Black Nature, White Denial

I started this thread after the usual color blindness in the Trayvon Martin thread by liberal whites, an attempt to preserve their own supposed innocent naivete regarding race but which is only another strategy for keeping the white working class down whilst maintaining their economic privileges. If one cannot know then one cannot be held responsible.

The refusal of liberals to accept the existence of race, whilst simultaneously blaming whites for all the worlds problems is the greatest hypocrisy of the postmodern age.

Blacks are encouraged through the media to see themselves as white people, their skin is lightened, their hair straightened, their bodies altered to appear less ‘raw’, because the reality is embarrassing and unbearable for liberal whites.

But there is nothing like the first hand testimony of one who, through habituation, has learned the uncomfortable truth.

Let the denial begin.

Other than you taught in a Southeastern state, you don’t give much detail where the school was located. Given the litany of racial putdown “examples”, I’d guess a fairly large urban area. The kind of area where blacks (and other minorities) have been ghetto-ized for generations. Yup, your examples aren’t unusual for any minority group in urban settings. You could have been teaching in a dozen of our larger cities and experienced the same thing.

What your essay/rant fails to do is take into consideration culturization. It isn’t because your students were black, brown, or green, it is because of their cultural environment and being nurtured by parents who themselves had been raised in that same environment. You’ve played the race card where race was forced on blacks for generations and not because blacks are inherently this way or that way because of skin pigmentation.

Given your spill, I don’t hold out much hope for you to see your own argument failure. I get it that you really wanted to teach in an environment where education has been lacking or so long that it is next to impossible. But you’ve allowed your disappointment to be skewed into racism. Sadly, you have a lot of company.

I truly don’t appreciate the way you bandy about the word “liberals” here. You clearly don’t understand the problem of racism at all, the way it’s institutionalized, and the fact that most liberals stand against racism in favor of equal civil and human rights.

You do seem to understand internalized racism, meaning the way that the oppressed come to believe the lie that the oppressor is actually better or should be emulated… when in fact each of us is just as good as the other in every way.

Really? Is Maia as good in the way of eyesight as I am?

I slogged my way through through as much of this dreck as I could bear. Though it should go without saying, there are many, many issues with the author’s appraisal. There’s essentially no recognition that “black schools” and “poor schools” are essentially the same set, which is to say that he makes no attempt to distinguish race from the economic marginalization it has caused. You know who comes to school to get the free breakfast and has no cultural foundation pushing them towards academics? Poor people. Poor people also have objectively less to lose, making crime more appealing from a purely rational point of view: if you’re likely to live in poor conditions anyway, prison is not a great deterrent, and often criminal enterprises are the only options available to an entrepreneurial individual living in an economic wasteland.

But since I’m unlikely to convince any seething racist that there’s more than race at play, I’ll spend some time discussing something I find interesting: the oft-repeated misunderstanding of the way that language works.

The handicap is not that black people speak incorrectly, but that they do often speak a true cultural dialect of the English language. It is only grammatically ‘wrong’ if you are judging it by the wrong grammatical standard. It is certainly grammatically different from the WASP dialect of English, but in the same way that British English and American English have diverged, black people have been socially marginalized enough, and for long enough, that WASP English and Black English Vernacular (BEV) have diverged. They are of course mutually intelligible, but they are both true dialects of the English language. BEV has just as much internal structure as any other human languge. Its grammar is internally consistent, and words can’t be strung together willy-nilly: they must obey rules, the rules are just sometimes different from those of the WASP dialect (as the author correctly notes, BEV and the sourthern dialect have some common heritage, which makes sense giving the history of how most American blacks’ ancestors ended up in the country).

