Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hatefacts
Options
-
09-04-2012 3:15am#1A few issues rolled up together in this; therefore, if the mods wish to move this thread to the politics cafe forum (or elsewhere if deemed more appropriate), go ahead, but I thought it would work best here.
In short, a conservative British journalist has been sacked by The National Review in America for writing this article for the conservative opinion website Taki's.
In it, he basically states (and I'm summarising here) that a combination of white hate among a small minority of blacks, plus the law of large numbers and peer pressure, effectively puts whites and others at risk of violence and danger from blacks, and hence it is prudent to avoid black people in general, but to cultivate relationships with what he calls 'intelligent, well-socialised blacks' so as to avoid appearing racist, which can be personally damaging to one's reputation.
His article, while clearly prejudiced, is not without quite a lot of supporting evidence, especially relating to statistical evidence of black on white criminality in America, and hence, while he offers an opinion, he does strive to base it on factual evidence.
Three things occur to me pondering this article and its aftermath:
1. Recently, the same online magazine had written about the concept of 'hatefacts' - things that are factually true but so societally unpopular as to be heretical. Is it the case perhaps that he lost his job because he forgot the importance of not stating hatefacts? Do hatefacts really exist? If so, what does that mean for the concept of justice or democracy or freedom of speech? Do we have our own Irish hatefacts?
2. His job as an opinion features journalist is to state his opinion, and America does facilitate full freedom of speech. So, did he get sacked for only doing his job, even if his opinion is odious, or even untrue? To what extent should public opinion influence the employment of writers? Is it fair to sack someone over something they wrote elsewhere?
3. To what extent can the supporting evidence he offers, which veers from youtube clips to statstical mathematical studies, be reasonably thought to support his argument? Is it the case that he's just a roaring old racist, even though he offers a lot of supporting evidence for his opinion? Or is his opinion partly or wholly justifiable, and hence he is right to warn his children (and by extension, others, by way of his article) about a danger he perceives?
It seems to me that he opened a can of worms and got sacked as a result. I think that was probably an overreaction, and he fell foul of spouting a combination of racist prejudice and hatefacts, but I'm not really qualified (not being American or in America) to tease the two strands apart. Opinions welcome.Tagged:0
Comments
-
I'll let the man speak for himself;John Derbyshire wrote:I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one, and those things are going to be illegal pretty soon, the way we are going.
From this interview in 2003. The man's own words. He goes on to defend those statements here.
As for those "hatefacts", they are a series of straw men (who ever said that being fat was healthy?) that people will rightly counter with actual facts. There is a nub truth in them, that I don't disagree with, but to suggest that they tell the whole story about the issue at hand is stretching it a little.
Lets take the common one racists use, the statistical evidence that some races are smarter than others. Well that only tells part of the story. The Flynn Effect is the observation that IQ is increasing on average, so we have evidence that IQ is not a static result. There is even evidence that IQ changes with age. This doesn't include the potential effect of decades of poor education can have on IQ scores either. In any case both of those observations leave us with the conclusion that there doesn't seem to be a genetic component to IQ. Therefore that "hatefact" isn't so much a fact as racists claim it to be.
See the actual problem is that simple answers can't be given to incredibly complex questions and it can be very difficult for the complex answer to be accepted. That doesn't mean the simple answer is correct.0 -
It seems to me that the author is a product of white, middle-class America, and that is the context in which his article was written. Effectively he was dressing up his racism in facts and figures, but to me it is as if those fact and figures are a direct result of the power white, middle-class Americans have in that society.
So for example; "Black people have a lower I.Q. in general" is a fact, and the author uses that fact, among others, to justify his 'advice' to his kids thinking to himself that it is common sense to adopt such attitude.
However, what the author is failing to realise is that there is a great segregation in America due to attitudes from white people like himself which in turn results in a neglecting of an attempt to address this segregation, which in turn only compounds the negative facts against black people. The author would be well-advised to offer a proper solution to the problem of segregation and disproportionate poverty among the black community in America, as opposed to his 'sweep it under the carpet' attitude in the article.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,107 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59036
Yet any number of other non population based studies will show us that IQ is strongly linked to genes. That intelligent parents tend to have intelligent children. Intelligence does have a genetic component(s). The question is does it have a population* component? I'd reckon it's possible depending on the environment over time. Environmental pressures skew it in a big way. If a culture or an environment favours say aggression over smarts then you're going to see more aggressive individuals and more of the same will have more kids etc. Sub Saharan Africa does have on average noticeably lower IQ scores than say Japan. They also tend to have much lower longevity. Both environmental IMH. Watch those IQ scores soar as various African nations economies really grow.In any case both of those observations leave us with the conclusion that there doesn't seem to be a genetic component to IQ.
