I really do have a couple of problems with this article.
I think the biggest problem I have is with the admonition to not help black people who are in distress. (In the original article he links to a pretty atrocious story about some Spanish guy (iirc) who helped some black woman who was fighting with her BF and then the 2 of them beat the Spanish guy (to death? I can’t remember.))
So, of course one should use discretion about helping people (look at what those white people did to that white schoolteacher in VT), but I don’t think you should tell your children to never help a black person.
And the bit about scrutinizing politicians is just wrong I think. The problems with most black pols is that they are stinking, lefty dems. And while corruption is to be deplored many honest pols do a lot of damage because of their bad ideas and/or lust for control. Yes, Nanny Bloomberg, I’m thinking of you.
Also, while it is beyond dispute that black people pose far more of a danger to themselves and others than white people do and you’d be a bad parent if you didn’t convey this to your children, the harping on the IQ stuff bothers me.
I have told my own kid, many times, that most people are not as bright as one would like and you have to take that into account when dealing with them.
However, low IQ does not make someone a bad person.
I like Derbyshire, but the entire tone of this piece is just insulting. He’s like that about the Irish too, at times. He basically says: hey blacks are stupid and corrupt and dangerous, avoid them at all costs, don’t even help a black person who’s in trouble, and if by slim chance there are any smart black people around, expect them to be getting their b*tts kissed on a regular basis, including by you, my dear child.
I think all the factual points he makes could have been made in a sober tone and he would have done well to emphasize that it is the BEHAVIOR of blacks, rather than their IQ points which causes problems in society.
And despite this author’s claim that Derbyshire doesn’t think about race he actually seems to have given it a great deal of thought although he seems incapable of seeing people as persons rather than as statistical blips.
We need to have more honesty about race, but I don’t see this piece as being any more helpful than the rantings of Sharpton, et al.
No one, especially not John Derbyshire said anything about IQ points being correlated to how good a person is. There are in fact, and have been throughout history, many smart, yet evil people in our world. (Have you never heard the term “evil genius?”) He is not insulting anyone, he is merely stating facts. So if you find the piece insulting, it’s a perception problem on your part.
It’s just like when someone says “women are, on average, physically weaker than men,” and some women react with outrage, as if someone just said something derogatory about them. It’s not a criticism, it’s just an observed fact, and it doesn’t make women less valuable in our society.
The problem is that Derbyshire did make the argument in a rational sober tone. No matter how much the message is sugarcoated, the Left and their dog robbers in the Republican party will cry r-r-racist! Self censoring to avoid hurt feelings is just one of the effeminate intellectual shackles that Marxism has foisted on public debate.
People, with few exception are extremely maladapt at probabilistic thinking. A lack of intelligence doesn’t make anyone a bad person. But chances are they will be extremely poor decision makers, have lower inhibitions, poor impulse control, etc. Derbyshire did not say that Blacks are stupid, corrupt, corrupt, and to be avoided. He said that a significant number were stupider, more corrupt, and more dangerous than the national (non-black) mean and those to be avoided. People have the freedom of association and there are plenty of non-black individuals I would write off ever interacting with. It just so happens to be that there are plenty more blacks on that list (Disparate Impact!). Why take the risk at all when the opportunity costs of avoiding it are so negligible.