Let's Talk About Race

[Guest]

In the Africa topic, things kind of went haywire a little and became a discussion about blacks in America. So let's make this a separate topic. It is long overdue.

This is going to be a long post, but please bear with me. Read it all.

As some of you know, I spent some time on the Stormfront forum, debating White Nationalists under extremely disadvantageous conditions. I beseeched folks from here to come over to help me out, to no avail.

Non-racists are called "antis" over there, and their posts are put on a time-delay. Your post does not appear until a moderator reads it and determines it is not too inflammatory, and then the moderator posts it for you. This process can take anywhere from minutes to hours. Meanwhile, the WN's can post at will.

Antis are also restricted to the "Opposing Views" section of the forum and not allowed to stray into any other sections or they are immediately banned. So you have to wait for people to come to you. And very few do. Mostly the moderators. And the others who come to debate antis are a cut above the average WN's on the rest of the site. Very smart guys.

After an anti has established himself not to be a foaming-at-the-mouth kind of person, he may appeal to a moderator to remove the time delay. After I had been there a while, I did so. Several times. But they never even responded to my requests, much less remove the time delay. There were other long-term antis, though, who had no time delay. But they were still prevented from wandering outside the "Opposing Views" section.

I was accused of being black, a Jew, a left wing extremist marxist, and all kinds of other things. They absolutely refused to believe I was a white, conservative Republican male with blond hair and blue eyes.

I say all this so you can understand what kind of situation I was in in trying to fight the good fight.

Okay. So one of the first topics I engaged in had to do with a U.S. Census result which showed that the top 10 safest states, crime-wise, had the smallest percentage of blacks living in them, and the worst 10 states had the highest percentage of blacks living in them. I copied a zillion links that they and I used at the time to my Favorites, but I no longer have access to the computer I was using, so those are lost to me forever, I guess. But the fact is, the U.S. Census data supported their claims.

I know a little about a lot, but not a lot about this kind of stuff. But just for fun, I looked up nuclear reactors and how many each state had, and found just by coincidence, that those states that had the most reactors also had the higher crime rates. And those states that had the least reactors had the lowest crime rates. There were two exceptions out of the 50 states, but still not bad.

It wasn't until months after I had left Stormfront that I learned I had proven "correlation does not imply causation." I never heard that expression until hanging out in the Science section here.

There were other debates on Stormfront about IQs, and how blacks score lower. I don't remember details, but it certainly didn't look good for blacks.

Anyway, what say you all? How would you fight this fight, as far as IQ tests and crime rates and AIDS rates?

 

[Michael Redman]

If you haven't read Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, you need to do so. He thoroughly refutes IQ testing, and give a great basis for understanding much of the problems with racist thought.

 

[Baker]

The time-delay was one of the reason I didn’t stay over there very long if you are still posting over there all drop by again and see if I can give you a hand you made some very good points do you have the url to the thread I would love to see what the response you got where?

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

You fight by pointing out that there are a lot of auxilliary factors involved, such as economic and social status, cultural background, location, test design, etc. In statistics, you can do two things about those: you can do something called "partial correlation", where you correlate X and Y (race and crime rate for example) against the third factor in question (say, poverty level or degree of urbanization). The other thing to do is to actually select a sample that is not susceptible to the biases in question. Either first or second method, or both, can be used depending on what is being studied; and unless a good job is done of controlling for auxilliary factors, the correlation proves diddly squat.

With IQ, there is one factor that's basically impossible to control in USA -- the popular perception of black culture. Even if an adopted black child is raised in white family in a totally non-racist white neighborhood, they will still be subject to the cultural bombardment from the media about what it means to be black.

In effect, there's very little we can do about precisely studying the effect of race on intelligence in USA. There have been some studies of black kids raised in cultures without the race thing going (there was a study on children of WWII black GIs' in Germany), but those have their own problem (that specific study showed no correlation between race and intelligence).

In conclusion, two anecdotes.

Nose length is correlated with math ability (because adults both have longer noses and are better at math)

Eating ice-cream is correlated with drowning (because people both eat icecream and swim more in the summer).

 

[Clancie]

Actually, according to many biologists, race is a scientifically outmoded concept anyway, left over from the 19th century.

I've read recommendations that it would be more meaningful to classify humans by blood type or fingerprint patterns, since there are so few categories and they apply throughout the world.

Of course, many people like to feel "race" is real and enjoy feeling better than others. (And perhaps getting people away from that specious basis for judgment is even more of a reason to use blood type or fingerprint for categorizing humans).