I so agree with you there.See the actual problem is that simple answers can't be given to incredibly complex questions and it can be very difficult for the complex answer to be accepted. That doesn't mean the simple answer is correct.
*can't abide the race description it's woefully unscientific.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Just reading the article it seems far to blatantly and purposefully worded to take genuinely. My guess is that the author was trying to make some sort of point about the perceived acceptance in society of black parents telling their children to be afraid of white people. You know the old thing "its ok for black parents but if I DID THE SAME THING LOOK WHAT WOULD HAPPEN"
I suspect the author anticipated such a back lash and probably was counting on it.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13636
1. On him being fired, if I wrote for a newspaper with one kind of slant and also wrote a blog saying the opposite, I could expect to lose my job too. Here, the paper has decided that they will lose more readers keepin him than to fire him, so that makes sense.
2. On his argument, it doesn't sound like someone who looked at all the facts neutrally and deduced this theory, instead he seems to have started withthe theory and found facts to support it. In any event, most would argue that his conclusions are wrong and racial segregation leads to far more problems than multiculturalism.
3. On iq, h j eysinck (sic) carried out a number of studies on iq. He found a trend that on average, people with genetically similar parents tended to have slightly lower iqs, while those with genetically varied parents had slightly higher iqs. He postulated that mixed race marriages invorgated the genes to produce a better child, but I suppose growing up in a mixed race household could also provide an environment for increased iq - ie learning 2/3 languages from
an early age etc0 -
Advertisement
-
Just a point of clarification - the magazine he was fired from, National Review, is itself a conservative publication, and has gotten some heat in the past for what were considered racially insensitive comments. So given that Derbyshire was fired by a conservative publication - and considering the state of American conservatism in 2012 - I think that says something about how far beyond the pale his comments were.0
-
Yet any number of other non population based studies will show us that IQ is strongly linked to genes. That intelligent parents tend to have intelligent children. Intelligence does have a genetic component(s). The question is does it have a population* component? I'd reckon it's possible depending on the environment over time. Environmental pressures skew it in a big way. If a culture or an environment favours say aggression over smarts then you're going to see more aggressive individuals and more of the same will have more kids etc. Sub Saharan Africa does have on average noticeably lower IQ scores than say Japan. They also tend to have much lower longevity. Both environmental IMH. Watch those IQ scores soar as various African nations economies really grow.
Ah yes, my language wasn't precise but seeing as we largely agree that the "hatefact" was selective use of a particular statistic lets leave that there to prevent thread derailing.0 -
The author is himself in a mixed race marriage with mixed race children. The all-purpose silencer weapon word "racist" is thus difficult to apply in this regard. His stated issue is with the black-affiliating population of the United States (and possibly elsewhere, though I haven't delved into his oeuvre enough to examine that.)
If we define racism as prejudice based on race, then his self-definition and clarification seem perfectly comprehensible. He is a self-stated mild racist with a prejudice about black people, for which he has offered his reasons, based primarily on statistical evidence of greater criminality and wrong-doing. That's not very fair to the individual black people he may meet, but he states that he does attempt to treat individuals as he finds them. Whether this is self-delusion on his part or not, only those who know him personally can tell.
On the evidence he offers, speaking personally I'm generally convinced on the IQ issue, and tend to disregard the issue of cultural specificity, since Asians and Ashkenazi Jews tend to top all race-based examinations of IQ testing in any variant you care to consider. This may well indeed be a result of poorer education standards, or cultures which attribute different values to formal education, or indeed a raft of other non-genetic aspects. Again, I'm not expert, but even if we disregard that, the evidence on criminality he offers seems very solid.
In the context of the meme of black parents warning their children about the dangers of white people, a danger clearly fractional when compared to the statistical danger offered to whites by the black population in the US, his proffered warning seems validated.