In The Language Instinct, Steven Pinker devotes most of a chapter to rejecting the idea that this is a failure to understand English, instead explaining that it is linguistic offshoot of WASP English that is just as legitimate. The only sense in which it is ‘incorrect’ is that it will close doors to economic opportunities because of the ingrained racism of the majority of western society’s monied interests. Language evolves naturally, and socioeconomic boundaries are as potent as geographic boundaries (and often more potent). Blacks in the US have been segregated from whites for over a century, first explicitly through legal separations, and then implicitly through economic restrictions, and yet more perniciously throughcultural exclusion like that evinced by this misinformed educator.

Supposing that the teacher’s observations are correct—and in fact, I certainly think there’s something to them—, is what he observes necessarily a bad thing? I think the “liberal whites” Ecclesiastes mentions reason as follows:

  1. If it’s due to racial differences then the black race is inferior to the white.
  2. To think of races as unequal gives us unpleasant feelings.
  3. Therefore, it cannot be due to racial differences.

Is not statement # 1, however, based on Western cultural values or white racial values? Why would its being due to racial differences make the black race inferior to the white? Has the black race gone extinct while the white hasn’t?

Carleas,

I completely agree with your perception. The reality of the ground cannot be understood by sitting on the roof. One has to come down at the ground floor.

The whole of Aristocracy does not worth more than the hunger of a day or the thirst of half a day.

Aristocrates are aristocrates because they can afford to be an aristocrate.

Rest is circumstances.

Does a White begger look more Elite or Aristocrate than a Black begger?

Or, does Obama look less Elite that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet?

It is easy to find the answer if one wants to see things objectively. But, Bias makes one Blind.

with love.
sanjay

First, let’s be clear that we’re not talking about his observations. What any teacher observers as they go about their job is insufficient to justify the conclusion that there are significant and noticeable differences in cognitive ability that trace the social construction of racial division, and that those differences are innate. Their observations are not scientific: they are not controlled to exclude other factors, their is significant likelihood of bias on the part of the observer, and the dataset is woefully small for the sort of sweeping generalization being made. Accepting the teachers observations would mean simply excluding bias as an element, which still leaves major disconnects between the observations and the conclusions that the teacher draws.

So, what I think you mean is, what if we accept this teachers conclusions about the cognitive abilities of different races, would that necessarily be a bad thing. But of course the answer depends on what you mean by bad. This teacher would probably love it. The human beings being told that they can never be “[brought] up to the white level” would probably consider it a bad thing.

If instead you mean to suggest that what we’re talking about is “different” and not “better and worse”, I have two responses:
First, we aren’t talking about that. The history of racism in the US and around the world has been one of better/worse. ‘Different’ is tried now that overt racism is poo-pooed, because parts of society don’t want to let go of the ludicrous holdover that melatonin and the ability to learn WASP English are somehow connected.

Second, the question itself misses the point. It’s not that one race can’t be inherently different from another (for instance, it’s almost tautological that whites on average survive better in the far north better than do blacks; blacks on average cope better in equatorial regions than do whites). The conclusion here is simply not supported by the evidence, so we spend a lot of time pondering whether or not we’d like this counterfactual.
Moreover, the very division on which this question turns is a false dichotomy. We say that Obama is the first black president, when his mother is white. We generally make no racial distinction between Michelle and Barack, though their skin tone is more different than Barack’s is from many a well-tanned Aryan. Clearly, we aren’t really talking about genetics here. Race is culturally burdened, and the distinctions this teacher is making have much more to do with perception and mental categorization than genetic similarity.

Interesting read.

Show an example then.

First off, how are you certain it isn’t? Also you think that race/ethnicity has nothing to do with how a culture developes?

Implying the only differance between races/ethnicities is skin pigmentation.

Back at ya.

Huh?

As do you.

Please show us some evidence of a school in a poor white area where the pupils behave the same as the blacks in the school above (please note that I’m not the author of that essay).

Don’t be so utterly absurd. As if Asian girls stand at the front of the class gyrating their (non existent) asses and exclaiming “luk at dem juicy fruit!” The question here is what is it about black culture that so repels you as a white man and compels you to deny it?
Remember, it is the PHYSICAL phenotype that PRODUCES the CULTURE! Not the other way around. A primitive phenotype produces a primitive culture with primitive behaviors and a primitive language along with it.

