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 ...
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.
Unfortunately, accepting personal responsibility is a painful but absolutely necessary and non-negotiable first step in solving one's problems and developing real character. There seems to be a wholesale failure in the leadership of the black community to appreciate that fact.
In fact, said leaders usually denigrate those who do assume mature responsibility as traitors to their race.
And as a result...we have an entire segment of our population which has not, will not, indeed, cannot assimilate into our culture as mature citizens.
And now, the President of the United States is fanning the flames of revolution by this self-segregated population.
B F L
I can’t get the link to work. Did you save a full copy?
Never mind, I found it.
It doesn't sound tongue in cheek to me.
There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps... then turn around and see somebody white and feel relieved.
― Jesse Jackson
I just remembered something from way back in 1976. I was visiting Washington D.C. that summer, staying at the YCWA, and was given “the talk,” by a black D.C. cop. He used a map I had to point out where it was safe to go, and what areas to stay the hell out of.
I was referring to his first post with the link to the article. But I guess I did read it wrong, as this post makes clear.
It is quite possible that Lowry had not posted the statement that I copied and pasted, and that, at the time, yours was the most recent and, therefore, most accurate observation.
It's not what MLK wanted. The autobiography of Booker T. Washington was one of the most inspiring books I read in my youth for guidance on how to overcome disadvantage and live a useful life, along with Ben Franklin's autobio. Such men today, like Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams, are ignored. It is tragic.
My life was saved by a black child when I was four years old or so and would have drowned, had he not pulled me out. My parents' curt dismissal of him was a moment of pure shame. I will not give up trying, but I am deeply, deeply saddened by the hostility and ingratitude of the "urban youth" and hip-hop culture.
Interesting. Tell the truth while one still has time.
So this is Eric Holder's honest conversation about race?
"Black-on-white crime is grievous."
Yeah, that'll have lots of takers.
Notice that Lowry didn't finger an offending quote or statistic that he thought was unfair or exemplified prejudice or race-hatred in Derbyshire's article. Where's the beef, Rich? What exactly was it that placed Derbyshire beyond the pale? Or was it taking up the subject in the first place?
Ping to my last.
But what did Derbyshire say that was "nasty and indefensible"? Lowry broadly characterizes what Derbyshire wrote but doesn't specify.
It’s his call. I don’t think he has to be any more specific than his statement already is. Jim Robinson zots folks all the time - it’s his prerogative as the owner of the site. He owes no one an explanation. Lowry has the same power, as obviously demonstrated in this case.
...who isn't in jail or dead.
The whole piece is at post 80.
It is hard to choose just one sentence or paragraph that would have cause NR to pull the plug.
I would like to see Charles Murray’s take on the piece.
I had the talk with my blonde, blue eyed, white boys when they were 14...
They don't have the break downs as far as "point of the spear". I'm guessing Fire and Maneuver is trigger pullers not rear area troops. I think that special ops etc would mirror the rest of the forces make-up.
Your “guess that special ops mirrors ...” is incorrect.
The breakdowns are available. A simple Google of “racial breakdown of special forces” yields a first link to a >100 page Rand report from 1999 detaling everything you would need to know to answer this question intelligently. Link follows:
Blacks are 2-4% of officers and enlisted in SEALS, Special Forces, and Rangers. POINT of the spear - UNDER represented by factor of 3. I believe - numbers have increased to where they are more 6%-2% now. Under - by 2.5X.
Test results etc are part of the report.
There is no need to guess, or argue, over a fact that can be looked up.
That report was in 1999, it’s 2012 now. It really does not matter, special forces are just one component of the military services. It takes a whole lot of support to even put a special forces unit into action.
Almost all minorities are under represented in special forces.
I live in what used to be a lily white community, a mill town in a rural area.
Portland, Oregon, is over 50 miles away with a sizeable black community. The last three years the number of black folks who have moved to my community has increaed from 0 to maybe a couple hundred.
My nephew has made acquaintances among the newcomers and discovered something interesting: black families are moving to rural areas because they fear for their family’s safety.