The real racial divide
A reader directed me to a NY Times article about the “real racial divide.”
The assumption has always been that a black candidate should perform worse among white voters in states with less racial diversity because those voters are supposedly less enlightened. In fact, the reverse has been true for Obama: in the overwhelmingly white states of Wisconsin and Vermont, for instance, he carried 54 and 60 percent of the white voters respectively, according to exit polls, while in New Jersey he won 31 percent and in Tennessee he won 26 percent. As some bloggers have shrewdly pointed out, Obama does best in areas that have either a large concentration of African-American voters or hardly any at all, but he struggles in places where the population is decidedly mixed.
What this suggests, perhaps, is that living in close proximity to other races — sharing industries and schools and sports arenas — actually makes Americans less sanguine about racial harmony rather than more so.
Steve Sailer was the first shrewd blogger that I know of to point this out.
White people who live in white areas believe what they have been told by the media, that all black people are like The Huxtables (the oreo-like upper-middle-class black family from The Cosby Show). But white people who live next to black people know what the typical black person is really like.
This has been a good week for the NY Times. They hit a real home run with the Ashley Alexandra Dupré outing, and now they picked up on this.
Does the NYTimes ever publish anyone who is as routinely interesting as Mr iSteve?
Posted by: dearieme | March 13, 2008 at 07:48 PM
I think you should also give them credit for the letters that they printed in response to this column
Posted by: John Smith | March 13, 2008 at 08:24 PM
What this suggests, perhaps, is that living in close proximity to other races — sharing industries and schools and sports arenas — actually makes Americans less sanguine about racial harmony rather than more so.
In contrast, for years, I've always presumed the opposite, since whites in states with actual black populations would meet hard working, middle class blacks, while those in states with small black populations would only learn about blacks from BET, crime reports on the news, and KKK newsletters.
Interestingly, this seems to serve as another piece of evidence to support emigrating to Canada, especially if I have children.
Posted by: David in Exile | March 13, 2008 at 08:26 PM
White people who live in white areas believe what they have been told by the media, that all black people are like The Huxtables (the oreo-like upper-middle-class black family from The Cosby Show).
You are insane. The Cosby Show is an outlier in the portrayal of black people in the media. Most of the portrayals of blacks in the media are connected to the hip-hop/thug lifestyle, despite the fact that few actual blacks live like that.
Posted by: Joshua Holmes | March 13, 2008 at 08:34 PM
Most of the portrayals of blacks in the media are connected to the hip-hop/thug lifestyle, despite the fact that few actual blacks live like that.
So the statistics on the number of black men in prison are fabricated?
Posted by: John Smith | March 13, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Does the NYTimes ever publish anyone who is as routinely interesting as Mr iSteve?
Nick Wade
Posted by: Nick Wade Fan | March 13, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Most of the portrayals of blacks in the media are connected to the hip-hop/thug lifestyle, despite the fact that few actual blacks live like that.
It doesn't seem that way to me. Could you elaborate?
Posted by: Peter | March 13, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Bashing Silda flopped so now we are back to race are we? It's pretty funny that the local 'race realists' only notice how flimsy the arguments are when it's Silda or Ron Paul. Although, it's pretty sad that some of them actually support these lines of thought like they make sense or something.
Attacking a woman who has just been publicly humiliated, definitely disproves my claim that most 'race realists' are just a bunch of angry white/asian guys on the bottom end part of the pile of white/asian guys.
Anyways, none of the commentors on this political race have any idea what's going on.
First Obama couldn't win white states because a black guy can't do well in Iowa. Then he wins Iowa. Then it's he's not black enough. Then the black people start voting for him. Now it's something else.
Any, we all know you have to try to pull him down because god forbid somebody do better in life than you.
Posted by: Vim | March 13, 2008 at 11:16 PM
Vim:
"First Obama couldn't win white states because a black guy can't do well in Iowa. Then he wins Iowa. Then it's he's not black enough. Then the black people start voting for him. Now it's something else."
Please stop assuming people like Steve Sailer and other race realists flip flopped on how Obama would fare. The same people who assumed he would do poorly in Iowa prolly assumed he would do poorly everywhere but states with heavy black populations.
"Any, we all know you have to try to pull him down because god forbid somebody do better in life than you."