Like that teacher, is reality disappointing for you?
Seneca teaches us to lower our expectations to avoid such feelings. Stop expecting blacks to be the same as whites and much of your negative feelings around the subject will vanish.

I think you still don’t get it.
The whole concept of ‘racism’ is simply modern day, sociological putty filling in the biological gaps. Blacks have absorbed and needed it the most - as is clear from the teachers obervations above - because the gaps between them and other races are huge and intractable.

The term ‘racism’ was given its current negative connotation by the writings of Magnus Hirschfeld, a Jewish-German doctor and early homosexual rights activist, who sought to fight against Jewish exclusion from mainstream European Christian culture. As far as Jews go, who are on the whole physiologically and intellectually indistinguishable from Europeans, the strategy worked. But it was never intended to be applied to non-European races. Hence we witness today the impossibility of integration and the endless litany of excuses for black failure, inevitably followed by the tired old accusations of racism. More recently the term ‘institutionalized racism’ has gained traction amongst liberals, providing the illusion that there is some kind of progress in isolating the causes, that they are still to be found in the world created by men, rather than the far more frightening truth that this is the work of nature, and no amount of re branding or semantic dodging is going to change it.

Since why must blacks aspire to achieve your standards of Western materialism? Were the Ancient Greeks materially rich? There is no scientific evidence that low intelligence or poor behavioral problems are caused by not having enough money and it is nothing more than a lazy argument. Throughout history there have been numerous philosophers who were poor, Lao-Tzu, Socrates, Spinoza, etc… It’s the same one, with a slight variation, used to explain why blacks dominate athletics: being poor makes you run faster. I’ve actually heard liberals spill that crap.

A tragedy indeed that the dumbing down of the English language is to be celebrated as the achievement of diversity, but not unpredictable. Here one can’t help feeling that liberals are shooting themselves in the foot in their desperation to deny reality.
The lowest common denominator becomes the norm, in an effort not to hurt anyone’s feelings or make them feel excluded.

I’ve been debating with liberals for enough years to know that it doesn’t matter how you present the evidence, whether as personal accounts or scientific data, it is rejected just the same. I have evidence from scientific experiments that clearly show that blacks have denser bones than whites or Asians, that their gesticulation periods are shorter yet they emerge more physically developed and mature faster, that their physical morphology is closer to extinct hominid lineages than to the imagined universal of [i]homo sapien[i], a marketing lie concocted by liberals in the latter half of the twentieth century.

For example, is it not true that blacks are more genetically diverse than other races, a fact long since bandied around by liberals like some talisman against those who point our their physical similarities? Yet it is also a fact that primates are more genetically diverse than humans, simply because, and rather obviously and somewhat embarrassingly perhaps, evolution acts to filter genetic information in order to produce distinct species.

The evidence does not accord with your opinions. Whites perform better than blacks regardless of where they are geographically.
Racial differences have little if anything to do with the environment. It is only feel good reasoning on the part of white anthropologists like Nina Jablonski that skin colors evolved as climatic adaptations, when in fact they were already set hundreds of millions of years before our ancestors even started losing their body hair.

You thrown the baby out with the bath water. Disagreements between whites over racial classifications are not evidence that race itself is a social construct. All it indicates to me is that it is whites who are in the driving seat when it comes to classifying hominid phenotypes.

