Study seeks racism, finds it
May 3rd, 2011 by Unamused
Update (May 8): Lawrence Auster greatly expands on why one might not view President Obama as being just as American as Vice President Biden. (Thanks for the link!)
From USA Today (six days ago): “Study: racial prejudice plays role in Obama citizenship views.”
Does racial prejudice play a role in questions about Barack Obama’s citizenship, a topic much in the news given today’s birth certificate news conference? Yes indeed, suggests one recent psychology study… led by Eric Hehman of the University of Delaware in the March Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, which contrasted voter’s perceptions of vice president Joe Biden, “the most comparable target” with Obama.
This oughta be good.
It’s not absent, it’s just invisible
“The influence of racial prejudice in contemporary U.S. society is typically manifested in subtle, indirect forms of bias. Due to prevailing norms of equality
Meaning the belief that black and white people are identical except for skin color — oh, and white people are a bunch of evil racists. That too.
most Whites attempt to avoid appearing biased in their evaluations of Blacks, in part because of a genuine desire to live up to their egalitarian standards, but also because of concern regarding social censure,” notes the study. “As a consequence, Whites’ prejudice is more likely to be expressed in discriminatory responses when these actions can be justified by other factors.”
So racism is incredibly subtle and indirect — not to be confused with non-existent — because white people are always covering it up, in part because they really wish black people were just as smart and law-abiding as white people (those “prevailing norms of equality”), but also because they’re afraid of being fired and disgraced for noticing that black people… well, aren’t. Sounds complicated. I have a more elegant theory: white people aren’t racist, and black and white people aren’t identical.
Measuring prejudice I: just grounds
In a study like this, you have to measure two things:
- how people view Obama compared to someone… well, comparable. “the researchers asked 295 students, both black and white, to evaluate the performance and ‘Americanism’ of the two politicians [Obama and Biden] in late 2009″
- how people view black people in general: “[t]hey also included six questions, widely used in psychology, to gauge whether folks are more or less prejudiced against blacks”
Measuring prejudice is the tricky part.
In general, prejudice is “an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge”; in particular, it is “an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics” (Merriam-Webster). Pedant that I am, I want to draw your attention to the following words and phrases: “without just grounds,” “before sufficient knowledge,” “an irrational attitude of hostility,” and “their supposed characteristics.”
I, for one, have many adverse opinions and leanings regarding black people (for example, that they are genetically predisposed to low intelligence and high criminality) but I have just grounds — well founded justifications — for my beliefs. I possess sufficient knowledge. Any attitude of hostility I display is hardly irrational. I have not merely supposed the characteristics in question.
Imagine these researchers testing me for prejudice. Are they going to listen patiently while I explain that when I say “black people are, on average, less intelligent than white people,” it’s not just “an irrational attitude of hostility”? Will they follow me to the university library, where we’ll confer on the latest research in race differences in intelligence? Or are they just going to put a big check mark next to RAAAACIST?
Measuring prejudice II: diversity
Here is an actual question from the study:
participants were asked how strongly they agree or disagree with the statement, “I would rather not have other-race students live in the same apartment building I live in.”
What student, black or white, would rationally want other-race students to live in the same apartment building? How, exactly, does diversity improve things? What’s the reasoning behind the acceptable answer? (“Heck yes, bring on the colored folk!”)
Well, here’s my reasoning against it. First, forget about race differences in intelligence or criminality. We don’t need them, we don’t even need to acknowledge them, for this argument. Just ask yourself: who are you more likely to get along with? Who are you more likely to share interests, culture, even language with? You don’t have to be mentally ill, or consumed with hatred, to say “you know what, I think I’d get along better with white/black people, since I’m white/black.”
Oh, I’m fine with black people discriminating against me in this way. Freedom of association goes both ways, and many (most?) black people seem to prefer the company of other black people.
You see, diversity isn’t inherently good. It doesn’t increase GDP or cure STDs. It’s just… diverseness. More differences. More things to disagree about. Wanting to avoid it is rational. Note that this is completely different from saying “we should pass a law against black/white people living near white/black people,” or “we should drive all the black/white people out of our apartment building.” The students were simply asked which neighbors they would prefer. Their answers are worthless for measuring racial prejudice.