What people like Sailer and, now, Half Sigma and the NYT are saying makes perfect sense. Of course, resorting to ad hominem attacks is the last recourse you have now. Your logic is fascinating.
BTW, I think all three candidates left suck and don't really care about Silda Wall, Eliot Spitzer or the hooker.
Posted by: anonymous 1 | March 13, 2008 at 11:22 PM
If your friend was raped, mugged, beaten, or killed by a black man you are unlikely to be able to eliminate that stereotype, even with the best of wishes, if you are not black (or even if you are).
There is a good reason such a high proportion of black men are in prison relative to their numbers. You know that, if you live in proximity. If you don't then you don't.
Posted by: Miv in Exile | March 13, 2008 at 11:29 PM
anonymous 1:
I think you forgot to advocate voluntary eugenics at the end of your post.
"Of course, resorting to ad hominem attacks is the last recourse you have now."
That's just silly. My claim is based on his many bitter posts illogically attacking people like Silda. Just because you don't care about the hooker thing, didn't mean he didn't write the posts. And given that he wrote the posts, they are out there as public record to be judged.
Posted by: Vim | March 13, 2008 at 11:34 PM
But it isn't even close to always true.
Blacks are 12% of the population nationally
Virginia: Blacks are 20% of population
Rule prediction: Obama does poorly with white voters
Actual vote: Obama gets 56% of white male vote and 45% of white female vote. Prediction is wrong
Maryland: Blacks are 30% of population
Prediction: Obama does poorly with white voters
Actual vote: Obama gets 48% of white male vote (HRC gets 45%) and 38% of white female vote. Prediction is wrong with respect to white male voters.
Oklahoma: Blacks 8% of the vote
Prediction: Obama does well with whites
Actual vote: No exit polls but Obama only gets 31% of the vote overall; obviously he does poorly with whites. Prediction wrong.
New Hampshire: Blacks are 1% of the population
Prediction: Obama romp
Result: Obama loses to Hillary overall 39% to 36% (no polling on race but almost all voters are white given the demography of the state)
Connecticut: Blacks are 11% of population
Prediction: Not entirely sure where 11% fits in on the spectrum. Is it a low percentage in which case the rule says Obama does well among whites or is it average in which case HRC does well?
Actual vote: Obama gets 56% of white male vote and 42% of white female vote.
Result: Does competitively. Prediction not specific enough to tell whether or not it is wrong.
Massachusetts: 7% black population
Prediction: Obama does well among whites
Actual: Obama gets 40% of overall white vote to Clinton's 58%
Result: Prediction wrong
Georgia: 28% black population
Prediction: Obama does poorly with whites
Actual: Obama gets 46% of white male vote and 36% of white female vote
Result: Prediction right with respect to white female vote and wrong with respect to white male vote.
Missouri: Blacks 12% of population
Prediction: Obama does similarly to Conn.
Actual: Clinton beats Obama 49 to 39 among white men and 57 to 38 among white women
Result: Nothing like Connecticut.
Wisconsin: 6% of population
Prediction: Obama romp
Actual: Obama gets 59% of white male vote but loses white female vote 51 to 49
Result: Right on white males and wrong on white females.
These are a third of the total primaries completed to date. I suspect that a better rule accounts for the role of gender. When men are close to half of the vote, Obama does well with whites. When men are closer to 40% (as in Tennessee), Obama does poorly.
Posted by: | March 13, 2008 at 11:54 PM
If your friend was raped, mugged, beaten, or killed by a black man you are unlikely to be able to eliminate that stereotype, even with the best of wishes, if you are not black (or even if you are).
So in other words, my options are to move Africa, thus proving my black nationalist cousin right who believes that all blacks should return and live in Africa "in peace", become a hermit and isolate myself from the rest of society to escape the stereotyping and less than amicable feelings towards people who share my skin tone, or to commit hara-kiri to escape the world and it's misery?
Posted by: David in Exile | March 14, 2008 at 12:51 AM
This is highly interesting when you compare the topic being discussed, the comments following the original post, and the advertisement featured at the left...
Posted by: David in Exile | March 14, 2008 at 01:19 AM
What racist bullshit.
