Posted on 04/07/2012 5:04:29 AM PDT by reaganaut1
...
There is a talk that nonblack Americans have with their kids, too. My own kids, now 19 and 16, have had it in bits and pieces as subtopics have arisen. If I were to assemble it into a single talk, it would look something like the following.
(1) Among your fellow citizens are forty million who identify as black, and whom I shall refer to as black. The cumbersome (and MLK-noncompliant) term “African-American” seems to be in decline, thank goodness. “Colored” and “Negro” are archaisms. What you must call “the ‘N’ word” is used freely among blacks but is taboo to nonblacks.
(2) American blacks are descended from West African populations, with some white and aboriginal-American admixture. The overall average of non-African admixture is 20-25 percent. The admixture distribution is nonlinear, though: “It seems that around 10 percent of the African American population is more than half European in ancestry.” (Same link.)
(3) Your own ancestry is mixed north-European and northeast-Asian, but blacks will take you to be white.
(4) The default principle in everyday personal encounters is, that as a fellow citizen, with the same rights and obligations as yourself, any individual black is entitled to the same courtesies you would extend to a nonblack citizen. That is basic good manners and good citizenship. In some unusual circumstances, however—e.g., paragraph (10h) below—this default principle should be overridden by considerations of personal safety.
(5) As with any population of such a size, there is great variation among blacks in every human trait (except, obviously, the trait of identifying oneself as black). They come fat, thin, tall, short, dumb, smart, introverted, extroverted, honest, crooked, athletic, sedentary, fastidious, sloppy, amiable, and obnoxious. There are black geniuses and black morons. There are black saints and black psychopaths.
(Excerpt) Read more at takimag.com ...
“Derbyshire doesn't do the really obvious racist stuff — the stuff that goes up at FreeRepublic.com, for example — like post photos Obama in stereotypical tribal garb with a bone through his nose. Instead, he talks about how his East African parentage means he might be suspect to some black voters, who are more likely to be of West African heritage.”
The link is here: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/04/why-john-derbyshire-hasnt-been-fired-yet/50803/
The Atlantic then provides numerous links to various things Derbyshire has written, going back at least four years, with links, that don't sound very good.
I don't know enough about Derbyshire to have an intelligent comment on his views. However, I believe Jim Robinson and the community of those of us who post on Free Republic need to make **ABSOLUTELY** clear that Free Republic does **NOT** support racism.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, but I think someone posting photos of “Obama in stereotypical tribal garb with a bone through his nose” would get in trouble here, especially if that was part of a pattern of anti-black ranting.
Maybe I've been lucky but I simply haven't run into a lot of the “bad blacks” that some people like to talk about. I've seen some, but not many, and I know from firsthand experience that even in high-crime areas, most residents are basically decent people who have been intimidated into a code of silence. That's coming from someone who, back when I was in college and graduate school, was living in the inner city and was attending a church that was in the process of successfully changing from predominantly white to predominantly black. Once my neighbors and fellow church members got to know me, they decided “he's okay” and I had no more issues.
Yes, I take precautions when in an area where I'm one of the few white people, but I'd do the same in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood, and my Italian ancestors would have done the same in a predominantly Irish neighborhood, and a hundred years ago walking into a neighborhood full of “wops” and “dagos” would have scared the living daylights out of many WASPS.
It's not just blacks and Hispanics who get this treatment. When I walk around in Korea, I have to be careful not to hold my wife's hand, and I always have to wear a suit and tie in public, because otherwise people to look down on her as a “race-mixer” of questionable morality. That's reality; I don't like it, but I have to deal with it — there are lots of cultures where white people are looked down on as immoral wicked people whose goal is to “knock up” innocent Asian women.
Bottom line: if you act like and dress like a gangbanger, you'll get treated like one. Act and dress like a professional, and most (not all but most) people will treat you like a decent human being.
About 2:1 - AFTER correcting for % of population - for special forces. (If Blacks = 14% of population, then = 7% of Special Forces)
About 6:1 - AFTER correcting - for Seals.
long threads about this some time back - concerning swimming ability re Seal data.
But - this is everywhere. Those 15 IQ points on average are hard to overcome.
"For a man who had just learned that he would lose his livelihood, his passion, and his family home, Smith was strangely unflustered. Largely ignored since independence, he seems to have found in the blind bungling of Robert Mugabe's regime a grim redemption for white rule. "You can't imagine how many people come up to me and say, 'We didn't agree with you back then. We thought you were too rigid and inflexible. But now we see you were right. You were so right: they were not fit to govern.'"
This is a rather long article and must be excerpted...go to the link and you will see a frightening similarity to what is happening to our country right now!
Mugabe decided on what he called "fast-track land reform" only in February of 2000, after he got shocking results in a constitutional referendum: though he controlled the media, the schools, the police, and the army, voters rejected a constitution he put forth to increase his power even further. A new movement was afoot in Zimbabwe: the Movement for Democratic Change—a coalition of civic groups, labor unions, constitutional reformers, and heretofore marginal opposition parties. Mugabe blamed the whites and their farm workers (who, although they together made up only 15 percent of the electorate, were enough to tip the scales) for the growth of the MDC—and for his humiliating rebuff.