“As expected”
“Overall, as expected, White participants tended to view Obama as less American,” says the study, as well as worse-performing.
“As expected,” indeed. Try the Unamusement Park version: “Overall, as expected, black participants tended to view Obama as being exactly as American as everyone else (despite being born in Hawaii to a Kenyan father and growing up in Indonesia), as well as performing really well (despite, y’know, his presidency).” Or how about this: “Overall, as expected, black participants tended to view Obama as the Second Coming of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as well as a supernaturally gifted statesman and all-around swell guy who I’d love to play golf with sometime.”
See, there’s another race angle here, scientist types:
Beginning last week [in July 2010], President Obama’s approval rating is now the lowest it’s ever been, with just 45 percent of Americans saying they’re satisfied with the job he’s doing, according to Gallup. … Yet as supporters peel away by the day, one group has yet to significantly give up on the president: African Americans. Though Obama no longer enjoys the 96 percent black approval of months past, he’s still never known what it’s like to not have the support of at least 80 percent of African American voters. Currently, more than nine out of 10 black polled approve of Barack Obama’s job performance, a bounce back from a year low of 85 percent following the [Shirley] Sherrod dustup.”
Of course, this is The Root we’re talking about. I’m sure they’ll dig up some white “racism” somewhere. Oh yeah, here we go:
In the Washington Examiner, Byron York suggests that blacks are somehow unfairly tipping the scales — an absurd premise… It’s a lie — and a subtly racist one at that — to suggest that blacks voted for Obama primarily because they identified with his ethnicity.
Yes, an absurd premise. A subtly racist lie. I mean, it’s not like I can find five examples of outrageous black voter bias in one book, Jared Taylor’s “Paved With Good Intentions,” in the next fifteen minutes.
- Harvey Gantt, senatorial candidate and black mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, an affirmative-action profiteer
- David Dinkins, black mayor of New York City, a tax evader
- James Usry, black mayor of Atlantic City, New Jersey who, after being arrested for bribery and corruption, openly urged people to vote for him because of “the color of my skin”
- Gus Savage, black congressman for Chicago, who sexually assaulted a black Peace Corps volunteer
- Marion Barry, black mayor of Washington, D.C. and thus head of “the worst city government in America” (Washington Monthly, 1989), a proven crack cocaine addict
“Low-prejudice”
Back to the study.
“Moreover, Whites higher in prejudice rated Obama as less American, and as performing more poorly as president.”
However, “low-prejudice” whites tended to see Obama as more American and better performing than Biden, says the study.
I like the quotation marks around “low-prejudice,” as if to say: sure, they may appear low-prejudice compared to those other, even more fanatically racist whites, but who knows? Maybe they’re just sneakier — more “guarded about openly endorsing the view that Blacks are less American than Whites,” as the study puts it.
It never occurred to the researchers that these “prejudiced” whites might not be prejudiced at all; that they, like me, might have just grounds and sufficient knowledge to back up their adverse opinions; that their supposed hostility, like mine, might be quite rational; and that it might have been the “low-prejudice” whites (and the blacks) who were suffering from an irrational bias: a bias in favor of black people.
Meanwhile, in Bizarro World…
From Bizarro USA Today (six days from now): “Poll: Americans hate all the Negroes, wish they would just go back to Africa as soon as possible.”
A recent poll asked Americans (white Americans, obviously — who ever heard of an “African American”?): what should we do about all those pesky colored folk eating our delicious fried chicken?
(a) Put them all in a boat and ship them back to Africa.
(b) Put them all in a box and mail them back to Africa.
(c) Put them all in water wings and make them swim back to Africa, what with the price of stamps and all.
(d) Put them all in water wings and make them swim to Japan as a hilarious joke.
(e) Gas them to death in concentration camps, like that splendid Austrian fellow suggested.
(f) Drown ‘em in the crik.
(g) Put them to work in the cotton fields forever.
(h) Put them to work in the strawberry fields forever.
(i) Our cotton and strawberries are too precious to trust a Negro with! Put them to work in the soybean fields forever.
(j) Our soybeans are too precious to trust a Negro with! Put them to work in the dirt fields forever.
(k) Our dirt is too precious to trust a Negro with! Put them to work in the boron mines of Ganymede.
