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?
“Anti-racism” is anti-white
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.
Self defense
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.
The consequences are predictable.
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.
Finally someone admits that blacks are the most racist people on the planet.
I for one welcome our new self aware kitty overlords!
One of my favorite papers discussing the IQ disparity is also a defense of Dr. James Watson:
http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2008%20Med%20Hypotheses.pdf
The thing that I find the most interesting is that reaction times, which are heavily correlated with IQ and is a very simple test, show that blacks still sink to the bottom of the barrel. Additionally, the rankings of races on the reaction-time test follow the same pattern as IQ tests: Asian, White, Latino, Black.
Yeah, there’s absolutely no scientific difference between people of different races. I suppose that’s the kind of drivel you get when you award advanced degrees to retards.
[Unamused: Nice editorial. Worth checking out. Thanks.]
And to think the poor fellow only earns $153,600 as a professor. Not bad for a black man.
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/databases/salaries/william-and-mary?name=blakey
I say give them their damned reparations — the originally proposed 40 acres and a mule for each black family, on the condition that they immediately give up and can never regain their EBT cards, TANFF, WIC, Section 8, AA, etc.
Of course within six months they will have mortgaged and lost the 40 acres and eaten the mule, but at least we won’t have to listen to them whine about slavery any more (oh who am I kidding).
It will never get better, look at South Africa. These violent lazy retards always think they are ‘owed’ something. It goes in hand in hand with their belief in witchcraft.
So what does this mean? That after half a century of implementing every civil rights program demanded by blacks, blacks still can not compete in the real world? Exactly how much longer is this racket going to go on?
Because that is what this all is. An endless hustle. Blacks can not (will not?) compete in the real world. So they have to blame someone else for their failures.
Consider how blacks have the entire continent of Africa below the Sahara with which they could show the world how they could create societies based on progress, equality and prosperity. And what have they done with Africa? The usual round of mayhem which has been described too many times. All accompanied by the constant parade of excuses. They rarely stand up and say, “It’s all my fault that we have crime, illegitimacy, and non-stop bloodbaths in Africa.”
To get back to the original point: if blacks can not be integrated into white society despite the best efforts of every institution in the country, then what is that saying? That integration was an impossible dream? That perhaps a solution akin to the post-colonial India-Pakistan division might make sense here?
The thing is, it is the black race hustlers who are going to push people into extreme responses. I’d say that, despite Blakeley’s claims, the vast majority of Americans would like to live in racial harmony. But he and his comrades will not let them.
If/when a backlash comes, he will have only himself to blame.
What? No kittens and faeries? How can I swallow this depressing reality…
I despair at this rubbish. Really
[Unamused: Oh noes! This is, apparently, a real live black pseudo-intellectual ("independent researcher") whose area of study is the mythical "white privilege". You can read his thoughts on a variety of matters on Twitter.]
I’d like to offer a bit of shameless self-promotion if I may. I’ve written what I think is a pretty good FAQ on the Trayvon Martin shooting. In spite of what the MSM has been saying, I believe the facts support George Zimmerman’s claim that he was acting in self-defense.
http://goo.gl/leHNE
[unamused: legit link worth checking out]
destructure, please do not use link shorteners unless necessary (e.g. on Twitter). All kinds of mischief can be hidden behind them. Use HTML links that people can look at.
That said, I highly recommend destructure’s Zimmerman/Martin FAQ.
The commenter “Question Diversity” at AmRen is asking for one of those ‘Park twitter updates about the Baltimo riot.
Proof of disparate impact:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y6NL_6Hjpc
I’ve seen the video. I believe. Dr. Blakely is right. (snicker)
[unamused: video's been taken down; see below]
Proof of disparate impact part deux:
http://youtu.be/3G5jkB6XhS0
Evidently someone else “owns” the video and has it posted at the link above.