Posted by: Joe | March 14, 2008 at 01:21 AM
Perhaps the reason where any smart talker can clean up in 'all-white' audiences and 'all black' audiences is because he can resort to sleight-of-hand stereotyping relevent to each group. A similar analogy is where union leader types might clean up better in a business where there's little to no informal interaction between management and workers such that the workers are more likely to fall for a stereotyping of management being 'anti-worker'.
Posted by: Gil | March 14, 2008 at 01:28 AM
This post is sad but true. Living next to blacks tends to "kill" any sort of good feelings about them. The reason the South had such harsh laws with respect to blacks in the days of segregation was because they were surrounded by them (much the same way South Africans had harsh laws since they too were surrounded by blacks).
Posted by: Nathan | March 14, 2008 at 01:58 AM
White people who live in white areas believe what they have been told by the media, that all black people are like The Huxtables (the oreo-like upper-middle-class black family from The Cosby Show).
Actually, I would say the education system is worse than the media. According to standard propaganda, if blacks aren't the Huxtables (or a slightly more hip-hop flavor of the Huxtables), then most earnestly wish to be but are held back by the terrible "legacy of slavery." Obviously, they just need a helping hand from compassionate, paternalistic white liberals to overcome such difficulties. If the self-esteems of blacks weren't crushed for life by such events as being passed over for a cab ride by mean old crime-wary taxi drivers (who must all be racist whites -- probably from the South -- rather than the Pakistanis, Ethiopians, and other ethnics more typically seen behind the wheel in large cities), then blacks would blossom into the Oprahs, and Obamas, and Montels they see on television shows and the George Washington Carvers and Colin Powells they read about in school or, at the very least, all those nice, respectable, harmless blacks they see in commercials. Then blacks and whites could sit down and savor safe hip-hop music like Arrested Development together.
Posted by: tommy | March 14, 2008 at 04:31 AM
Living in Tennessee as a teenager turned me into a racerealist. My HS was mostly white, but the 20% of blacks it had were loud, violent and rather stupid.I also remember that a white girl was raped by a gang of blacks in a nearby forest. I came from West Germany where I had been told blacks are the same as whites. It just isn't so.
Posted by: Gannon | March 14, 2008 at 07:52 AM
David in Exile:
"So in other words, my options are to move Africa, thus proving my black nationalist cousin ..."
I don't think moving to Africa is a happy option for any of the black Diaspora:
1. You are a descendent of a slave which is somewhat shameful
2. From their perspective you are interracial (pan-African-Caucasian mutt?) and you have no tribe or affiliation
3. They will resent you for thinking you are better than them which judging from your past comments will probably be true. But most likely many will just assume it because you will be rich and a foreigner.
The idea that all black people would get along, should get a long and even if they don't, they all belong together in the same place is not good reasoning.
Nathan:
If you live next to any people then the majority of people that will wrong you will be those people. Most of the people that have wronged me in the last year are white because my workplace is majority white. Deciding white people are all bad because of my experiences would be the wrong take home lesson.
tommy:
Well if white liberals really think that, they are obviously wrong. Most whites aren't as successful as Oprah, Obama, Montel, Colin Powell or George Washington Carver either. As a percentage more whites are but most aren't.
Have none of these poor unsuspecting white people seen any hip-hop of the 'kill you and your whole family' variety? Or maybe caught an episode of The Wire?
Posted by: Vim | March 14, 2008 at 08:38 AM
Gannon:
Millions of German women were gangraped by Russian soldiers at the end of WWII. You bring this up as if a gang of whites has NEVER gangraped anyone. If you googled, you could probably find dozens of incidents where a group of white kids gangraped somebody. To me all these anecdotes prove is that you generalized to the wrong thing from your specific experiences.
I am black and so is David. What exactly about us is so different? Am I typing with my response with claws after hard night of robbing white people?
Posted by: Vim | March 14, 2008 at 08:52 AM
With HS strong statistics skills, I look forward to a proper analysis where Obama/Clinton preference is correlated with race and gender proportions is various states. I had hoped that we (unlike say Kenya) had moved beyond voting based on "he is a middle-aged male from the B Clan, just like me, so I will vote for him" rather than on the actual political ideas. I suppose the problem here is that the policy differences between the candidates are neglibible - to the extent they are even known.
Posted by: Poor Postdoc | March 14, 2008 at 09:13 AM
Have none of these poor unsuspecting white people seen any hip-hop of the 'kill you and your whole family' variety? Or maybe caught an episode of The Wire?