(l) Our boron supply lines are too important to the war with Neptune to trust a space-Negro with! Put them to work in the Orbital Laser Testing Range.
(m) Our proud Aryan orbital lasers are too precious to vaporize a Space Negro with! Put them to work in the Paradox Factory.
(n) Now the Space Negroes are too paradoxical! Select the smallest Space Negro who cannot be described in less than fourteen words, have him shave all the Space Negroes who do not shave themselves, then divide him by zero.
Sadly, before researchers could tally up the votes, the universe exploded.
Our boron supply lines: too precious to trust a Space Negro with? Survey says YES.
Unamused, every time I check this site you are getting more insightful and more incisive in your writing style. It’s slyly amusing, and also acts as a handy compendium of objective references. Thanks, and keep up the good work !!!
Great post, what would you expect from USA Today? Of course they’re going to slant the article as all of us whites being racist. Now NYC Mayor Bloomberg is floating a proposal to send a bunch of new immigrants to Detroit to repopulate the city. I wrote about it on my site yesterday. It has some information that you might be interested in.
Thanks guys.
Simon, that’s a great post/re-post (and video), and I’ll be writing more about Detroit for sure.
I saw a study recently asking blacks about their prejudices towards whites. It can be seen in the link below:
http://www.thatshitwillneverhappen.com
This is an unsurprising “study”. Studies like these are done to make whites even more afraid of blacks so they will continue to capitulate to black darkness. The average white HBD denier/coward will read this and make a better effort not to appear racist by staying away from racist rhetoric like disagreeing with Obama and racist actions like hanging out with their white friends.
Link seems to be broken.
Ah, Unamused… If you’re aren’t joking, look at the (fake) name of the link again.
Also, Unamused, I have a bone to pick with you, or, actually just a multiple choice question:
Which of these are not like the others in your blogroll:
1) Steve Sailer
2) Dennis Mangan
3) Honky Dory
4) Larry Auster
5) OneSTDV
Ah. I just noticed I am in your blogroll. How the hell did that happen? I feel like Roseanne Barr standing next to Jessica Biel (or any other chick obviously less grotesque than Roseanne)
Haha, okay, I get it now. I thought your second paragraph was talking about your (joke) study, not the study in my article, and maybe you just got the link wrong. Hell, I don’t know, I’ve seen some ridiculous URLs.
Anyway, who really needs another big list of big names in the Reactosphere? I say promote the little guy. I hope you get some hits from the ‘Park.
Another great piece. You certainly get to the crux of it.
You might want to check out this blog:
http://fedupintolerant.com/wordpress/
Another good article, felt a little more ranty than usual, but still good.
One thing that irked me is when you said blacks are genetically predisposed to be more criminal. I haven’t the data about the genes to know that or not, but I always saw it as a social environment thing. Since black people ended up coming from poorer neighborhoods and kinda got bucked back in slavery times, they somewhat got stuck in a poverty situation that seems to have persisted. Because this happened, they would naturally have higher crime and such. And with a social environment like that, more and more blacks would fall into that pressure. This article by Malcolm Gladwell (why do I have a bad feeling whenever I cite him?) tells how people are more influenced by their peers, and black kids in better neighborhoods, even with bad families, ended up more like their peer counterparts and less predisposed to crime.
http://www.gladwell.com/1998/1998_08_17_a_harris.htm
Like you said in a post before, blacks that came from, uh, country whose name I don’t remember, made 97 cents for every dollar a white man made. So I always felt that it was a cycle of poverty that’s hard to get out of because of peer pressures and kids more likely to grow up based on what their parents are and not how their raised (another Gladwell article, can’t find link, kinda don’t want to say it without it).
But yeah, I always felt that it was more of a poverty cycle situation. Lower IQ and being taught to hate by some black parents can contribute, but a lot of the time I think of it more as a work ethic problem. Although you debunking many rumors about racism has made me lose my doubt about racism being a major factor.
Wow, that was longer than I thought.
First of all: thank you, and yes, sometimes I rant a bit, and I’m glad to hear I’ve helped dispel some myths about what causes black failure.
To say I’m not a fan of Gladwell, IQ denialist and blank slater extraordinaire, would be an understatement. I’m firmly in the the Pinker camp (with Steve Sailer). Gladwell just seems committed to the notion that genes don’t matter — work real hard, and you can be a genius too! Sailer, for one, has debunked his ideas about athletic ability.