On the basis of science, I'm reluctant in general to consider anything solely through the prism of race, which is a Victorian construct disproven by genetics advances. Equally, however, from a sociological point of view, race is a major component in how people define themselves, organise themselves and identify themselves and others, and hence is not so easily disregarded.
It seems to me race has become such a radioactive issue in the US that it is now at the point of heresy to introduce it into any form of public discussion, and that the author, perhaps knowingly, has breached that heresy and reaped the consequences.0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »In the context of the meme of black parents warning their children about the dangers of white people, a danger clearly fractional when compared to the statistical danger offered to whites by the black population in the US, his proffered warning seems validated.
Again, a clarification - the 'talk' is generally understood not to be about the dangers of white people, but rather white authority figures, in particular the police. Personally I would argue that the focus on the race of the officer here is problematic, because I don't think there is evidence that non-white officers are any less likely to engage in profiling or harassment (and speaking from personal experience, I've found black - and female - officers to actually be more aggressive in this regard). But I think the general point about black parents feeling obligated to train their children how to behave when dealing with the police, etc., still stands.
I would also add that the statistical danger offered to whites by the black population pales in comparison to the statistical danger offered to blacks by the black population. Black on black crime - especially violent crime - is a much larger problem, yet black on white crime is treated much more seriously - and harshly - by the judicial system (for a very good overview of research on crime and sentencing disparity, see this article). It is particularly telling that black on white sexual assaults are treated more harshly than black on black sexual assaults - the former violates a long (and some would argue, still) held taboo in American society. However this disparity in sentencing sends a terrible message to victims of black-on-black crime: your victimization is less important to the state than the victimization of whites. It is exactly this kind of disparity that makes many blacks lose all faith in the police, courts, and criminal justice system in America.0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »The author is himself in a mixed race marriage with mixed race children. The all-purpose silencer weapon word "racist" is thus difficult to apply in this regard. His stated issue is with the black-affiliating population of the United States (and possibly elsewhere, though I haven't delved into his oeuvre enough to examine that.).
Sorry, but just to address this point - why do you think being in a mixed-race marriage automatically qualifies someone as being less racist? The author admits that he only likes a certain 'kind' of black person: one who ostensibly has a similar socio-economic status and similar cultural values to himself. If he found a partner who fit that description, does it make him any less racist?
I would also add that within the dynamics of American racial politics, being married to an Asian woman does not have the same implications in terms of a 'mixed race marriage' as it would if he was married to a black woman. So I really don't get the idea that his Asian wife somehow insulates him from charges against being racist against black people.0 -
Advertisement
-
southsiderosie wrote: »Again, a clarification - the 'talk' is generally understood not to be about the dangers of white people, but rather white authority figures, in particular the police. Personally I would argue that the focus on the race of the officer here is problematic, because I don't think there is evidence that non-white officers are any less likely to engage in profiling or harassment (and speaking from personal experience, I've found black - and female - officers to actually be more aggressive in this regard). But I think the general point about black parents feeling obligated to train their children how to behave when dealing with the police, etc., still stands.
Firstly, I don't think your anecdotes qualify as evidence. Secondly, profiling does not accommodate facts such as the comparative rates of, for example, white on black rape (negligible) versus black on white rape (vastly disproportionate to relative populations) in the United States. The criminality is a fact. Whether it is genetic, or the product of environment, is not really the issue. If a threat exists, then it is surely legitimate to point that out, especially if it is considered legitimate for those of other races to point out a much less arguable case of threat to their own populations. (In other words, the criminality is a statistical truth; the perception of universal and endemic law enforcement racism is not as easily and comprehensively demonstrated.)Rosie wrote:Sorry, but just to address this point - why do you think being in a mixed-race marriage automatically qualifies someone as being less racist? The author admits that he only likes a certain 'kind' of black person: one who ostensibly has a similar socio-economic status and similar cultural values to himself. If he found a partner who fit that description, does it make him any less racist?
I would also add that within the dynamics of American racial politics, being married to an Asian woman does not have the same implications in terms of a 'mixed race marriage' as it would if he was married to a black woman. So I really don't get the idea that his Asian wife somehow insulates him from charges against being racist against black people.
