Skip to comments.The Talk: Nonblack Version
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, howevere.g., paragraph (10h) belowthis 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 ...
Ask any journalist who spent a substantial amount of time in a Soviet Bloc country.
It really depends on the units. Some units have a higher percentage of blacks or women, etc.
The job you get depends on your qualification test scores and the needs of the Army. If you had really high scores the recruiter would steer you away from admin jobs.
Blacks do try out for special forces, etc but a lot don't make it.
I pulled these stats off the Army site.
I can’t copy and paste so I’ll just type them out. This is FY2011
Total Force Army
Maneuver Fire & Effects
The Army mirrors the US population as far as age and having a HS diploma.
US 18-24 old with HS diploma Army Enlisted w HSD
White 57% 62%
Black 18% 20%
good tag! for me
I believe the question related to the point of the spear - not the office workers in Alabama.
The closer you get to the point - the whiter it gets.
Why don’t you do some homework and find out.
The more honestly selective the group gets - the harder to overcome that 15 IQ points. Those 15 points - are crushing.
There are - possibly - some other demographics involved. An enlisted guy smart enough to be a SEAL - for instance - if Black - is college scholarship material. Affirmative Action sends him to college. And not watchamcallit State either. Blacks goto Duke with 1250 M+V. 1050 is a good score for Blacks. 50%ile for whites.
Every family has stories; so has mine. Not a lot of bluebirds fluttering around singing about happiness and bonhomie when it comes to the subject of race.
Lincoln, when he died, had Gen. Dan Sickles (of Gettysburg fame) down in Panama and New Granada (Colombia) working on a project to take about 2,000,000 ex-slaves down to Panama to dig a canal. This was generations before yellowjack was beaten, even before the French tried. Can you imagine what the outcome of that would have been?
He was long a student of the colonization movement and never gave up his idea that it would be likely impossible, post-emancipation, for the two races to live in amity.
Gen. Ben Butler took an interview with Lincoln just a few days before the assassination; part of his brief was a progress report on Sickles's work. After the assassination, everyone forgot all about Sickles, and he was still down there six weeks later when he was informed about the President's death by an Indian runner.
Sickles's files, by the way -- the American ones -- have been gone through and his daybooks and message traffic pared and removed. Most of his file material has been systematically destroyed.
I have something of a problem with the fairness, or rather the informational goodness, of point 11). IQ is to some extent, perhaps a great extent, influenced by nurture and teaching. I read a lot as a kid, thanks to Canadian Maritime winters, so my reading and IQ (as tested) prospered apace. So would anyone's who read a lot, as opposed to a kid (regardless of ethnos) who played videogames nonstop, or who was brought up like wolves in a dysfunctional family that was uneducated and illiterate.
So the IQ tests don't just test native intelligence but something rather different, and culturally loaded.
Is that unfair? Yeah, it probably is. But I learned long ago that I will be treated one way wearing a suit and tie and a very different way wearing a T-shirt and jeans.
That goes double for minority groups, including me as a white guy when I'm traveling in foreign countries.
As a person whose two nieces live with us (not for any problems in their family, but rather to give them an American education) I want to comment you for being involved as an aunt in your relatives’ education and upbringing. It can be important to have extended family backing up the values of parents.
Whoever writes about race and criminality has to write things that "don't sound very good" unless he lies about the stats and resorts to trickery and deceit -- and indulges gross, euphemistic characterizations of violence and criminality.
Nobody can make any general statement or draw a moral inference about black criminality without instantly being accused, as Derbyshire has been, of racism.
Which, I think, has been the whole idea of racial PC censorship, viz., to force whites (not blacks) to shut up about criminality in the black community.
Racist bigots need to be dealt with within the conservative movement. I've seen things on these two Darbyshire threads this weekend that I have only rarely seen before on Free Republic, and that is not helping Free Republic.
I posted this today on the Atlantic's website, in response to a comment there saying that “Given the average level of the comment threads on your fine little website, I find this comment about as believable as the 1938 broadcast about Martians landing in New Jersey.”
Every high-traffic website that allows comments, no matter what its politics, gets a wide range of people commenting. Some are regular participants, some read often and post rarely, some are drive-by one-time posters. Some are smart, some are stupid, some are extremist “true believers,” some are “trolls” from the other side trying to cause trouble. That's life — and it exists with internet comments on both sides of the political spectrum.
What counts is the official position of Free Republic, which is posted on the form used every time people want to make a comment: “Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts”
I think that pretty much says it all. As a Freeper affirmed yesterday who has been a member much longer than me, going back almost to the founding of Free Republic in its current form in 1997, “racist crap has never been tolerated on Free Republic.”
I'm not very happy with some of my fellow conservatives who are racists, but I don't deny that they exist. Fortunately, that tiny minority is dying out. Most conservatives figured out long ago that anti-Communists from Cuba, Vietnam, and South Korea believe exactly the same thing we believe, and might be a lot angrier about it than those of us whose contact with liberal extremism is limited to university settings. I couldn't care less what somebody’s skin color may be; I care a great deal what they believe.
Having read the article you linked to, btw, I think that Derbyshire may have to file a lawsuit against Elspeth Reeve, the authoress, since she did actually say that Derbyshire is a racist, with the line
....Derbyshire does effectively demonstrate, year after year, exactly how racist you can be and still get published by people who consider themselves intellectuals.
I don't think either one of them can say, on a fair reading, that she didn't just call him a racist. If he doesn't successfully call her on it in court, he may be done as a writer. Certainly at National Review. I don't think a denial by itself will do, now that the other NR writers have called Derbyshire out.
Freep ‘em if the can’t take a joke. That’s my official response.
Well quoted here. John Derbyshire is of my father's generation. My dad loved with honest love the friends I introduced him to who were yellow- or black-skinned, they always said how welcome and comfortable Dad made them feel, but the N-word was a frequent part of his vocabulary. I hated to hear it from him, but there was no changing him. National Review was right to let John go. It's not like he's their dad! (;
Glad you mentioned this.
Your call, Jim... Your site, your rules.
I LOATHE the Atlantic but I agree with the above sentiments.
ting tang walla walla bing bang.
Citizenship and human rights don't depend on scoring well on "the bell curve", do they? Rights are a question of equity, not ability. Certainly people with 150 IQ's are going to receive better life chances; but do, or should, people with lower IQ's be treated differently by Government because they got GED's instead of advanced degrees?
I think the Left has been playing political games with native differences in ability, just as they do with everything else. Using people's IQ's in a giant sorting scheme similar to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World stinks of Leftist instrumentalism and dystopian dreams foreseen by Huxley and Orwell. So does using them as a political lever in left-wing identity-political campaigns.