That said, I’m sure you’re right that American blacks’ shared environment (including poverty/SES) contributes to their criminality. The question is, what’s the ratio of genes to shared environment? That I have irked you suggests you favor 0 percent genes, 100 percent environment. But reading Pinker has made me a big fan of the Three Laws of Behavior Genetics (see this post of mine for references), the first two of which are
(1) all human behavioral traits are heritable, and
(2) the effects of shared environment are less than the effects of genes.
Part of the difficulty in separating genes from environment is that genes create environments. For instance, a genetic predisposition to lower intelligence contributes to black poverty, which makes it look like the achievement gap is environmental: underachievement correlates with poverty, the race denialists crow, but in reality underachievement correlates with intelligence, which has a strong genetic component and correlates with poverty. You have to look for genetic factors to find them.
Based on human evolutionary history; race differences in aggression, intelligence, etc.; and research on the heritability of those traits, there is no doubt in my mind that (a) there are genes involved in aggression, and (b) the alleles are not distributed evenly between black and whites (and Asians, etc.). In short, blacks are genetically predisposed to relatively high aggression and criminality. That said, I doubt we’ll ever pin down exactly how this happens on the genetic level.
Now, if we were talking about a gene for bushy tails in squirrels, this would not be controversial. Squirrel A has bushier tails on average, and tail bushiness definitely has a genetic component, so there’s probably a genetic difference, okay good work people let’s have lunch. But we’re talking about unflattering behavioral traits in black people, which always seems to make people raise the standard of evidence impossibly high — as if any uncertainty in the matter is fatal to all the race realists’ arguments and proves they’re just racists. Like we knew all along…
What I would like to know is, why is it that the people suffering from these cycles of poverty always seem to be the low intelligence groups, like Africans and gypsies and the Maori? Is it just poverty keeping them down, making them dumber and more violent, or are their genes partly responsible for that and their poverty?
Why do the Jews and the Japanese and the Chinese thrive anywhere, no matter how badly they’re treated? Is it just that slavery was sooooo bad, it’s fucked up black people forever? Look at the recovery of Germany and Japan after WW2. Look at the “recovery” of Africa from colonialism. Case study 1: Liberia, land of the freed slaves. Case study 2: post-apartheid South Africa.
Why do the same races always overcome oppression, and the same races always succumb to oppression?
Wow, that was shorter than I thought. ;)
Well thanks. OneSTDV posted an entry by me a couple of weeks ago as a guest on Saturday and I saw some traffic from it. I have seen some from yours as well. So, I appreciate it. Stay black!
Some human traits are certainly inheritable. I, for example, have never met a French person who did not irritate the f**k out of me.
Only discovered your blog, Unamused. Love it.
Welcome. Stick around!
like a stick insect stuck on a sticky bun
That’s a good point. I was always torn between the notion of poverty caused by culture, yet intelligent people pulling themselves out of it. Always made me wonder what made people manage to make something of themselves when so many didn’t. Your posts do bring quite a good bit of clarity on matters like that.
Interesting article and blog by an asian academic at Stanford. Here she discusses some experiences on moving from China to Oakland in the 1980′s.
http://yingma.org/2010/06/25/ghetto-racism/
btw. I see this post has been mentioned by Lawrence Auster on his View from the Right site. Nice work.
That explains the crazy number of hits coming from VFR.
Auster had never heard of me before now, so I spammed my blogroll with links to the ‘Park, in celebration.
Interesting article and blog by an Asian academic at Stanford. Here she discusses some experiences on moving from China to Oakland in the 1980′s.
I assume this Asian academic is aware that such violence and overall misbehavior of the black population was not always so greatly tolerated in this country. I also assume she is aware that the same country’s immigration policies in regards to Asians were much more restrictive at one time as well. What I don’t assume is her ability and or willingness to see the connection between the two.
Actually, I’m not sure I see the connection between the two either. Asians have generally been a model minority, haven’t they?
Hispanic mestizos are a model minority in comparison to blacks. What’s your point? How low are your standards? How many people really needed HBD websites to figure out that Sub-Saharan Africans tend to be savages while Northern Asians tend to be orderly and good at math?