Thabo Mophiring, are you actually short-sighted (literally, not figuratively), a trait associated with high intelligence in white people and Asians, but rare in black people?
Or are the glasses an affectation to make youself look smart? Or are they for long-sightedness, a trait associated with stupidity (or old age)?
I always laugh when I see black “intellectuals” wearing glasses.
And were you despairing at Professor Blakey’s nonsense, or Unamused’s criticism of it?
We gave them the city that built the arsenal of democracy, quite possibly the most valuable piece of real estate on planet earth.
Californian: “So what does this mean? That after half a century of implementing every civil rights program demanded by blacks, blacks still can not compete in the real world? Exactly how much longer is this racket going to go on?”
John Derbyshire points out some interesting stats regarding net worth by race, here:
http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2012-01-06.html
In a nutshell: “That means that median household wealth for whites is nineteen times what it is for blacks, and fifteen times what it is for Hispanics… Those ratios are at record highs because of the housing crash, but they’ve always been plenty high. They both bottomed out in 1995 at around seven times. Twenty-five years ago the ratios were twelve times and eight times.”
In short, during the entire period when the vast affirmative action, set aside, speak-no-evil-of-blacks regime has been in power, the economic situation of blacks has gotten WORSE, with no end in sight. As far as I know, nobody talks about this in public. But if they did – how much do you want to bet they’d just call for more of the same?
Nice article.
Whenever I read about black entitlements and victimization, I vividly see the same happening in feminism. Women still suffer from having suffered historical discrimination.
Women can’t compete in tennis, snooker, chess, not even cooking, but all this is due to discrimination.
You know, not enough women learn cooking, this is why they don’t make it to the top Michelin Star level.
[...] about culpability, which has long been at the heart of the Race debate. The onus would be on ‘social constructionists‘ to show that various outcome differences didn’t have an ultimate genetic etiology (in [...]
Madpiper,
Here in Soviet Monica a college teacher showed me the JC [smc.edu] soon to be online new logo! The school, he says, paid 110,000$ for 2 graphics. A new logo [think a box drawing like allied vans ad] and a ‘seal’. Like Cali State Seal.
Off topic but since someone mentioned colleges. Antioch College LA is offering programs in Liberal Studies and GBLT ‘studies’. Who the hell is paying 100K for that? No wonder Antioch Ohio has gone broke.
Unamused, I have tried to get the ‘recent Trayvon pic at photobucket’. I cannot. Can you post? I read he was 6’3″, gold tooth [lost tooth in fight?].
[...] Product Review: Finding a Model That’s Right for You”Unamused – “Motives, Part 3: “The New Racism”“, “Motives, Part 4: White Genocide“, “Motives, Part 5: Racial [...]
Off Topic… Trayvon
Race is bogus. Read this:
Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races
Jeffrey C. Long1 and Rick A. Kittles2
1 Department of Human Genetics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0618.
2 National Human Genome Center, Howard University, Washington, D.C. 20060.
Abstract
Sewall Wright’s population structure statistic, FST, measured among samples of world populations is often 15% or less. This would indicate that 85% of genetic variation occurs within groups while only 15% can be attributed to allele frequency differences among groups. In this paper, we show that this low value reflects strong biases that result from violating hidden assumptions that define FST. These limitations on FST are demonstrated algebraically and in the context of analyzing dinucleotide repeat allele frequencies for a set of eight loci genotyped in eight human groups and in chimpanzees. In our analyses, estimates of FST. fail to identify important variation. For example, when the analysis includes only humans, FST = 0.119, but adding the chimpanzees increases it only a little, FST = 0.183. By relaxing the underlying statistical assumptions, the results for chimpanzees become consistent with common knowledge, and we see a richer pattern of human genetic diversity. Some human groups are far more diverged than would be implied by standard computations of FST, while other groups are much less diverged. We discuss the relevance of these findings to the application of biological race concepts to humans. Four different race concepts are considered: typological, population, taxonomic, and lineage. Surprisingly, a great deal of genetic variation within groups is consistent with each of these concepts. However, none of the race concepts is compatible with the patterns of variation revealed by our analyses.