MSo he played the race card and the land card. "If white settlers just took the land from us without paying for it," the President declared, "we can, in a similar way, just take it from them without paying for it." In 1896 Africans had suffered huge casualties in an eighteen-month rebellion against British pioneers known as the chimurenga, or "liberation war." The war that brought Zimbabwean blacks self-rule was known as the second chimurenga. In the immediate aftermath of his referendum defeat Mugabe announced a third chimurenga, invoking a valiant history to animate a violent, country-wide land grab. Initially, the farmers held their ground, but it became clear after several white farmers were murdered that they were too few and Mugabe's regime was too determined. Of the 4,000 large-scale commercial farmers in business three years ago, all but 500 have been forced off their land.
I am at a loss for words.
Are you implying that a beer summit is out of the question here?
Cheers!
“Something I thought I would never see in print:
“(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.””
Actually there’s a whole book that goes into great details documenting this. “The Bell Curve” - I highly recommend it. (I’m sure that’s how derbyshire came up with that paragraph). It explains the reality we experience every day better than anything else I’ve come across. The authors were demonized and made persona non grata in any social or academic setting. But time is vindicating them.
The critics didn’t so much argue with the data as with the causes. They said that blacks didn’t do as well in IQ tests as whites (or other races) because of historical and cultural reasons. So affirmative action, preferential treatments and integration were instituted to supposedly remedy these historical and cultural disadvantages.
Fifty years of this have made little or no impact, in fact the IQ distribution difference has not changed (it probably has gotten worse due to the lower end of the distribution reproducing faster as a result of programs rewarding mothers that have kids with additional welfare payments.)
The race problem is a huge problem. It has been relatively dormant during the past 50 years mainly because of the appeasement programs mentioned above. We’ve gotten to the point now where it is obvious even to the most rabid apologist, and to the blacks themselves that despite all the preferential treatment and the countless billions spent on “remedying” the differences, in the “test of life” blacks on the average just don’t do as well.
This is a tragedy of incredible proportions, with very nasty consequences (as we’re beginning to see). “The Bell Curve” suggested some solutions that would solve the problem, but politically and ethically they would be next to impossible to implement.
There are tests which dispute the “cultural bias” excuse, because IQ tests have shown that blacks have done better on the parts of the test which might be shown to have “cultural bias” and worse on those parts which measure abstract cognitive ability. So is they would only look at these results, they would see that blacks’ exposure to the culture actually helps them do better on those parts. But they’ll never acknowledge this, as they then would have to also admit that the do worse on the parts which show sheer cognitive ability. Can’t have anything that smacks of the truth no matter how much a whole society must be damaged in order to coddle their feelings of inferiority.
Studies are aslo showing that black males from upper socioeconomic levels still have lower SAT scores, higher drop-out rates, and higher crime rates, even hough raised in upper middle class to wealthy families, with both parents having degrees. The negative indicators for the black kids from these well-off families are higher than those from poorer white families, in that the poorer white kids commit less crime, drop out less, have higher SAT scores, etc,
The black kids also do worse than their parents in testing-”regression to the mean”. Google it, it’s explains a lot, especially as concerns “white flight” from neighborhoods.
ping for later
One problem with the critics' assumption is that the average SAT scores for blacks whose parents were in the $80-$100K income range was LOWER that that for white kids at the "<10K" poverty level (see this article, Table 2: 1996 Mean SAT Scores by Race and Family Income.
In other words, high income black kids, presumably enrolled in excellent middle-class schools and having all the advantages of good nutrition, access to books, growing up in an integrated environment where they hung out with fellow middle-class white kids and away from gangs and drugs, etc, STILL scored lower, and dramatically lower than kids of their own socioeconomic class.
Meanwhile, the children of Vietnamese boat people wo arrived here with nothing, grew up to be valedictorians.
See my post #112 for the link to the actual data.
Critics claim that SAT and IQ scores are highly correlated with parental income, and thus reflect socioeconomic bias. My response is that the critics have it backwards, and that the parents' income is to a large extent attributable to their IQ, and that "correcting" for parental income actually corrects for the genetic component of IQ.
There are those that say that the creators of great fortunes did not necessarily have extreme IQs, and they are correct that, for ultra high incomes, other factors come into play. But within the income range of $20K to $200K, IQ plus the willingness to study and learn (factors that are reflected in the SAT) are highly correlated with economic success.
Or rather it showed into the faces of his acquaintances that they caused their own failures by being unwilling to work and study as hard as your friend. For many blacks, the only path to stable success involves cutting all connections to "da hood", and the losers who would bring them down.
“showed into the faces” should have been “shoved into the faces”
Nah, You have a lot of minority leadership these days. The leadership ranks mirrors the population.
I meant “sharp end” as in actual frontline combat troops, the ones who “shoot and get shot at”. I know there is an over-representation of minorities in officer and non-com positions, if “fair representation” were to be based on percentage of population or even general troop levels. I’ve noticed that “fair representation” is never based on that. It seems to mean rather “50% or more”.
Thank you for the link, off to read more.
I’ve also read summaries of studies which showed that blacks actually scored higher on the parts of IQ tests which could be said to have more “cultural bias” than on the parts which measured pure cognitive ability. So that “cultural bias” actually helps their scores.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.