I’m in my early thirties and have never known a time when Westerners weren’t being collectively denigrated for one thing or another. Would you agree with that assessment? Would you also agree that Asians haven’t had to share in that burden?
I don’t blame Asians for the present state of affairs but all things considered I feel somewhat uncomfortable praising them for being a “model minority.”
I still don’t see the connection between (1) “violence and overall misbehavior of the black population was not always so greatly tolerated in this country,” and (2) “the same country’s immigration policies in regards to Asians were much more restrictive at one time as well.” I’m not arguing against you. I just do not know what you were saying.
Anyway, okay, Hispanics are better than blacks, but that to me is not what “model minority” means. A minority has to be about as good as the white majority or better to qualify. East Asians are just good, period. I say this based on their crime rates, IQ scores, educational attainment, incomes, illegitimacy rate, and STD rates.
And a lot of people really desperately need HBD websites to tell them (a) it’s okay to believe these obviously true things — it doesn’t make you a racist, (b) your personal experiences are representative — the statistics support the stereotypes, and (c) here’s a bunch of science you can use to prove to the race denialists what we all know to be true, but which they, the government, and the mainstream media deny.
Finally, I agree that whites are denigrated, and yes, I suppose East Asians are better off in that respect, but just because liberals aren’t yelling at them all the time doesn’t mean we shouldn’t admit they make good Americans — notwithstanding the Asians in the library.
They sure do. A South African has posted a thread asking whether the country will go the way of Zimbabwe. Halfway through the thread he/she says:
Now, without a nuanced understanding of HBD this person can’t say groups aren’t inferior, but on the other hand they’re not going to have statistically similar outcomes either. So no, even if it was free earlier it is unlikely it would be 1st world by now.
Ah, yes. Straight Dope: the place to go for knee-jerk race denialism. South Africa is a disaster, and it’s halfway to Zimbabwe already. I have never written about it, because it’s incredibly depressing — yes, even by ‘Park standards.
Stupid things race denialists say:
Regarding the sarcastic suggestion that Zimbabwe give up all white inventions, like air conditioning, the telephone, the computer, the Internet, and the automobile:
A perfect HBD fail. Yeah, look how well Asia’s doing. Clearly, white colonists are still holding Africa back! It’s not likely Africans are different from Asians in any way.
They fail to equal whites no matter how many opportunities you give them. Historically they’ve probably always been better off under white rule, in every way — look what happened to their communities (crime, illegitimacy, drug use, etc.) after the American civil rights movement.
And here’s a definition of “racist”:
Hey, I’m not a racist after all! I differentiate people into differently performing groups (i.e., races) based on their ancient ancestry (which you can tell from their outward appearance).
These race denialists can’t resist sticking in the “race is skin color” fallacy at every opportunity. Blacks today seem to be incapable of maintaining a civilized society like the United States of America, or Canada, or Australia. See: Zimbabwe, South Africa, Liberia, Haiti, Detroit. This has nothing to do with melanin, except insofar as their melanin levels come from genes, and other genes which influence human behavioral traits tag along.
I was having lunch with a very attractive South African woman the other day. Most of her family had been victims of some form of mugging/robbery back in SA before moving to NZ.
There is also a PA in my office who moved from South Africa. She’s an Afrikaner. I have to be careful asking her about things in South Africa in case she makes an un-pc comment. For instance, last year Eugene Terreblanche was killed & described in the papers as a white supremacist. I mentioned his passing & she quickly started defending him saying he was a great man who stood up for his people. She’s also admitted to me that she is “a bit racist,” although I can’t really blame her.
And yet, inane as it is, this wily sleight of hand has successfully been used to dupe quite a few white people into believing in the “social construction of race” — and that they are the ultimate cause of global Black (but not the Caucasoid south Asian type) misfortunes.
Agreed.
Unamused,
Would you mind if I repost some of your articles over at google knols? The race denialists are out in force there (they work in packs).
Please do, Chuck. Leave them a link so they can come argue with me over here.
Blacks are a species unworthy of analyzing or explaining. Once we determine there is no cure for black, we can go on to solve issues of real importance among other minorities who can be made vital to society. Blacks are a lost cause. The proof is everywhere. The mere introduction of one black gene into any human pool yields nothing but trouble. If we want to prove something, we should start there. A 5,000 gallon water tank sporting a one half inch square piece of excrement quickly becomes polluted. Would YOU drink from it?