So there.
Doubt you can refute that..
lulz
I like how you think this is new and relevant, as if I haven’t seen exactly this sort of thing before. The comparison of variation “within groups” versus variation “among groups” is generally known as “Lewontin’s fallacy” (because to the extent that the claim is meaningful, it’s false).
I can refute the “non-existence” of genetic race in four pictures:
1. Genetic variation worldwide
2. Genetic variation in Africa
3. Genetic distances between populations
4. Genetic map of the world
The first three are from Tishkoff et al. (2009), the third is from Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza’s “The History and Geography of Human Genes” (1994). As the author puts it: “The [genetic] color map of the world [see below] shows very distinctly the differences that we know exist among the continents: Africans (yellow), Caucasoids (green), Mongoloids… (purple), and Australian Aborigines (red).”
In “Genetic structure of human populations” (2002), N. A. Rosenberg et al. showed that people cluster genetically according to major geographic regions — in other words, races (Science 298(5602): 2381–2385).
In “Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies” (2005), H. Tang et al. demonstrated that genetic clusters match self-reported race (White, Black, Hispanic, or East Asian) 99.9 percent of the time (American Journal of Human Genetics 76(2): 268–275).
Cavalli-Sforza found, among other things, that the genetic distance between the English and the Italians is about 2.5 times as large as the distance between the English and the Danish. The Iranians are 9 times farther away, genetically speaking, from the English than the Danes are from the English. The Japanese are 59 times farther away. The distance from the English to the Bantus of sub-Saharan Africa is 109 times as big as the English-Danish distance.
Why the discrepancy with the race denialists’ claims? Lewontin’s fallacy is addressed quite thoroughly in “Race: A Social Destruction of a Biological Concept” (2001) by Neven Sesardic (Biology and Philosophy 25(2): 143-162). In brief, two people of the same race are always more similar genetically than two people of different races (pp. 150–154). The main problem is that Lewontin measured genetic variation by looking at each genetic indicator separately, thereby failing to account for genetic clustering.
I suggest you read the posts categorized under “Nature of Race.” As I explained in this post, for example, human races could be considered subspecies by Mayr’s 1963 criterion for systematic zoology: we can assign people to their correct major racial group with near-perfect accuracy, while Mayr was willing to accept a 75% success rate for non-human species.
By the way, can you tell the difference between Blacks, Whites, and East Asians? And when you know the race of the parents, is there ever any doubt what race the child will be? Doubt you can answer either of those questions without contradicting yourself or lying.
“Haha” indeed.
By the way, the main point is that race hustlers like Blakey don’t want anyone to do any sort of research into biological differences between the races, because they need a continuous supply of White guilt to keep the “reparations” flowing.
He wants to bash Whites for the benefit of Blacks, thereby stirring up Black resentment, rage, and racial hatred toward Whites, and he won’t let a few inconvenient facts stand in the way.
Oh, and read this refutation as well (in particular, “F_ST Follies”).
Still thoroughly unamused despite
[Unamused: Oh noes! This is, apparently, a real live black pseudo-intellectual ("independent researcher") whose area of study is the mythical "white privilege". You can read his thoughts on a variety of matters on Twitter.]
come up with one counter-argument, thabo
any day now
Great article. Good discussion and good links.
Just quoted it in a comment on my article you were kind to list above.
Check my articles on race and intelligence
We are concerned with, well, Human-Stupidity. We are amazed how the race-iq-crime discussion is totally polluted by irrational denial and absurd ridiculous hypotheses that were debunked dozens of time. How the truth sayers get silenced, attacked, and possibly even slapped with hate crime accusations.
We did not have special interest in racial issues, we stumbled over it and could not avoid finding the truth, against our prior brain-washed beliefs.