Skip to comments.Parting Ways [National Review fires John Derbyshire!]
Posted on 04/07/2012 4:24:15 PM PDT by cartan
click here to read article
According to many liberals, ALL conservatives are racist (even the black conservatives) and some believe that ALL white people are naturally racist. They’re doubling down now saying the posters on this thread who disagree with the firing are proof that FR is racist. No evidence of actual racism required. It’s a vicious never ending cycle. Screw ‘em.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think FR etiquette is to ping people if we're talking about them.
If I wanted to “get someone in trouble” I would have hit the “abuse” button. Didn't do that; don't plan to do that.
What I wanted was a decision by Jim Robinson. He's made his decision. His call.
That ends the issue of whether Free Republic ought to officially respond to the Atlantic's claim that “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.”
I won't hide the fact that I'd like to expose that as a liberal lie — several other Freepers have said it didn't happen — but as far as I'm concerned, the issue of an official response has been over since this morning.
In any case, what Sherman Logan is writing now is a lot more interesting and I'd like to hear more of what he has to say.
Thanks very much, Jim. You’re right, racism is the liberal agenda and facts don’t matter. No matter the number of Thomas Sowell’s, Lloyd Marcus’s, Clarence Thomas’s, they will always be called tokens by the other racist side, while the rest of us born white, are born racists, especially those born in the South. Of course, a nice Ivy League or Bezerkley education can cure racism, as can idiot white guilt learned in government schools.
I leave it to God to forgive the racists, like Sharpton and Jackson, because I think they know precisely what they’re doing.
Long live Free Republic! FReepers are the absolute.
There was no decision to make. Our policy is, always has been and always will be no racism. To hell with the racist left and the hand-wringing, weak-kneed, girly-men surrender monkey moderates and RINOS (and that includes the NR)!! Rebellion is ON!! Get in or get OUT!!
Most Freepers would be upset with much of what the old curmudgeon Fred Reed writes, but I think you will find this particular piece of interest:
We're definitely on the same page on the culture war, Jim... Tactics may differ, but the goal is the same. And on your website, you set the rules.
America is well down the road to chaos and if we don't do something very quickly, America will be unrecognizable in the near future.
I don't see the prevailing political sentiments of the West changing in the next century.
I just see that our technology infrastructure will finally catch up to the financial demands of the voting majority.
Good point about billions of people with too much leisure time.
Maybe we can pretend they are all college humanities professors on sabbatical?
That would preserve their self-esteem at any rate.
Re: Picking nits
I originally wrote 1000X, then thought, “No, we lose the first decade because it takes ten years to double.”
I have rechecked my math - which means, in my case, that I have counted all the doublings on my fingers.
You are correct.
What I'm about to write would get me banned from a fair number of liberal websites for "racism." It's not racist at all, but it may well be an indictment of how far our culture has already fallen.
One thing I've found over the years is that comments by Koreans about the decline of the West track very closely with my views. I got used long ago to people saying some version of “He's okay, he's American but he's not immoral like too many American guys.” At times I felt like I was being evaluated like an educated black schoolteacher by white guys in 1920s Alabama, who decided I'm okay and “not like those other people of his race.”
Most of the time, what Koreans say (at least to my face) is to discuss the role of the Reformation, of the Protestant work ethic, and (more broadly) the role of Christianity in taking a highly developed Greco-Roman pagan civilization and turning it into a culture that valued the individual, not merely the citizen class to the exclusion of the vast majority of the enslaved population. They then apply that history to their own experience of large-scale conversion of Koreans in a pre-existing Korean culture that was highly civilized but pagan, and had thousands of years of cultural development before contact with the West.
What surprised me, when talking to highly educated multilingual Koreans with doctoral degrees, was to hear raw ethnic pride combined with great appreciation for the history of Western civilization and tremendous disrespect toward modern American cultural wickedness. Almost universally when people are candid, I hear Asian Christians (not just Koreans) commenting on the descent of the West into barbarism, with many saying that America and Europe are taking jackhammers to their own cultures which took hundreds or thousands of years to develop.
I'm not very optimistic about the future of Western civilization. On the other hand, the Bible requires me to be optimistic about the future of the church. What's happening in America is far from the first time that an entire society has rejected its Christian roots.