But those are just underprivileged blacks telling it how it is. If not for the "legacy of slavery" they would be all right. Those non-toothless blacks of whom you speak simply need additional help and guidance from white liberals and perhaps more midnight basketball. I'm sure many more young black men actually aspire to be like those nice fellows from A Tribe Called Quest than the likes of Dr. Dre, Snoop Dogg, Tupac or Puff Daddy, right? ;-)
Posted by: tommy | March 14, 2008 at 09:16 AM
Raping of women in war is still a standard practice. The Russians considered the rape of girls as young as ten as part of their legitimate bounty (just as they loved watches and clocks), but they also acted out of revenge and retribution. But whites and specially Asians don't tend to rape in peace times. Take any crime statistic, and see for yourself that something like 70% of all rapes are perpetrated by 13% of the population (blacks). That's not strange, considering that blacks have lower IQ's,and hence higher sex drives, less restraint and less future time orientation. You and DA are simply pretty much on the right of the Bell curve and are not representative of the average black, DA is even somewhat mulato if I remember. What makes a person a racist is not if he believes that blacks have lower IQ's, a scientifical fact, but what consequences he draws from that fact.
Although I believe that blacks have lower IQ's, I don't draw legal consequences out of it and grant them full person status and full rights. But if I were in charge of inmigation policy in my country (Argentina), I would restrict massive inmigration to people from Europe (including Russia) and a few select Latinamerican countries (Chile, Uruguay).
Posted by: Gannon | March 14, 2008 at 09:24 AM
But if I were in charge of inmigation policy in my country (Argentina), I would restrict massive inmigration to people from Europe (including Russia) and a few select Latinamerican countries (Chile, Uruguay).
Hey Gannon, I bet you'd make special efforts to encourage the immigration of nubile 13- and 14-year-old girls, right?
Posted by: Peter | March 14, 2008 at 09:27 AM
My favourite age for women is around 16-20 years old. However, as I said earlier, I believe that women at around 14 can give valid consent.
Posted by: Gannon | March 14, 2008 at 09:39 AM
What makes a person a racist is not if he believes that blacks have lower IQ's, a scientifical fact, but what consequences he draws from that fact.
Can you please explain what you mean by "what consequences he draws from the fact." I think I understand what you mean, but I just wanted to be sure.
Posted by: | March 14, 2008 at 09:52 AM
A true racist believes that there should be legal differences between the races. This can range from declaring blacks as "minors" and denying them some rights (to vote, to own property) to simply don't consider the persons anymore. A true racist objectives can range from apartheid (separate but equal) to expulsion and genocide.
Posted by: Gannon | March 14, 2008 at 10:04 AM
However, as I said earlier, I believe that women at around 14 can give valid consent.
You can keep telling yourself that on your first night in prison, to get your mind off the pain in your rectum.
Posted by: Peter | March 14, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Gannon:
I have been thinking that there are many people in general and whites in particular who are quite happy to say and believe the most racist things but quite afraid of being called racist. HS's policy on racism seems to place him in this category.
I do not think it is racist to believe that blacks on average have lower IQs than whites, I believe this is a fact myself. Just like I believe that more than 99% of all people probably have a lower IQ than me.
However, the belief that this is genetic is racist. Racism (and I might as well get my Merriam-Webster for this) is "1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differents produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2. racial prejudice or discrimination"
If I ask you two questions:
1. Do you think populations inherently different in traits and capacities due to race?
2. Do you think some of those traits such as tedency to commit crime, intelligence, creativity, etc make one human being more desireable as a friend, lover, co-worker, colleague or citizen than another?
I think the answers to these questions pretty much finalize the issue on the first and primary meaning of racism.
I also habitually see behavior concerning the second more subsidiary meaning being justified by beliefs consistent with the first meaning. Well if more blacks rob, steal, rape, get affirmative action that whites then I am justified in not offering cab rides to, moving away from, arresting at higher rates or attacking without evidence the qualifications of other blacks some 'race realists' will say.