Does it make him less racist? Obviously, yes. He is not racist against non-black races, nor against some types of black people, therefore he is less racist than those who are racist against all of the above. There is a scale of prejudice - it's not (forgive the pun) a black and white issue. The author has carefully positioned and quantified the degree of his own prejudice, which to my mind correlates with his opinions as he expresses them. Attempting to ignore the nuances of that position is an erroneous simplification.0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »Firstly, I don't think your anecdotes qualify as evidence. Secondly, profiling does not accommodate facts such as the comparative rates of, for example, white on black rape (negligible) versus black on white rape (vastly disproportionate to relative populations) in the United States. The criminality is a fact. Whether it is genetic, or the product of environment, is not really the issue. If a threat exists, then it is surely legitimate to point that out, especially if it is considered legitimate for those of other races to point out a much less arguable case of threat to their own populations. (In other words, the criminality is a statistical truth; the perception of universal and endemic law enforcement racism is not as easily and comprehensively demonstrated.)
I find it ironic that you quote me without quoting the send part of my post which provided clear statistical evidence of unequal treatment for both black criminals and black victims of violence - and then go on to make claims without any statistical evidence in your post whatsoever. Claims that, I might add, have little to do with my actual post.Cavehill Red wrote: »Does it make him less racist? Obviously, yes. He is not racist against non-black races, nor against some types of black people, therefore he is less racist than those who are racist against all of the above. There is a scale of prejudice - it's not (forgive the pun) a black and white issue. The author has carefully positioned and quantified the degree of his own prejudice, which to my mind correlates with his opinions as he expresses them. Attempting to ignore the nuances of that position is an erroneous simplification.
The statements he got fired for were due to his making racist statements against blacks specifically. I fail to see how his having an Asian wife mitigates his racism against black.0 -
RandolphEsq wrote: »It seems to me that the author is a product of white, middle-class America, and that is the context in which his article was written.
He is British? Or at least it says so in the first post.
This also illustrates another interesting fact which often serves to spread hate and the victim mentality, albiet through different groups, - it is seen as perfectly fine by people to generalise about the 'white, middle-class America' or in other cases 'Zionists', 'Mormons' and 'travelers'. Depending purely on the ideology the person represents.
That you cant see it is exactly the same process in action is a sad indication of your ability to analysis your own opinions.
Either it is wrong in all cases, or it is wrong in none. This picking and choosing when people can make judgements on big groups, especially without any statistics what so ever is par for course throughout certain media and less formal discussions as long as that group meets certain, hidden, criteria. See the reaction to the Traveler thread for another example of this in action.0 -
southsiderosie wrote: »I find it ironic that you quote me without quoting the send part of my post which provided clear statistical evidence of unequal treatment for both black criminals and black victims of violence - and then go on to make claims without any statistical evidence in your post whatsoever. Claims that, I might add, have little to do with my actual post.
I failed to quote that bit because it is irrelevant to the point made by the author, which is the threat (perceived or real) posed by blacks to white people. It seems demonstrable such a threat exists statistically and factually. Suggesting that this is entirely explainable by racial profiling of law enforcement is not plausible, and attempting to divert the discussion into issues of sentencing is a McGuffin.southsiderosie wrote: »The statements he got fired for were due to his making racist statements against blacks specifically. I fail to see how his having an Asian wife mitigates his racism against black.
It doesn't, though his racism does not extend to all black people either. But it does make him less racist than those with wider prejudices, which is the discussion we were having. In other words, it is simplistic to simply use the silencer word 'racist' here, because his position is significantly more nuanced.0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »I failed to quote that bit because it is irrelevant to the point made by the author, which is the threat (perceived or real) posed by blacks to white people. It seems demonstrable such a threat exists statistically and factually. Suggesting that this is entirely explainable by racial profiling of law enforcement is not plausible, and attempting to divert the discussion into issues of sentencing is a McGuffin.
But that is not what I am trying to do, and it is not what the article I quoted does either. My point was about what 'the talk' was for in the black community, and that it was NOT about the broader thread that whites in general present to black people. TBH I don't really see any point in discussing this further, since you seem intent on misconstruing my posts.Cavehill Red wrote: »It doesn't, though his racism does not extend to all black people either. But it does make him less racist than those with wider prejudices, which is the discussion we were having. In other words, it is simplistic to simply use the silencer word 'racist' here, because his position is significantly more nuanced.