We're already to the point that there are more Presbyterians in Korea, most of whom are strongly evangelical, than the total number of liberal and evangelical Presbyterian and Reformed Christians in North America, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands — the major centers of Calvinist Christianity until the middle of the last century. Westminster Theological Seminary's campuses in the United States are filled with Korean students, and Chongshin Theological Seminary in Seoul long since surpassed any Calvinist seminary in the United States in terms of the number of students it trains. South Korea now sends the second largest number of foreign missionaries of any country other than the United States. I can point to long lists of problems in the Korean church, but clearly, something is working there that isn't working here.
By contrast, as someone who has lived in the inner city and attended an inner-city church, I can say without reservation that many things about our inner cities are not just falling apart but in an advanced stage of collapse.
The black church as a whole, with some important exceptions, bears a very significant share of the blame for failing to teach moral values, hard work, and the value of education (i.e., how you live your life after you're saved, not just what you need to do to come to Christ). Unlike a lot of whites, I have the credibility to say that, having actually lived and worshiped in that environment, and a fair number of black pastors I know wring their hands over the way white churches are adopting a model of entertainment and emotion rather than teaching and discipleship. In other words, white churches are all too often adopting the same bad approaches to church life that have borne bitter fruit in too many black churches.
My understanding is that Derbyshire is an atheist. If that is correct, then obviously he won't agree with me on the role of the church in society, but I strongly suspect that with a Chinese wife, he agrees with me on the relative strengths of Asian culture versus modern Western culture.
I don't happen to think those differences have very much to do with race. I think they have a great deal to do with the way churches (or other moral authorities) teach fathers and mothers how to raise their families, and the way that schools either reinforce or damage the role of parental teaching in the home.
But no matter what the cause of the collapse of the American family, something has to be done or in the very near future America won't remotely resemble the society which we have inherited.
I personally found the article to be racist. I felt as though the article lumped all black people together (with the exception of what the author referred to as “intelligent and well socialized” black people which he referred to as a slim group). I think it’s terrible to stereotype an entire group of people like that, and I got a feeling of superiority from the author of the piece. I truly believe that all people are made in the image of God and should be judged individually on their characters, not the color of their skin.
There are two kinds of atheists: (1) the type that sees atheism almost as an alternate religion, and evangelizes about it endlessly while expressing extreme hostility to other religions and (2) the type that figures that if god/gods don't exist, it really doesn't much matter what anyone believes, as long as it fosters important civic virtues. And there's nothing like the prospect of eternal hellfire (or the draconian afterlife tortures common to other religions) to motivate believers to stay on the straight and narrow. Although he is an atheist, Derbyshire identifies with the Anglican faith as a matter of tribal affiliation, much as Ulstermen who might never attend church except for weddings and funerals identify with various Protestant denominations, in opposition to their Catholic counterparts who pledge fealty to what Protestants (only in moments of mischief) have called the Purple Whore of Rome.
I wouldn’t argue about a trend. But I find the Bear analogy useful, for another reason. A Bear is a known predator. That would be equivalent to arguing that you would avoid going down a block that is marked with gang symbols, something I would completely agree with.
The problem is that blacks, as a race, are not predators. And we would like to ostracize those that are, and encourage those that are not, and in general push society toward a tolerance and peaceableness that would make all of our lives better.
Stereotypes that suggest the “standard practice” should be to avoid a race because of the actions of a few do not help bring society to where we all want it to be. It instead reinforces the bad behavior we want to discourage. It is similar to accepting 8+% unemployment as the “new normal”. I don’t want to accept that random street riots are normal.
I don’t believe there is something inherent in a particular race that causes them to join packs and brutally attack other races without cause or provocation. I want to believe this is an aberration, caused by environment, specifically the racist environment of the liberals who encourage black 2nd-classness and send the message that we cannot expect better of minorities.
I was watching a Quantum Leap last night, about the south in the 60s. The young up-and-coming black was going to be lynched, and Sam Beckett tried to stop it by encouraging the blacks to just not go protest for their rights, because the KKK was waiting for them and would hang people.
The blacks agreed — but that was giving in to the fear and status quo; in fact, the blacks had to stand up for their rights, and that did lead to them being killed, but also to an advancement in race relations that was thwarted by liberals but was a good start.
What if thousands of whites walked through that DC neighborhood? A few might be killed, but if more were killed, people would take notice, and it would upset people, the police would have to act, and in time the streets would be safe for whites. I hate the idea that we have given up our freedom for security.