Posted by: Vim | March 14, 2008 at 10:13 AM
If you keep bothering me, I'll send you some pictures of shaved vulvas. seriously speaking Peter, I already told you that where I live age of consent for heterosexuals is 14, unless you are in a position of authority and abuse that authority (teacher, stepfather). Criminal law only applies in the territory you are in, although US criminal law does folllow sometimes their citizens. If I were to have sex with a 14 year old female, it wouldn't be a crime where I live. What part of this explanation don't you understand? In fact, I could even make love to a US girl if she were in my country. Different countries are ruled by different laws. Prostitution of females over 18 is legal in my country also.
Posted by: Gannon | March 14, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Vim, I'll think about your question.
Posted by: Gannon | March 14, 2008 at 10:35 AM
In contrast, for years, I've always presumed the opposite, since whites in states with actual black populations would meet hard working, middle class blacks, while those in states with small black populations would only learn about blacks from BET, crime reports on the news, and KKK newsletters.
I'd back of the KKK (which is not a substantial source of white opinion even in the more racist parts of the country), but that's my presumption as well. Living in heavily white parts of the country you get more media exposure to black rappers than you do the WB. If you see them on the news, it's usually not something good.
This election doesn't necessarily change my perception in that regard. Obama is doing well in a lot of very white states among Democrats. Democrats as a whole want to believe that blacks are every bit like them save skin color. They like to think that if they have a black neighbor that they will get along with them just as closely as they would with a white neighbor. That they'd never be nervous about them if they ran into them on the street. Those that live in places with a lot of blacks know that this isn't true because there are a lot of culture differences and even if you want to make friends with them they don't necessarily want to make friends with you. Further, you are statistically more likely to live in a part of the country with more crime and perceptions of crime have certain racial elements.
I suspect that if Obama wins the nomination, among the public at large and not just Democrats, he will do very poorly in states with few minorities. Partially because he's a Democrat and Democrats don't typically do as well in dominantly white states, but also because whites will generally be less comfortable with him.
Posted by: trumwill | March 14, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Gannon,
Don't let Peter upset you. He is a self-hating individual who keeps denying his own homosexual tendencies(see the prison comment above) and has a hidden love of the NFL. The guy has 2 cats for Chrissakes! No doubt named "Fluffy" and "Tiddles" or a close approximation thereof.
Two cats? Try eight. Though none of the names are anything like "Fluffy" or "Tiddles," sorry.
And let's not even get into my collection of Maria Callas CD's ...
--
If you keep bothering me, I'll send you some pictures of shaved vulvas.
Don't bother, I can see enough of those to last me a lifetime with five minutes on Voyeurweb :(((
Posted by: Peter | March 14, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Vim asks:
I am black and so is David. What exactly about us is so different? Am I typing with my response with claws after hard night of robbing white people?
It's the gene pool you come from, silly. The caucasian gene pool has had such a workover due to living in the sort of cultures we have had for thousands of years that there are vastly fewer opportunities for genes for violence to express themselves (since they are now at lower levels in the pool) and the average IQ of the pool is higher.
Posted by: loki on the run | March 14, 2008 at 10:45 AM
If Obama wins the general election and the economy really tanks, there will be a good chance for civil war, left v. right and black v. white and brown. And I fully intend to take part. Blacks and leftists have got to go.
Posted by: Mark | March 14, 2008 at 11:10 AM
I suspect that if Obama wins the nomination, among the public at large and not just Democrats, he will do very poorly in states with few minorities. Partially because he's a Democrat and Democrats don't typically do as well in dominantly white states, but also because whites will generally be less comfortable with him.
Query: will Obama's mixed racial background reduce white discomfort with him?
Posted by: Peter | March 14, 2008 at 11:20 AM
David,
No one said that "race realism" is fair or that it will do justice to the huge minority of African Americans who assimilate perfectly and totally don't fit the stereotype.
But race realism is necessary to understand the failures of some social policies and why complete harmony is very difficult. I suppose people like you will be harmed by this. Right now I don't see a way around it while remaining pragmatic.
Posted by: John Smith | March 14, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Mark,
The left talks big, but if the race war that is currently simmering away flares up big time, they'll be screaming and begging for the pigs to come save them and their fancy shit because they are all a bunch of pussies and cowards.
If they have to deal with what regular white people(who they look down upon as rednecks and low class) who don't live in "nice" areas deal with on a regular basis when it comes to minorities, maybe they'll learn their lesson. But I doubt it. Their pleading for mercy and cries for help will be music to my ears.