It’s not clear if you mean all black people or just the worst-behaving black people, but in any case, they’re not a separate species. There is no such thing as a “black gene,” either.
I’ll assume you meant all black people. We at Unamusement Park like some of them. They aren’t all lost causes.
As for mixing races… okay, you’re probably right about miscegenation. It causes nothing but trouble.
I think I can improve on your water tank metaphor. Suppose you like the flavor of vanilla ice cream, but not chocolate. A big bowl of vanilla would be perfect for you.
Now, if someone put a little chocolate sauce on top, you could live with that. It’s not what you wanted, but there’s so little of it that it’s not a big deal. No need to throw away the bowl — especially if the chocolate sauce has an unusually high Deliciousness Quotient (DQ).
If someone stuck a big blob of chocolate ice cream in there… well, the bowl would definitely be less appetizing overall, but at least you could eat around it. You could segregate the flavors. The vanilla would be safe.
But if the government came round and forced you to mix up all your vanilla ice cream with chocolate — all kinds of chocolate, even some really disgusting, criminal chocolate with a really low DQ score — then it would be hopeless, and you’d have to throw it out.
Maybe eat some Asians instead.
I recently found this site via a link at SBPDL. So far, very impressive.
However I must take issue with this comment. Of course, there is no such thing as a “black gene” – probably… But that smacks of the kind of oversimplification that liberals like to use as a straw man to ridicule race realists. There are many genes that together make up the negro race. They may not be a separate species, but they are different enough from us that, in any other species but homo sapiens we would have been classified as separate subspecies. And as you are no doubt aware, two subspecies of the same species do not share the same territory in nature. We do not belong together.
Substituting chocolate sauce for excrement does nothing to improve Intolerant’s metaphor. In order for it to work, you would have to show that somewhere, negroes have resulted in a benefit for some society (that Deliciousness Quotient). It’s not a matter of taste; those people are a societal necrosis.
Pardon me if I sound bitter. I live in South Africa.
You have every right to be bitter, but you may have mistaken my nuanced take on race for the (very similar-sounding) race denialist position. (The Fundamental Law of Internet Debating at work.)
Intolerant is being silly and counterproductive when he says “[t]he mere introduction of one black gene into any human pool yields nothing but trouble.” There’s no such thing as a “black gene.” Nevertheless, race is genetic, as I’ve pointed out on approximately 10,000 occasions.
What sets me apart from the liberals is that when I say “there’s no black gene,” I’m doing it not to deny genetic race, but to get it right. I will not accept bad science even if it supports my political opinions.
His pool metaphor was silly because a few black people don’t destroy society. Large numbers do. We would be fine with a tiny black minority. Of course, it wouldn’t be ideal (see my ice cream metaphor), but it’s not helping the cause of white racial consciousness to exaggerate as Intolerant does.
Deliciousness Quotient represents IQ (intelligence quotient). See, for example, Thomas Sowell. With proper controls on immigration, we could let in the best people of all races, while ensuring a white majority. (Of course, statistically our policies will favor whites and Asians, even though they don’t exclude NAMs.)
Or maybe we should just have a nation of white people only. I don’t know. I’m open to suggestions.
I’d love to hear more about South Africa from someone who’s seen it firsthand.
My metaphor was not of one black destroying a predominantly white neighborhood, it was one bit of black DNA destroying human genetics. Probably too silly for you. I won’t proceed to belittle you for your naive limited experience, as you so quickly do to me for sharing my many years of unpleasant and disappointing interactions with the beasts. Your ice cream metaphor is over simplification based on your misunderstanding my point. The bottom line is, and something you have yet to fully understand is that all blacks, regardless of how good you think they are, will disappoint you. They will betray you. They will victimize you. They will prove themselves to you if you continue to offer them the opportunity. Some will enter and exit your life without making a sound, but if you allow them the access and the time, you will eventually see my position. I don’t mean to argue with you. I actually envy your optimism. I am only here to warn you. My science may not be up to your high standards but my experience tells me the black is to be given zero confidence. He will get you every time. Eventually. Watch your back Unamused. That’s all I ask.
