Motives, part 3: “the new racism”
Mar 21st, 2012 by Unamused
Here’s a clear example of the fundamental fallacy of race relations: that disparate impact somehow implies disparate treatment.
In February, black anthropologist Michael L. Blakey of the College of William and Mary offered
everything from [black-white] income disparity to blacks’ abilities to get good jobs
as proof that the effects of slavery, Jim Crow laws, “immigration restrictions,” “the eugenics movement,” and “other forms of white privilege” were “still being felt today” by black Americans. He concluded that “[w]hite privilege persists,” i.e., whites today benefit unfairly at the expense of blacks.
Blakey also claims that skepticism about systemic white racism is “the new racism,” trying to place dissenting views beyond the limits of acceptable discourse (as defined by Professor Blakey). After all, who would dare question a black man about race, when he says asking questions is a new form of racism?
Disparate impact does not imply disparate treatment
This is really an excellent example of the fundamental fallacy: Blakey sees disparate impact (black failure) and ascribes it at once to disparate treatment (white racism). In his mind, this is the only possible explanation, because he ignores well established race differences in intelligence (which are mostly genetic) and other relevant behavioral traits, such as conscientiousness and aggression:
He said there is no scientific difference between people of different races.
“We know people do look different from one another, but we will find that this variation is really very small, very superficial,” he said.
As a fairly race-obsessed black anthropologist, Blakey should know better. In fact, all of that is so obviously wrong, one might suspect that Blakey is deliberately misrepresenting the science for political gain at whites’ expense.
One might even say he’s a lying racist.
The legacy of a fantasy
The aforementioned race differences in behavioral traits explain “everything from income disparity to blacks’ abilities to get good jobs” much better than a made-up “legacy” of historical discrimination that somehow affects half-black, half-white children half as much as it affects black children, even when the mixed-race children are thought to be black.
By “historical discrimination,” I of course mean the actual history of slavery, segregation, etc., not whatever quasi-historical fantasy Blakey subscribes to, with its evil white slavers and poor innocent blacks who built the whole country and never got paid waaaaah:
Blakey traced the roots of the concept of race back to slavery. He said enslaved people were deemed to be “something less than fully human.”
So the black and Arab slavers who captured all those slaves deemed their black, Arab, and white slaves to be “something less than fully human,” leading them to invent a concept of race that, in a startling coincidence, corresponds exactly to a genetic definition based on ancestral geography?
No, somehow I don’t think that’s what Blakey had in mind. I suspect he was referring to how awful and rotten those awful, rotten white people are. Why, they even concocted this absurd notion of “race” as an excuse to kick around a bunch of wonderful black people (as he puts it, “a means of justifying the unjustifiable”). In another startling coincidence, those mean old white men provide people like Professor Blakey, the Professional Black Person, with a way to cash in on the color of their skin. That sounds realistic.
That’s why (in Blakey’s mind) blacks need reparations for slavery, which after all was just years and years of white people enslaving black people, then pretending they’re not really people. Oh, and they also need affirmative action forever, plus whatever other forms of systematic, state-sponsored anti-white discrimination Blakey can think of. And if you disagree — if, in Blakey’s words, you try to “justify white privilege in an officially anti-racist society” — well, then you’re a racist. A new kind of racist.
You big jerk.
By pretending that all human populations (whites, blacks, East Asians, etc.) are indistinguishable, then dismissing any doubt as “the new racism,” Blakey gives good-intentioned but uninformed whites no choice but to see disparate treatment (i.e., you awful, rotten white people are still as racist as ever) where none exists.
His objective is to promote policies that benefit a racial minority — his own — at the expense of the white majority. As a side effect, besides more white guilt, his unsubstantiated assertions of racial discrimination by whites for their own benefit stir up unjustified resentment, anger, and hatred by blacks (and probably other racial minorities) toward their supposed oppressors.
That is what I mean when I say that whites are motivated by self-preservation when they insist on discussing differences between the races — differences that are perceived by many to be more than a little unsavory.