Posted by: | March 14, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I agree, John Smith. I feel no solidarity whatsoever with all the politically-correct whites, which may be a majority of them.
They are my enemy almost or as much as blacks.
Posted by: Mark | March 14, 2008 at 02:33 PM
HS should not write sentences like "But white people who live next to black people know what the typical black person is really like." This is demeaning to black individuals because it sounds like HS is talking about all black people. "Typical" suggests some defects that all black people have in common. Of course, that is not true.
Posted by: Dan Morgan | March 14, 2008 at 02:34 PM
The idea that all black people would get along, should get a long and even if they don't, they all belong together in the same place is not good reasoning.
In effect, I can never have any long-term contentment or happiness in my life without any real fears because of the colour of my racial and ethnic origins. That leaves only two options, suicide and self-isolation, and I suspect the latter may be worse than the former...
That's not strange, considering that blacks have lower IQ's,and hence higher sex drives, less restraint and less future time orientation. You and DA are simply pretty much on the right of the Bell curve and are not representative of the average black, DA is even somewhat mulato if I remember.
So we're flukes or freaks of nature? BTW, my white ancestry is via the great-grandparents on both sides.
My favourite age for women is around 16-20 years old. However, as I said earlier, I believe that women at around 14 can give valid consent.
Gannon, it may be legal in your nation, but it doesn't make it morally right to engage in sexual relations with an immature child who doesn't know better. IMHO, that's simply taking advantage of a youth regardless of the sex involved as the predator and prey.
I do not think it is racist to believe that blacks on average have lower IQs than whites, I believe this is a fact myself. Just like I believe that more than 99% of all people probably have a lower IQ than me.
I don't see how one can believe that blacks have lower IQ on average, and yet not view blacks as inferior and incapable. It's nearly impossible to separate the ideas from each other.
No one said that "race realism" is fair or that it will do justice to the huge minority of African Americans who assimilate perfectly and totally don't fit the stereotype.
So race realism is your way of gloating about the genetic inferiority and failure of 12% of the US population? Hell, guys like HS and Steve Sailor paint it as the magical solution to our problems. I guess I know better now.
They are my enemy almost or as much as blacks.
What did I do to you? If you have a problem with black people, blame the greedy slave traders who imported them, slave owners who used them, and the Republicans who freed them and gave them citizenship. Oops.
Posted by: David in Exile | March 14, 2008 at 02:50 PM
John Smith:
"No one said that "race realism" is fair or that it will do justice to the huge minority of African Americans who assimilate perfectly and totally don't fit the stereotype."
See, this is the thing I don't get about this kind of talk. If I understand 'race realism' correctly it concerns GENETIC differences and yet you are talking about assimilation which is a CULTURAL issue. For instance, it's completely possible for Chinese to come to America, do well and NEVER assimilate into WASP society.
blank:
Have you read any books on genocide? I recommend "A Problem from Hell: America and the age of genocide" by Samantha Power. Having read quite a few, I disagree that things are going the way you suggest.
Posted by: Vim | March 14, 2008 at 03:02 PM
Mark:
"They are my enemy almost or as much as blacks."
You have a mental problem.
Posted by: Vim | March 14, 2008 at 03:04 PM
There is definitely a difference between the blacks I met living in Texas and Missouri (in towns with fairly high black populations) and the blacks I meet in Washington or Oregon (in towns with small black populations). My best friend in my late elementary and early junior high years in the Northwest was black. (Actually, he was 3/4 black: he had a white grandfather from Jamaica where his parents were originally from.) Both parents were well educated and middle class. His father was a private sector dentist and his mother was some sort of government bureaucrat.
Admittedly, there are rough spots like parts of Tacoma and Seattle, but the blacks I've known in the Northwest are a lot more tolerable than those I had encountered further south. Unsurprisingly and unfortunately, the more blacks that have moved into the area, the more I see the same sort of behaviors I associate with blacks down in Texas and Missouri. That is even though many of the blacks moving here are from New York/New Jersey or California. The kind of kid I knew in junior high school would probably be denounced by other blacks as "acting too white" if he were in junior high today.
Posted by: tommy | March 14, 2008 at 03:34 PM
I can't speak for everyone but I think when people say the "typical black" or just simply saying a "black person" they're refering to the blacks that display ghetto behavior.