Yes, claiming that “one bit of black DNA [destroys] human genetics” was pretty silly: you can’t destroy genetics like that. (You can destroy it with radiation, but not interbreeding.) It might work as rhetoric (not literally true, but an effective image), but you’re dressing it up as science.
Miscegenation produces hybrids: halfway in between. This is true of skin color and it is true of intelligence.
I wish you had said something like “blacks are genetically predisposed to [something bad] more than whites, so too much miscegenation — too much black DNA in our gene pool — will destroy white society” instead.
I won’t pretend this is about the “destruction” of genetics, and not the destruction of neighborhoods and other macroscopic things. (A gene that guarantees you will become a serial killer, for example, wouldn’t be a damaged or broken gene. The gene would work fine at what it does, it would just lead to a bad social outcome.)
All I’m asking is that you be precise, so that people have to consider your ideas, not just dismiss you as a crackpot based on how you express them. For example, calling all black people “n*ggers” is not a good strategy.
You win. Blacks are good people. Mixing them into society to a point where nobody will be recognizable as any particular race is a good idea. [U: Unfortunately, you lose at reading comprehension.] I’m glad you’ve set me straight. Now I know better. Thank you.
[U: How about you read and understand what I wrote? Try that.]
Why so hostile? I understand what you wrote. I understand what you believe. I thought I was rather tolerant of your misguided opinions and civil in relaying my silly point of view. [U: insults] You have some harsh realities to face down the road if you continue take such a naive view of the world. I try to laugh at it while you demand hard science. Good luck Unamused. You’re going to need it.
You tried to imply this was my position: “Blacks are good people. Mixing them into society to a point where nobody will be recognizable as any particular race is a good idea.” Anyone who can read, can see that I haven’t said any such thing. (The second statement contradicts everything I’ve ever written on this blog.)
I’ve simply pointed out that it is wrong to think that introducing one “black gene” (whatever that is) will “destroy human genetics.” It’s a scientifically illiterate statement, and you’re making race realists look bad.
You don’t seem to get my point. At all. You call me “naive,” but here’s the thing: I haven’t disputed any of your claims about black people in general, just your claims about genetics. In fact, like I already said,
But you went with this notion of “destroying human genetics” with a single (fictitious) “black gene.”
Unamused
First I love your Blog.
I do want to take issue with your statement “His pool metaphor was silly because a few black people don’t destroy society. Large numbers do. We would be fine with a tiny black minority.”
If you look at New York City crime Stats at the New York Times: http://projects.nytimes.com/crime/homicides/map
and press on “Race of Perp” you will see that only a 2.5% population of negoes is necessary to equal the the entire crime contribution of Whites. When speaking of interracial rape (2005 DOJ Crime Stats) negros rape Whites at a rate of 100 per day while Whites rape ZERO negros. Even a “tiny Minority” is enough to greatly increase the amount of horror normal humans must endure. Removing the negro population from New York would usher in a period of peace and tranquility known only to our Great-Great-Grandfathers in the time before WWI.
I think the fecal matter analogy is apt. Put another way, how many rapes and murders are you willing to tolerate?
We like science here. You, on the other hand, have a post entitled “Study Finds That N*ggers Are Not Human.”
I suppose if I pointed out that that’s not true — that black people aren’t a separate species — you would call me “naive” and brag about your experiences. And if I tried to explain any kind of science, you’d skip the “mile of text” the way you’ve apparently skipped all my other comments. You seem to be anti-intellectual.
You are not helping promote white racial consciousness.
I am sorry you take minor criticism so personally Unamusement. I certainly didn’t mean to come to your place to cause trouble. Maybe my message is too silly for your in-depth multi-resourced study of studies, but the simplicity involved in real life personal analyzing of the problems with blacks really doesn’t require a mile of text. Two eyes will suffice. I think 10mm Auto gets it.
Well, that’s a very good point 10mm Auto. It would be impossible to defend my statement about blacks in society as it stands, because it wasn’t precise at all: How “tiny” a minority did I mean? Was I assuming we can choose the blacks who make up the minority, or is it going to be a random sampling? And so on. So I’ll just concede it.
And for the rest of this comment, I’ll indulge in some wishful thinking about how a tiny black minority could work after all.