Bottom line is that Derbyshire believes that Christianity is a good thing generally, and definitely a benefit to the West. I’m an atheist in the Derbyshire mold, which is why, like him, I support Santorum, the most openly-religious candidate in the GOP field. He’s a nag, but there’s nothing wrong with being one, given the tendency of modern churches towards cargo cult Christianity (prosperity gospel and mid-level marketing like heresies). In a world where the traditional virtues are being given short shrift, someone needs to make the case that libertinism and the shucking of personal responsibility are a dead end rather than the way forward.
Traditionally, racism has meant persecuting people of a given race. In this respect, both Jim Crow and affirmative action constitute racism - Jim Crow persecuted blacks and affirmative action persecutes races and ethnicities outside of the protected groups.
Leftists have extended the "penumbra" of the word (to borrow a word from the Roe v. Wade ruling) to cover noticing group differences between the races. It is now racist to notice that blacks are superior basketball players or that Jews tend to dominate the legal and medical professions. When Derbyshire called himself a racist (in ironic terms), this is what he meant - commonplace day-to-day observations have now been marked verboten by the race hustlers, who have spent the past 50 years promoting what he calls anarcho-tyranny - oppressing the virtuous (of all races) while promoting anarchy by coddling the criminals (of all races) among us. And a big part of the reason that the coddling of criminals was able to reach such an advanced stage was the repeated use of the race card. Self-promoting politicians and think-tankers of all races repeatedly reached for the race card - a bottomless well, given the disproportionate number of blacks who offend and are arrested - and in making it harder to incarcerate career criminals, have made both blacks and non-blacks alike less safe.
Don't believe that the 50's (and even the 60's) were much safer? If San Diego PD's stats are to be believed, per capita violent crime was much lower 50 years ago; better emergency medical care has turned many shooting and stabbing incidents that would have become murder cases back in the 1950's into aggravated assault cases today. In 2006, per capita robberies were 6x what they were in 1950. Per capita aggravated assaults (shootings, stabbings) were 15x.
Stereotypes that suggest the “standard practice” should be to avoid a race because of the actions of a few do not help bring society to where we all want it to be. It instead reinforces the bad behavior we want to discourage. It is similar to accepting 8+% unemployment as the “new normal”. I don’t want to accept that random street riots are normal.That is a good point; however, simply acting as if unpleasant facts do not exist may or may not be the solution, depending on context. When you are dealing with an individual, your knowledge of statistical differences between (possibly racial) groups is not very helpful, since you never know on which part of the bell curve a given individual is located. And even if you do, you still don’t know his place on the bell curve of any other variable. An individuum cannot be characterized by any single variable, after all, whether they correlate or not.
However, when you are dealing with groups that are large enough, there may be some reason to believe that the law of large numbers is about to set in, and you may get somewhat accurate estimates of the properties of the group by applying your statistical knowledge about such groups. You might still get wrong results, of course. By mere chance, for example, especially if the group is still rather small. Or if the group is not a sufficiently random selection. But should you still throw away all your statistical knowledge and pretend ignorance, just because you do not like the idea of interacting with people differently just because of simple traits like the color of their skin? What if your statistical information predicts that the group of people surrounding you is going to be dangerous?
I don’t believe there is something inherent in a particular race that causes them to join packs and brutally attack other races without cause or provocation. I want to believe this is an aberration, caused by environment, specifically the racist environment of the liberals who encourage black 2nd-classness and send the message that we cannot expect better of minorities.I don’t think Derb claims otherwise. Group differences may be inheritable or not, and if they are inheritable, they are usually only inheritable to some degree or other. But if group differences are currently there, they are there—no matter what caused them, or whether they are inheritable or not. If you act accordingly, you are doing so based on the state of the world in which it currently happens to be. So, if you get lost and find yourself in a purely black neighborhood, you may choose to ignore your knowledge that statistically, such neighborhoods tend to be more dangerous than others. Now, look around; what if everybody around you is also a young male, wearing a hoodie? Would you now begin to raise your level of concern? What if they are having gold teeth? They are wearing baggy pants? Ghetto blasters are spouting gangsta rap? And every other happens to be packing an Uzi? If you now begin to feel a little uneasy, you are still acting on statistical knowledge about certain groups of people, in a possibly unfair way! So, whistle Don’t Worry be Happy and stroll on? :-)
Thanks for posting Fred Reed’s column and site. He was a great street reporter for the Washington Times and is greatly missed considering the leftist BS that came from Adrienne Washington (a black writer who filled his column slot). The Wash. Post writers with an ocassional exception who did what Reed did, i.e. cover the streets, are leftist cry-babies and often down-right stupid.