As quoted earlier in the thread, the man called himself a 'mild and tolerant' racist - whatever that might mean. Does he deserve an award for not being Bull Connor?0 -
southsiderosie wrote: »But that is not what I am trying to do, and it is not what the article I quoted does either. My point was about what 'the talk' was for in the black community, and that it was NOT about the broader thread that whites in general present to black people. TBH I don't really see any point in discussing this further, since you seem intent on misconstruing my posts.
I already addressed your point about 'the talk'. You didn't respond, so let's try again: If it is legitimate for black people to warn their children against dealing with white people, even only white authority figures (though I'm not sure that nuance carries in 'the talk'), despite there being a lack of hard evidence to justify that warning, then why is it not legitimate for a white person to warn his mixed-race children about the factually demonstrable dangers black criminality poses to them?southsiderosie wrote: »As quoted earlier in the thread, the man called himself a 'mild and tolerant' racist - whatever that might mean. Does he deserve an award for not being Bull Connor?
It means that his opinion deserves to be dealt with on its merits or demerits and ought not to be dismissed as akin to that of a KKK member or, to use your term, a Bull Connor, so as to silence the discussion.0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »I already addressed your point about 'the talk'. You didn't respond, so let's try again: If it is legitimate for black people to warn their children against dealing with white people, even only white authority figures (though I'm not sure that nuance carries in 'the talk'), despite there being a lack of hard evidence to justify that warning, then why is it not legitimate for a white person to warn his mixed-race children about the factually demonstrable dangers black criminality poses to them?.
You seem to be confusing institutional racism with the dangers of urban living. The same dangers caused by "black criminality" arise with "white" criminality. However even today there are certain unique elements in dealing with authority figures, based on ones race. This obviously varies from region to region in scale and intensity.
Castigating "black" parents for doing such a talk is akin to castigating nationalist families in coaching their children how best to deal with elements of the security forces during the worst times of the conflict in NI.0 -
You seem to be confusing institutional racism with the dangers of urban living. The same dangers caused by "black criminality" arise with "white" criminality. However even today there are certain unique elements in dealing with authority figures, based on ones race. This obviously varies from region to region in scale and intensity.
Except for the fact that white criminality is significantly lower, proportionate to population density, especially as regards serious assault crimes.Castigating "black" parents for doing such a talk is akin to castigating nationalist families in coaching their children how best to deal with elements of the security forces during the worst times of the conflict in NI.
Firstly, no it isn't. And I say that as someone who grew up in a Nationalist family and in a Republican area during the height of the troubles.
Secondly, I didn't castigate anyone. I merely asked how the less justifiable warning from black parents could be considered legitimate while the more justifiable (in terms of proven statistical fact) warning from white parents is not. In other words, I want an explanation for the inconsistency.0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »Except for the fact that white criminality is significantly lower, proportionate to population density, especially as regards serious assault crimes..
...which again ignores the fact that in certain areas where theres white poverty, crime is indeed a problem.Cavehill Red wrote: »Firstly, no it isn't. And I say that as someone who grew up in a Nationalist family and in a Republican area during the height of the troubles.
Secondly, I didn't castigate anyone. I merely asked how the less justifiable warning from black parents could be considered legitimate while the more justifiable (in terms of proven statistical fact) warning from white parents is not. In other words, I want an explanation for the inconsistency.
Its been shown earlier that what "black" parents have to do is justifiable and your idea that his idea of a warning from "white" parents based on skin colour alone is justifiable is frankly bizarre.0 -
...which again ignores the fact that in certain areas where theres white poverty, crime is indeed a problem.
... which is still statistically nowhere near parity with black crime, even when matched for deprivation.Its been shown earlier that what "black" parents have to do is justifiable and your idea that his idea of a warning from "white" parents based on skin colour alone is justifiable is frankly bizarre.
Whereas a warning from black parents based on white skin colour isn't? I'm still waiting for an explanation for this logic inconsistency.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cavehill Red wrote: ».
Whereas a warning from black parents based on white skin colour isn't? ....
Its based on more than skin colour, as was earlier pointed out to you.
You might explain to me how the following is defendable?