Consider the kind of society that actually would have only a tiny black minority. I’m picturing America before affirmative action, before immigration reform, before food stamps, before ghettos, before “diversity.”
Before the Civil Rights movement, blacks committed much less crime, had much lower illegitimacy rates and much lower unemployment, and so on. The situation wasn’t ideal (see: ice cream metaphor), but it wasn’t the kind of race relations disaster that makes people like me start blogs.
Then imagine if we reformed immigration to only let in the best and brightest (and most willing to fully assimilate), regardless of race. A few black immigrants would get in. If those black people moved into a 100 percent white city, could it work out? Perhaps.
I agree that if 100 ghettos produce say 100 murders a year, then 1 ghetto would produce 1 murder a year. But if 10,000 of today’s ghetto blacks commit 100 murders a year, that does not necessarily mean that the best 100 black immigrants we can find, assimilated into a society that doesn’t put up with any “diversity” bullshit, would commit 1 murder a year.
It’s not quite fair to ask how many crimes I’m willing to tolerate. If I had my choice, I would have a society made up of only one kind of people: non-criminals. I’d execute white murderers and black murderers alike. Whoever survived the purge would be alright with me. But now this exercise is far too ridiculous. Sadly it is pretty much what I was imagining when I said a tiny minority would be alright.
Banned. Come back when you’re ready to post reasonable, substantial comments.
Being “banned” by you is equivalent to winning my argument with your long lessons in “white racial consciousness.” I tried to be civil and you became agitated. I kept it calm and without hostility and you replied with venom.
[The comment for which you were banned was as far from "civil," "calm," and "without hostility" as possible. As you can see from this comment being accepted, harsh criticism is acceptable. Insults are not.
The worst thing I said to you is that you were being "silly and counterproductive" — hardly "venomous." Anyway, readers can judge for themselves from my comments in this thread. I suggest you re-read what I wrote too.]
[insults] I have actually taken your points and reevaluated my own position on this subject, but that is obviously something you could never do even if it were in your own best interest. I have decided that by continuing to insist that blacks are not human I reduce my potential for any credibility in my other observations. While I find it to be the only real explanation for their behavior, I understand people in general find it outrageous and impossible to comprehend. I plan to take this new angle of thought to my blog and gently transition the theory from real conjecture to a humorous approach. I am not pandering for your approval or trying to even credit you for anything as your opinions of me are only to boost your own ego and appear as some sort of sage of racial consciousness.
[If by "sage of racial consciousness" you mean "trying not to make us all look bad," then yes. For future reference, I consider pop psychoanalysis like "boost your own ego" to be an insult. You'll notice I don't call you names or question your motives.]
Your Alexa standings for this blog compared to the statistics of mine should tell you a little of what people really want to read and see. You offer a great deal of information in a very intelligent manner however you present it in a way that drives potential readers away. We have the same basic message, mine being the radical as compared to your moderate approach. Mine offering some humor both in message and images, yours rather dry and text bookish. You can continue this ban if you wish, it is your place here on the internet and I can respect that. As you tried to (somewhat successfully) convince me to take a more realistic path to the subject, I am attempting to convince you to consider a better way to present your information.
[That is what you should have said in the first place, instead of the comment that got you banned.
You think this is "dry and text bookish." I think we just have different senses of humor.]
[insults] … I rather implore you to rethink your presentation and develop a product people will flock to see. My ranking on Alexa is dropping below the 300,000 mark rapidly while yours hovers well over 3 million. If you were to perhaps humble yourself to the notion that having a link from my site might increase your own traffic and revamp this blog to be more appealing to a wider audience, I might even consider it. Your call. Remember one very important aspect of this entire argument/discussion. People in general have short attention spans. They were given mountains of information prior to the elections of ’08 yet still we have this president. Overly information packed posts such as this lose readers. Good day Unamused. I hope you can reinvent a better site. You have all the right tools.
[You are welcome to post this sort of comment.
Unamusement Park is almost four months old and growing fast. We appreciate your feedback.]
Another suggestion might be to purchase a domain and get rid of that “wordpress.com” URL. Unamusementpark.com is available for purchase at $12 a year. WordPress will help you acquire the domain and host the blog exactly as it sits right now. For 12 bucks, it makes the site a step above being just another freebie WordPress blog, even though it will still be.