Please read Fred Reed’s column that Pining_4_TX posted:
1. Blacks, *as a race*, are not predators. Men like Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, Allen West, Bill Cosby, et al, certainly aren’t predators, never have been, never will be. Their skin color is no indication of a violent nature whatsoever.
2. Urban American Blacks, as a large statistical cohort, produce, support, shelter and defend feral young black urban males, many of whom *are* predators. Known predators.
Want to argue the point? Then go walking through known urban black gang territory.
Now, while there’s an obvious mathematical and logical distinction here, it is lost on the non-black, and especially non-urban-black population of the US. What do they see on/in the news? Case after case of young black urban males engaged in Clockwork Orange levels of violence, and in majority against their own people. And in case after case, the black community tolerates it. They might not *like* it, but they tolerate it, because they resist real efforts to change it, starting with resisting efforts to come down like a hammer upon those who commit capital crimes.
When we see situations where a black male has attempted to perpetrate violence against someone outside their racial cohort, and they’ve been killed by their intended victim(s), we see all manner of wailing about how “he didn’t deserve that,” as we’re seeing here. We can see it about every two weeks somewhere around the country now.
What do I mean when I say “Clockwork Orange” levels of violence? Here’s an example of Clockwork Orange violence:
Shooting a five year old girl? WTF?
OK, so that’s black-on-black Clockwork stuff. Let’s seriously up the volume a tad:
NB that the four judged guilty of those murders will get new trials, thanks to the judge in their cases being disbarred.
You might want to believe that these events are an aberration, and 40 years ago, you might have been correct in that assumption. But, starting the in late 80’s, the level of violence in urban black neighborhoods ramped up rather dramatically. In the last 10 years, and especially in the last four, it appears that a situation that previously appeared as bad as it could get has gotten worse, as black urban females start engaging in senseless violence as well:
Now, there is a cultural bias against dealing with this behavior within the urban black community. Look at what blacks call other blacks who are conservatives (and almost invariably successful as well). It isn’t pretty. The “keepin’ it real” and “Stop Snitching!” ideals of the urban black culture aren’t doing anyone any favors, yet that seems to be the prevailing culture now. Bill Cosby, to his eternal credit, has been on this issue for 10+ years now, in no uncertain or equivocal terms. His reward for his bravery to speak the truth? A ration of crap from many blacks, saying that he’s “making blacks look bad in front of whites.”
Huh? As tho the evening news weren’t already doing that?
re: What if thousands of whites marched through a DC neighborhood? I don’t know. But I do know what residents say when non-blacks move into their neighborhoods in DC:
Sooner or later, people are going to have to look at this situation and see that it is unique. There aren’t parallels in other racial groups in the US. Something has gone way, way wrong in urban black culture, and they’re actively resisting attempts, both from within and without their communities, to change what’s wrong. That’s also unique.
I understand the concept, and I saw it often in the older generation with conservative “cultural Catholics,” and secondhand was aware of it with Korean Buddhism, in which more conservative older people accepted the religion as providing a moral foundation for society and might participate to one extent or another while being agnostics or atheists. My impression, for better or for worse, is that Derbyshire’s approach to religion was rather common in the older generation of British conservatives.
I've been saying for a very long time that the division between economic, national defense and social conservatives does not need to be as bitter as it has become. The older type of political conservative, even if he didn't personally believe, thought that being a good American (or good Englishman) included at least formal support for the church and not openly attacking morality. It sounds like Derbyshire falls into that older model of conservative.
Thanks for the note, Phantom.
Those who are familiar with the Dutch Reformed world will understand a little bit about what it means to sit down with a young black father with a significant record of drug use or criminal convictions, give him a copy of the Heidelberg Catechism, and tell him that his only comfort in life and in death is not his needle and not his weed and not his buddies from the ’hood, but rather Jesus Christ who went to court and was convicted and sentenced to death for crimes he did not commit — our crimes.
The Catechism was written to teach German Christians in the Palatinate, often illiterate peasants who knew virtually nothing about the Bible, not only the basics of the Bible but how to apply the Lord's Prayer and Ten Commandments to their lives.
It works pretty well with people even if they don't have blond hair and blue eyes, as long as the know they're sinners who can do nothing to earn their own salvation.