10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.There is a magnifying effect here, too, caused by affirmative action. In a pure meritocracy there would be very low proportions of blacks in cognitively demanding jobs. Because of affirmative action, the proportions are higher. In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play, you will be dealt with more politely, too. “The DMV lady“ is a statistical truth, not a myth.0 -
Its based on more than skin colour, as was earlier pointed out to you.
Yes, it's based primarily on the largely unsupported argument that black children will be unfairly treated by law enforcement. Furthermore, it rests on an error of logic. Someone brought up the troubles as an analogue earlier. The reason why my parents didn't need to warn me about being treated unfairly by the RUC or British Army is because I didn't do anything illegal to attract their attention in the first place. Similar applies here.
By contrast, the statistical facts of black on white criminality are rather hard to argue away with semantics or suggestions of systemic racism. People are tried in courts of law in the US in front of their peers, many of whom will also be black. It may well be that they are profiled in advance of their arrest, or disproportionately sentenced afterwards because of the colour of their skin. But what is certain is that they were guilty of the offences.You might explain to me how the following is defendable?
I never once said it was defendable. What I queried was the concept of hatefacts, and whether it was disproportionate for a publication to sack an opinion features journalist for writing his opinion, and in another organ to boot.
I think what he says in relation to minority employment in public services in the US is largely true, though. There is a disproportionate number of minority employees in such jobs in America. I suspect what he calls the 'magnifier effect' of black on white hostility is at best overstated, however. And I wouldn't expect overweening intelligence from civil servants in any country, regardless of their race.0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »Yes, it's based primarily on the largely unsupported argument that black children will be unfairly treated by law enforcement.
.
The "largely supported" you mean.Cavehill Red wrote: »Furthermore, it rests on an error of logic. Someone brought up the troubles as an analogue earlier. The reason why my parents didn't need to warn me about being treated unfairly by the RUC or British Army is because I didn't do anything illegal to attract their attention in the first place.
.
Thats odd, because there'd be a number of badly injured, battered and occassionally dead young men that would beg to differ.Cavehill Red wrote: »I think what he says in relation to minority employment in public services in the US is largely true, though. ..........
So you agree with his thesis that because of affirmative action thick black white hating black people are given jobs in the civil service......
.
In government work, they are very high. Thus, in those encounters with strangers that involve cognitive engagement, ceteris paribus the black stranger will be less intelligent than the white. In such encounters, therefore—for example, at a government office—you will, on average, be dealt with more competently by a white than by a black. If that hostility-based magnifying effect (paragraph 8) is also in play, you will be dealt with more politely, too. “The DMV lady“ is a statistical truth, not a myth0 -
The "largely supported" you mean.
Not remotely as well supported as the factual statistical evidence for black on white crime, however. So remind me, why is it legitimate to warn about the one but not the other?Thats odd, because there'd be a number of badly injured, battered and occassionally dead young men that would beg to differ.
I'm tempted to respond to your appeal to emotion by pointing out that dead people can't beg at all. However, I will instead indicate again that, as someone who actually lived through it, in an area which was effectively a no-go area for the RUC, by an interface, and prone to regular rioting, everyone I knew who got arrested and prosecuted was arrested and prosecuted legitimately, and for good reason. Furthermore, and I speak as someone with one damaged kidney as a result of a British Army gun butt to the back as a child, exceptional instances in a state of war are not analogous to alleged day-to-day discrimination in a nation at internal peace.So you agree with his thesis that because of affirmative action thick black white hating black people are given jobs in the civil service......
.
I concur it is much more likely that black people and other minorities will be employed in the civil service as a result of affirmative action. I further concur that this will in part be because they, and similar white employees, would be less likely to gain employment in the private sector on the grounds of their intelligence. As I already said, I don't find his thesis of endemic black hatred of whites in the civil service in America particularly plausible.0 -
Cavehill Red, you have posted a lot of unsubstantiated nonsense on this thread. I said I was done with it, but I can't resist at this point.
I provided clear empirical evidence that if blacks end up in the criminal justice system, they will be treated more harshly than whites, and if they are the victims of a crime, the perpetrators of that crime will be treated more leniently if they are black. So please explain to me why blacks in the United States should not be wary of the criminal justice system: they get unequal treatment both as perpetrators and as victims.
Second, racial profiling by law enforcement officials in the US is well-documented; even the Bush administration acknowledged that it was a problem, so it is not just the ACLU that is concerned about this.