It does make sense though. The less interaction you have with blacks, the higher of an opinion you would have of them.
Send a 6th generation Vermonter or a French Canadian from Quebec to a Philadelphia public school (on Parent/Teacher Conference day of course) and let's see what his opinion of black people in America would be after spending a whole week with those folks.
Also, a lot of young black men and women in America display ghetto behavior and the "traditional white establishment" (if you wanna call it that) admantly rejects it.
I personally can't stand those types of blacks or any other skin color that mimics that behavior. And yes, I encounter these types of people almost on a daily basis at my job and while growing up.
Does that make me a racist? Is society racist for rejecting that behavior?
Posted by: Jim Beam | March 14, 2008 at 03:44 PM
So race realism is your way of gloating about the genetic inferiority and failure of 12% of the US population? Hell, guys like HS and Steve Sailor paint it as the magical solution to our problems. I guess I know better now.
I get the sense that some "race realists" really do see it as a solution to some of our problems. Sailer has come up with all sorts of ways that we could deal with IQ differences in a productive manner (even if it leaves guys like you in the lurch). Unfortunately, for a lot of people it represents that the problem isn't attempting to equalize aspirations among differing IQs, it's that low IQs are a symptom of the larger problem, which is black people as a whole, and a justification for feeling that black people are the problem. If more people approached it like Sailer did, I might think that there'd be something to be gained by investigating all of this further. Unfortunately, there are too many Marks out there and John Smiths who are all to willing to accept that the results will be wildly unfair for someone else.
Posted by: trumwill | March 14, 2008 at 03:50 PM
I can't speak for everyone but I think when people say the "typical black" or just simply saying a "black person" they're refering to the blacks that display ghetto behavior.
Conflating the behavior of a subset of a population with the population as a whole is a problem within itself. Deciding that the variance of behavior within that racial population is not worth acknowledging is part of the problem. Why bother trying being different if everyone is going to view you the same regardless? It provides the same incentives that blacks accusing one another of "acting white" does. The message: No matter who you work to become, you will be judged by the people you look like.
Posted by: trumwill | March 14, 2008 at 04:01 PM
David:
"In effect, I can never have any long-term contentment or happiness in my life without any real fears because of the colour of my racial and ethnic origins."
I think you are off base here. I don't have any of your issues. Do many people in your family have these issues? I suspect not. I don't know much about Haitians in particular but Caribbean people are a proud people in general.
I wouldn't say that there aren't social handicaps but it can be overcome which is what is important. Obama is a good example of somebody who is able to find a way to turn what would otherwise be a minus into a plus.
I will say that the Bell Curve type ideas are depressing but its not like the people that write it are particularly neutral and much of the research goes both ways. For instance, Flynn of the 'Flynn Effect' does not believe the IQ gap between blacks and whites is in any way genetic.
"I don't see how one can believe that blacks have lower IQ on average, and yet not view blacks as inferior and incapable. It's nearly impossible to separate the ideas from each other."
*Let us assume the worst case scenario, that black and white IQ differences are genetic.*
I think it's a matter of distribution. Some whites are below the black mean and some blacks are above the white mean. However, one might be more likely in America to encounter a white person with an IQ of 100 than a black person of same IQ. There is nothing particularly fixed about this from a mechanistic standpoint, it's just how things turned out.
If people wanted to change this, they could change who they had children with and it could be changed in a single generation.
Let me repeat: there is nothing innate about the frequency of particular genes. The mean IQ would not be a property of black people who could have any mix of genes and IQs, it's a property of a particular black population in a particular time and place.
It's not that there aren't blacks above the white mean, it's just that there are not as many in proportion to the white population. These blacks are still black people. If there were more of these people, we would still have black people, just that the mean IQ would be higher and we'd be having a different conversation.
Of course, I doubt it's genetic.
Posted by: Vim | March 14, 2008 at 04:01 PM
Trumwill:
Ghetto type behavior is somewhat common amoung young blacks (even among blacks with parents who have middle-class jobs). The real "subset" is the well behaved ones.
Instead of being mad at "race realists", be mad at the segment of the black population which gives the rest a bad name.
Posted by: Nathan | March 14, 2008 at 04:14 PM