Lack of discipleship is a major problem in the black church, but in fairness, that is rapidly becoming a huge problem in other evangelical churches. The Bible says a great deal about how to live our lives after we're saved, not just about how to be saved. That's what it means to build a Christian family and a Christian culture, and it's a huge gaping hole in the teaching of far too many American churches, whether white or black.
Obviously I'm a Calvinist, but I think the same focus on discipleship could be done with Luther's catechism, or the Baltimore Catechism for Roman Catholics, or a serious in-depth Sunday School curriculum for non-creedal evangelicals. There is simply no excuse for churches letting their members get blown around by every wind of false teaching without a solid foundation of discipleship based on what the church says the Bible teaches.
Singing “Shine, Jesus Shine” fifteen times with your hands in the air may make you feel good, but a focus on entertainment and emotion simply will not build a strong Christian faith, and the result will be the spiritual ignorance combined with grossly sinful behavior and broken families that has become common in the black church. Cheap grace is not grace at all — it atrophies Christian character, exposes families to collapse, and given time, destroys the culture.
White families are today in the same position that black families were a generation ago, and we're well down the road to destroying not only minority culture but all of America.
“It was a mis-use of statistics to suggest a larger problem than really exists, in order to justify a wholesale treatment of a race of people differently because of the actions of a few.
It was the basic fallacy of the stereotype. So there was one incident in a theme park. Does that mean that you need to avoid ever going to a theme park anywhere if you find out there is a minority event at the park? Thats what Derb wrote, and its absurd and frankly, it is a racist statement.
I think we are in a civil war in this country, because of race, but I dont think we need to give into the war. We need to end the war.”
Are you kidding me? A “misuse of statistics”? Based on my PERSONAL experience over the past 35 years and based on reading and following local and national news for the past 35 years (since I was about 12), there is nothing he said that was not right on the money. Yep those conclusions are statistically significant. Not only that, but another indirect piece of damning information is the percentage of the black population behind bars compared to the percentage of the white population behind bars. And NO, contrary to what Holder would have you believe there is no systemic bias against blacks in the judicial system - they are generally held to the same standard. If you disagree, produce the academic evidence that suggests otherwise - it doesn’t exist.
Actually I should correct myself there - Holder doesn’t even maintain that there is bias against blacks in the judicial system - he simply wants the percentage of blacks convicted to be the same as for whites after adjusting for the general population percentages of both races. He would do this even if meant having two DIFFERENT standards of justice for the different races.
As for the Bell Curve, I suggest you read it. Or if you don’t have time it is available on audio as well - you could listen to it on your commute. As was indicated earlier in the thread, in spite of the hysterical liberal critics who produce blatantly fallacious criticisms of it, it has withstood criticism quite well. The argument that all IQ tests are hopelessly culturally biased is bunk.
Take a close look at what you see around you on a day in and day out basis. And if you’re feeling very brave (or lucky), take a liesurely stroll in the black section any major (or not so major) urban area in the country at around 2 AM. Good luck with that.
“Hes a racist. Just because he may get something right once in a while doesnt mean he should be admired.”
Depends on how you define racist. Whenever you meet someone you don’t know, but they have a distigushing characterisic that you have been able, over time, to identifiy with particular behaviours more so than for those without that characteristic, you are perfectly justified in using induction to make assumptions in the absence of specific knowledge about that individual.
When I see a cat, based on my experience, I expect it to meow. When I see a dog, I expect it to bark. That is MY experience. I know from my personal experience that blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes. If I’m on the street and I see a black person that I don’t know personally, I would be a fool to not rely on MY past experience to guide my actions.
It is essentially an information problem. Utilizing gneralizations/induction in the absence of specific information is something we all do every single day. I know black people who I don’t even see as black any more because I know them personally. But if I don’t know them, I will protect myself by relying on my past experience.
And that is NOT racism. Or if it is, then so be it.
How does one argue against “personal experience”? You must have had a lousy life, if you have personally experienced everything that Derb mentioned statistically.
You mention black incarceration rates. How does that personally effect you? Do you spend a lot of time in prisons, and find it hard to deal with blacks in that environment?
In the environments I exist in, there are people of many races, and as we are all in the same environments, we all have similar backgrounds, similar abilities, interests, and all seem to get along just fine. I don’t walk down the halls of my work worrying about whether there are too many blacks in the next aisle. I don’t get scared if my softball team is playing the AME church, nor am I scared if a group of black people get off the bus for the local walk for life.