Scientists do actually agree race can be used in science, although these days they use the term ethnicity as it’s less controversial. And it’s not just in soft sciences like sociology or politics either, it’s actually considered important in medicine. Where it seems it is unable to substantiate itself is in areas where it is claimed what are clearly cultural traits indicate greater inherent ability. The reason is of course not a vast global conspiracy to keep whitey down, it’s because the science is hard to dispute and not just hard to dispute for race advocates, just plain unbiased hard to dispute. If there was a clear indication that racial traits existed, then they should show up in extensive genetic gene pool analysis. After all you can’t lie about genetic markers and allele frequencies. The fact is they don’t, the differences between two people of the same population are far larger than the differences between two geographically diverse groups. The reason being shockingly not hard to find, but it is incredibly hard to argue with constant repeatable peer reviewed statistics. Even if one were to allow for bias, the facts will still win out. The clinal model of racial difference is accepted because it works, despite what liberal conspiracy racial proponents claim. Racial demarking fails just about every statistical criteria, and basis for categorisation there is in genetics, so it does not work. You can whine about biased politicians, but the genetic evidence is hard to dispute. It’s of course not impossible which is why science does not claim there are no racial differences, just that no evidence exists that substantiates the view that certain controversial traits exist.

You do realise that whites are actually a minority in genetics in the areas you talk about, presumably it’s a vast global conspiracy by the off whites to keep the whites down too. Poor whitey we has it so hard, perhaps we should invent the White blues. Frankly this rant and the link is the usual paranoid xenophobia of fringe groups and racists, whose grasp of science is weak at best and revolves around self reinforcing anecdote that is then fed by white pride groups. There’s no more coherency to the paranoia some whites seem to have than that there is a liberal conspiracy to keep whitey down. It’s just the same old decades old nonsense.

We’d probably agree some social policy is detrimental to fair representation of ethnic majorities and can create sometimes justifiably claims that discrimination has become unbalanced the wrong way, but after hundreds of years of imbalance that created the problem in the first place it’s hard to get too riled up over it to be frank.

Convenient. The very soft sciences where the dogma of black victimization has found its full expression.
And of course, the term ethnicity to replace the term race, much as African American has replaced the term negro, because this is all about not offending people, making them feel included in this new postmodern fiction where the intrusion of nature (reality) is considered vulgar and offensive.

It was taken for granted for centuries. The rapid volte face is for purely socio-economic reasons.

From the paper: Two complementary perspectives on inter-individual genetic distance

This is true, as much of the work has been farmed out to Asians, same as how Japan was turned into a technological trinket making factory after the second world war by the U.S.

You keep using the word ‘conspiracy’, this is simply a straw man on your part as I never suggested there was one. The suppression of racial science can be explained by simple economic motives alone.

Here you expose the real emotional basis of your argument. I never doubted it from the start, because you have never explored the alternative position, merely repeated your liberal programming.

After accusing me of indulging in conspiracy theories, you spill this crap.

This is about human evolution, and the re writing of it to appease minorities as well as the attack on the white working class.
I am certainly not interested in ‘re balancing’ discrimination.

Ok well that’s just a diatribe about my liberal programming, and since it answers none of my points in any scientific way I will answer your points in the same way. Who the hell cares for your opinion about me, my bias or anyone who just writes stuff which has no scientific basis, no one. Try again.

The Japanese were beaten in world war II, are you joking? What does that even mean? Seriously your polemics would be of much sounder basis if you included some actual real world science with that speech.

We’ve already produced papers on diversity that completely destroy the conclusions and in fact your paper says the same thing you just didn’t understand it and they misappropriated the data.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier

Besides Elsevier are a discredited journal no longer recognised by the science community because of their lack of scientific rigour ie peer review issues and their funding issues.

Suffice to say since then thousands of researchers have abandoned them and advised others not to use them.

You should read the paper, it does utterly destroy the notion in biological genetic terms that there is a distinction that is racial across so called racial phenotypes, it also addresses all previous studies and shows their flaws. And your paper quotes it also 2007 Witherspoon in support of its conclusions, which should tell you something.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

Yes, that’s what I meant. My question, then, is whether the value of cognitive ability is not a Western cultural value or white racial value. Maia can never be brought up to my level of eyesight, but might it not be a prejudice on my part to consider that a bad thing? She may be “better” than I in other ways, perhaps even in ways that are incompatible with my level of eyesight. And ultimately, the question is: “better for what?” If all that ultimately matters is genotypical survival, great cognitive ability is probably a predominantly bad thing—as is satirised in Mike Judge’s Idiocracy.