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Clancy

Actually, according to many biologists, race is a scientifically outmoded concept anyway, left over from the 19th century.

This is true, but not relevant in this context because race has become a solid cultural concept. Yes, classification of races by skin color is as arbitrary as classification of races by hair color of fingernail type.

Of course, many people like to feel "race" is real

Oh, it's real -- but culturally rather than biologically.

 

[Jeff]

Test

 

[Denise]

Sorry, Luke, I'm afraid that I'm not brave enough to post at a place like stormfront.

The race issue....

Well, I don't think that blacks or any other non white ethnic group are inferior in any way to whites, but I do think there are some differences. Are the differences cultural or genetic? All the information I have seen point to cultural.

A problem I see is that many black leaders are not addressing some of the real problems in the black community. Let's talk about out of wedlock births. Over half of the black children in the United States are born to single mothers. No matter what you think aoout marraige, it has been proven that children born to single mothers are much more likely to be in poverty than those who are with two parents. Now is bringing up this issue racist? Some might say yes, but I don't think talking about an obvious problem(to me) is racist.

I personally think the old welfare system helped create some of the problem- with all ethnic groups. Women were allowed to have as many kids as they wanted with benefits increasing according to how many children they had. Married couples could not receive the same benefits as single parents, nor could a woman receive benefits if she was living with the father. A young single mother saw the obvious truth(to me) that it was better for her to not marry the father of her child or children because her benefits such as food stamps and healthcare would be cut. I understand that decision. Thus, the children grew up not knowing their fathers(usually fathers) and that is not a good thing especially for the male children.

Flame away!

 

[hgc]

Clancy:
Actually, according to many biologists, race is a scientifically outmoded concept anyway, left over from the 19th century.

I've read recommendations that it would be more meaningful to classify humans by blood type or fingerprint patterns, since there are so few categories and they apply throughout the world.

Of course, many people like to feel "race" is real and enjoy feeling better than others. (And perhaps getting people away from that specious basis for judgment is even more of a reason to use blood type or fingerprint for categorizing humans).

Well, there's race, and then there's race. It's true that distinctly definable racial groupings are outmoded thinking (ie., the caucasoid, negroid, mongoloid races) -- except at Bob Jones University. But then there's also the concept of genetically connected communities being known as racially connected, which is obvious and banal. Of course skin color and other visually noticable characteristics are just scratching the surface of physical characteristics that correlate to groups of related people. I think it's also obvious that people who feel racially superior are badly misinformed. Superiority is very hard to define and test for (like for instance the case of "IQ" as mentioned above), but I think is also more distinct on an individual basis than on a "racial" basis anyway.

 

[Guest]

Some of you guys are way smarter than me. I sure wish you had been on Stormfront when I was there.

Michael, one of the antis mentioned The Mismeasure of Man somewhere during the IQ debate.

Baker, I'll wander over there in a few minutes and see if I can find the topic(s). It was a long time ago, and I don't even know if my account is still active.

 

[Guest]

Wow! My account is still active, and I found the crime rate topic easily.

The title of the topic is:Argue these stats.

I think you will see my appearance on page 2 of the topic under a not-so-veiled name.

Look for the guy talking about nuclear reactors.

 

[Guest]

I am very interested in a critique of my arguments in the "Argue these stats" topic. All input is welcome.

 

[hgc]

LukeT:
Some of you guys are way smarter than me. I sure wish you had been on Stormfront when I was there.

Michael, one of the antis mentioned The Mismeasure of Man somewhere during the IQ debate.

Baker, I'll wander over there in a few minutes and see if I can find the topic(s). It was a long time ago, and I don't even know if my account is still active.

By the way, The Mismeasure of Man is a great refutation of The Bell Curve (Hernnstein, Murray), even though it is written prior. Gould did write an essay directly attacking Bell Curve for various mistakes, from building on the foundation of "IQ" to all manner of statistical shannanigans, but it's incidentally a summary of Mismeasure.

 

[Guest]

Keeping in mind the disadvantageous conditions I outlined in my OP, doesn't this complaint from a WN crack you up?

Where have all the mouthpieces gone that used to bray and howl against some of the ideas spoken here? I rarely see any of those individuals speak out anymore.....have they realized the futility of arguing here? Or is there something else being prepared for us?
I have personally tried to raise the ire of some of those individuals, without success. I don't believe we have won the war of words...or have we?
Any of those antis or jews reading this are more than welcome to challenge some of my views.....all they need to do is a search and read some of my stuff. Then they can debunk my ignorant chattering.

bu bye

Fromhere.