As for interracial crime, according to the Department of Justice violent crime statistics, the likelihood of a white person being a victim of a black criminal is statistically equal to a black person being the victim of a white criminal: 15.4% versus 15.9%. Most violent crime victims are attacked by people of the same race: 67.4% of violent crime committed against whites is by other whites, and 64.7% of violent crime committed against blacks is by other blacks. Blacks may commit more crimes relative to their size in the population, but the levels of cross-racial crime are the same for blacks and whites. So given that there is a 2/3 chance that a victim of violent crime will be attacked by a person of the same race, the kinds of 'oooo, white people avoid scary black people' warnings are clearly misplaced: there is less than a one in five chance that the perpetrator of a violent crime against a white person will be black.
So what does this mean for parental warnings? Well, it is common sense for any parent to tell their child to avoid high-crime areas. But it is patently ridiculous for a parent to warn their child to avoid areas with 'a lot of black people' because this suggests that all black neighborhoods are dangerous and that all blacks are potential violent criminals. It is common sense to tell your kids to leave any bar or concert where fights are breaking out, or you see a lot of arguments. But it is patently ridiculous to tell people to avoid bars or concerts where there are a lot of black people because their very presence means that trouble might break out.
I am all about teaching kids situational awareness. That means that they should be aware of not walking down dark streets alone at night, of not stopping for gas or lingering in high crime areas, and recognizing when things might start to get out of hand at a party or nightclub. But I emphatically reject the notion that this should be a race-based analysis. Which brings me back to 'the talk': teaching black kids about how to interact with the police is all about raising situational awareness because as the statistics from the US Department of Justice make clear, blacks are more likely to be stopped than their white counterparts, and therefore need to be careful not to let their aggravation at being stopped lead to an escalation of the situation. I'll also add that, given the statistics on the prosecution of black on black crime, it is even more critical for blacks to teach their kids situational awareness of how to avoid being a crime victim because, again, according to DOJ statistics, perpetrators of crimes against black victims are treated more leniently by the state.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Rosie, I don't know where to begin with that balderdash, It's evident you cannot understand simple statistics. Firstly your headline figure relates to all crime, including threats. Actual completed crime stats on the same page show blacks completed 20% of all crime against whites, despite being only 12.9% of the population.
Drilling down further, it gets more out of kilter. Blacks are responsible for 16.4% of all rapes of whites, while whites are responsible for - zero* - percentage of rapes of blacks. That's c. 20,000 black on white rapes to zero white on black ones. This isn't an anomaly. The figures for most years going back to the nineties reveal the same thing - white on black rape is negligible, whereas black on white rape is significantly disproportionate to population densities.
Let's keep going: blacks commit 35.6% of white robberies, 37.2% of white robberies where property was taken, and 46% of white robberies where the victim was injured. By contrast, whites were responsible for zero* cases of robbery where a black victim was injured. Again, blacks are negligibly likely to be injured in a robbery by a white person, whereas over 33,000 white people were injured while being robbed by a black perpetrator.
So what does this mean for parental warnings? To be blunt, it means that white people face rape disproportionately from black perpetrators and white people disproportionately face injury while being robbed by black perpetrators, while the opposite literally does not exist.
*Zero indicates fewer than 10 incidents recorded by the Dept in the calendar year.0 -
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
Advertisement
-
He is British? Or at least it says so in the first post.
This also illustrates another interesting fact which often serves to spread hate and the victim mentality, albiet through different groups, - it is seen as perfectly fine by people to generalise about the 'white, middle-class America' or in other cases 'Zionists', 'Mormons' and 'travelers'. Depending purely on the ideology the person represents.
That you cant see it is exactly the same process in action is a sad indication of your ability to analysis your own opinions.
Either it is wrong in all cases, or it is wrong in none. This picking and choosing when people can make judgements on big groups, especially without any statistics what so ever is par for course throughout certain media and less formal discussions as long as that group meets certain, hidden, criteria. See the reaction to the Traveler thread for another example of this in action.
He is settled enough in the U.S. to be a product of their unjust society which clearly favours white people. The very foundations of their country were flawed; black people were brought over as slaves, this superiority mentality by white people over black people is still strong over there.0
Advertisement