You seemed to have ignored most of what I said about this point. Language evolves. There is nothing “dumbed down” about BEV relative to American WASP English, just as there is nothing “dumbed down” English relative to Dutch. The language simply diverged. BEV speakers’ vocabularies are as large as those who speak WASP English, their grammar is as internally consistent, their ability to communicate within the BEV-speaking population is equivalent.

I think this point is damning for your argument, if only because it reveals your bias. You treat BEV as less than American WASP English because it is spoken by blacks, and you then use the fact that many blacks grow up in BEV-speaking communities as evidence that they are less than whites because, as you had already decided, BEV is less that American WASP English. This reasoning is transparently circular.

Sure, in some sense survival is the only test of fitness. Evolutionary, we can say that every organism alive today is equally fit, but we’re pretty sure pandas are fucked. Survival is only a useful metric in retrospect. We are making prospective evaluations when we say the blind are less fit than the sighted (or vice versa).

And in a social species like humans, those prospective evaluations have the quality of a self-fulfilling prophecy. When Nazi Germany decided that Jews were inferior and subsequently sought to exterminate them, it had the effect of making Jews significantly less likely to reproduce. But that says very little about their genetic fitness. Similarly, if it were proven that some race was less cognitively able than other races, that race’s evolutionary prospects would immediately fall. They would lose access to mates, they would lose access to resources, they would have less input into the decision making process, so that their interests would be less well represented (surely we can agree that at least some racism is through irrational bias?).

Humans are a social organism, and the effects of the genetics of the individual in determining that individual’s survival is very low. An African living in Africa has a significantly lower rate of survival than does an African living Europe. The same is true for a European.

I’m not dogmatically opposed to the idea that intellect tracks race. But the evidence isn’t there, there is significant confounding evidence, and the question itself seems poorly formed. What there is evidence for is systematic overstatement of the evidence to advance the conclusion that was taken as a given.

Ironically it’s not really minorities who are the largest creators of slang terms in Britain or indeed the biggest speakers of colloquialisms, if you want to here an incomprehensible mess of gibberish you need only step out of your front door into any mostly white community.

“Oy geez you’re having a girrafe aint ya, that’s just wank. Pipe down, and shut your Gregory Peck.”

“Calm your sen la, don’t talk soft.”

“Ge tae fuck ya soft Southern jessie.”

Incomprehensible gibberish to most but common place parlance amongst them white folk who live in say Yorkshire, Glasgow or Landan aka London. Slang is not in any way a second class form of English language in fact it gives it richness and colour.

It’s no different from any other patois, it’s as old as our isles itself.

A dialect spoken by a sub-race cannot be said to be an example of linguistic evolution, as the grammatical structure of the language is reduced to something childish and primitive. It’s an attempt by an atavistic phenotype to adapt a highly complex tool for use by its less developed mental architecture. Hence the omission of basic structure and grammar or its simplification. A classic example is changing the spelling of ‘ch’ to ‘k’ or omitting the verb to be.

I treat it as less than English the same way I treat meths as less than champagne, or jungle drums as less than a Mozart symphony. For you, a mud hut is no better or worse than a château, simply… different.

But in my opinion this is where you patently reveal yourself as a hypocrite, as you would take the higher quality option any day.

WASP and BEV make a very poor comparison. You should choose a better example.

What can we deduce about the Germanic race who reduced the intricacies and subtlety of Old English to the flat, uninflected, grammatically babyish form it assumes today?

Why were the Arabs ahead of the game, compared to Europé, for so long, and then were not - according to the values of European Enlightenment that is - if genes Control Everything?