 

[Dancing David]

race is a perception based upon culture what I find interesting is how English/Germanic culture tends to do something interesting, they type people into 'races' when all the effects can pretty much be accounted for by socio-economics. But then there are many cultures of superiority, take the Chinese they are way xeno-phobic and feel about thier culture the way that white supremists do about thier culture.

English views on the Irish(18-19th century):
They are inferior
They aren't as smart but are crafty
They like music
They like sex
They are emotional

Americans view on ethnic africans:
They are inferior
They aren't as smart but are crafty
They like music
They like sex
They are emotional

From what I can tell all people belong to the same race, we all came from the same place, culture originated in India and Africa but they never get credit for it! The north africans had agriculture long before the middle east and the indians had advanced mathematics while the europeans were still figuring out how to make bronze. There is a tremendous biasis in the way we white folk present history.

Peace
dancing David

 

[Tmy]

A problem I see is that many black leaders are not addressing some of the real problems in the black community. Let's talk about out of wedlock births. Over half of the black children in the United States are born to single mothers. No matter what you think aoout marraige, it has been proven that children born to single mothers are much more likely to be in poverty than those who are with two parents. Now is bringing up this issue racist? Some might say yes, but I don't think talking about an obvious problem(to me) is racist.

I personally think the old welfare system helped create some of the problem- with all ethnic groups. Women were allowed to have as many kids as they wanted with benefits increasing according to how many children they had. Married couples could not receive the same benefits as single parents, nor could a woman receive benefits if she was living with the father. A young single mother saw the obvious truth(to me) that it was better for her to not marry the father of her child or children because her benefits such as food stamps and healthcare would be cut. I understand that decision. Thus, the children grew up not knowing their fathers(usually fathers) and that is not a good thing especially for the male children.

Flame away!

Its all how you analyze the stats. For example one can saythat black culture does not put that much an emphasis on marraige. Marriage in general has been on the decline. Unlike some ethinic groups where there is a gretaer pressure to marry if the women is knocked up. Plus, just because a child is born out of wedlock does not mean they are on welfare. Its just so easy to fallinto stereotypical thinking.

Many people say there are more balck baaasketbal players because genetically blacks make better athletes. The cultural aspects tend to eb ignored. Maybe theres a high % of balck athletes because more black youth particpiate in playing basketball.

Vollyball is a sport that an athlete would need similar skills as basketball (speed, hight, jumping abliity). Yet the % of blacks in pro v-ball and olympics is much smaller than in basketball. Its the environment baby!

Canada has a very high % of world class hockey players. Is that because Canadians are genetically superior when it comes to hockey skills?

 

[Denise]

Its all how you analyze the stats. For example one can saythat black culture does not put that much an emphasis on marraige. Marriage in general has been on the decline. Unlike some ethinic groups where there is a gretaer pressure to marry if the women is knocked up. Plus, just because a child is born out of wedlock does not mean they are on welfare. Its just so easy to fallinto stereotypical thinking.

But if you look at the fifties etc. children born out of wedlock has increased more substantially in the black community than the white. As the white community is catching up so to speak, they are starting to experience the same sort of economic problems. I don't see that as a stereotype. I see that as a fact. I never said that all black children born our of wedlock have parents on welfare.

 

[Tmy]

Denise,

I'm not calling you a bigot or racist or anything. I like when people can bring up topics wh/o having to worry about name calling or emotional replies.

We all use stereoptypes, its human nature.


As for welfare, I know in my parts the system has changed considerable in the last 10+ years. Its no longer a perpetutal free ride and deadbeat dads are hunted down by the state lawyers.

 

[Guest]

Its all how you analyze the stats. For example one can saythat black culture does not put that much an emphasis on marraige. Marriage in general has been on the decline. Unlike some ethinic groups where there is a gretaer pressure to marry if the women is knocked up. Plus, just because a child is born out of wedlock does not mean they are on welfare. Its just so easy to fallinto stereotypical thinking.

Here is a link to a government site which shows children born out of wedlock don't fare as well economically and are more likely to be on welfare. There is plenty of support data on the internet. It isn't a stereotype. It is common sense.

A single parent isn't going to be able to provide for her children as well as two parents.

 

[Denise]

Denise,

I'm not calling you a bigot or racist or anything. I like when people can bring up topics wh/o having to worry about name calling or emotional replies.

We all use stereoptypes, its human nature.


As for welfare, I know in my parts the system has changed considerable in the last 10+ years. Its no longer a perpetutal free ride and deadbeat dads are hunted down by the state lawyers.

They are?

My exhusband owes me over 50 grand.