
You keep saying that genetics don’t matter, but the studies prove they do.
You talk about violence occuring elsewhere at high levels, a actually believe you made some point. There are many reasons for violence in many different countries. Sometimes, and in some of those countries listed, ethnic cleansing and civil war to blame. None of that is relevant, however, to the notion that blacks are more prone to commit acts of violence than other races. This has been proven.
That violence occurs for other reasons is utterly irrelevant to that point. And I’d add that you don’t get to continually ignore the science while pushing speculation and things not germain to the genetic realities.
One day during the second semester of my first year at law school I went up to three classmates, all males, and said “What’s goin’ on, boys.” Having seen these guys as my equals and having a genuine liking for them I wanted to treat them as my friends. I always call my guy-friends “boys.”
The oldest of them, who had been a pastor before entering law school, took me aside and gently reminded me that calling black men “boys” was not something I, as a white man, should be doing. It didn’t occur to me that my affectionate term was taken as racism.
I was hurt. I was thinking of them as friends and equals and addressing them how I address friends and he was telling me how racist I was being. Instead of treating me as an individual, he lumped me into a class of white men who try to demean black men by calling them “boys.”
It is not just liberals that quickly take offense. Even brothers and sisters in Christ can irrationally take offense. I addressed this in my blog post http://americancreed.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/forgiveness-even-when-they-dont-want-it/
I believe in not being deliberately offensive, but I do not believe in apologizing for an unintended offense.