I don’t get scared when I visit my son’s school, which has a significant black population. I don’t stay home rather than visiting the local mall, even though there is a significant minority presence. I don’t find the theme parks any less enjoyable when there are minorities there, or dislike my summer vacation because upwardly mobile blacks have decided to buy into the timeshare experience.
I ate dinner in Brunswick on a 4-day bike camping trip on the C&O canal. We road right past several minorities, and I didn’t think twice about it. They came to the pizza place we went to, and I said hi to them and made small talk about their bikes as compared to the loaded-down bike I was riding.
Sure, all of this is just “personal experience”, but that was the playing field you insisted we use.
I’d prefer to note that every day, almost every white person in America is NOT beat up, assaulted, or in any way inconvenienced by a minority.
So when Derb argues that you shouldn’t try to be a good samaritan to a minority, and offers as “proof” a single story where a 3rd-party trying to stop a guy from beating up his girlfriend is attacked (something that clearly would happen no matter what the race of the attacker), that is a harmful use of “statistics”.
“How does one argue against personal experience? “
You’re missing the point. Having had graduate level classes in statistics, my point is that the data I have accumulated through my personal experience over a very long period of time constitutes statistically signficant evidence that blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes than are whites. Granted I can’t provide you with a data set to demonstrate that.
“You mention black incarceration rates. How does that personally effect you?”
Of course It doesn’t personally affect me. What it does do is affect the state of my knowledge, knowledge that I would be a fool not to act on in the absence of specific information.
“Id prefer to note that every day, almost every white person in America is NOT beat up, assaulted, or in any way inconvenienced by a minority.”
Now THAT would be a classic example of a misuse of statistics. Can you identify the name of the fallacy of your statement?
“So when Derb argues that you shouldnt try to be a good samaritan to a minority, and offers as proof a single story where a 3rd-party trying to stop a guy from beating up his girlfriend is attacked (something that clearly would happen no matter what the race of the attacker), that is a harmful use of statistics.”
It is fairly common to provide an illustrative example when outlining an argument for which you also provide statistical evidence. Which is exactly what Derbyshire did in this case. Try to be just a little more intellectually honest with your comments.
You are also more likely to get killed by lightning on a golf course than on a ski trip.
But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t play golf. And someone who argued that you should ski, but never play golf, and cited as “evidence” a story about a person getting killed by lightning on a golf course, would be making the same fallacious argument of “statistics” that Derb makes.
How does knowing that more blacks commit crimes than whites change your “action” when confronted with a random black person? Do you assume that the black guy who just got out of his car at the rest stop is likely to kill you or rob you? And would you feel that “knowledge” would give you the right to act pre-emptively to protect yourself? My point is that this is a harmful argument — one that makes people more likely to act improperly, out of fear, because of some false statistical “choice”.
I’m not arguing that you should ignore common sense. But beyond that, your failure to address the issue of Derb’s argument by anecdote, and suggestion that this is actually a valid logical argument which I dismiss out of some “dishonesty” doesn’t lend itself to a logical response, or engender much interest in discussing further.
And why don’t you tell me what “fallacy” you think I have invoked by pointing out that doubling the chance of something highly unlikely to happen still leaves it unlikely to happen.
“How do black incarceration rates personally affect those of us who aren’t black (paraphrasing your question)?”
Someone has to pay for this. Total US prison expenses are over $70B/year and climbing.
Ah, brain fart.
The incarceration rate also costs the US taxpayer in increased aid to single women with children, increased police costs, increased insurance claims, increased costs to criminal victims, decreased real estate valuations, business revenue and growth in blighted neighborhoods, etc.
There’s plenty of costs to the rate of crime.
Of course not. And so let me congratulate you on winning the coveted Pharisee Merit Badge, inscribed with:
"Oh thank you Lord for not making me a racist, sexist xenophobe like these untermenschen swine that I am trying to enlighten through my noble example. Amen."
Wear it in good health!
when you have a minority determined to rule/take over and then in the other corner, you have a wimped out majority...who do you think is going to win....???
I hope I'm wrong, but "my" people seem pretty impotent....the few times they get it right, they get fired, fired at, or forced into hiding...
I think Bermuda has had influx of Jamaicans and Haitians....
.there must be some way to quantify those who can socialize and communicate effectively and those who can not.
..those that can follow instructions and those that can not..
.those that can delay pleasure and those that give into instant gratification..
..those who's first inclination is NOT violence and aggression and those who's first inclination is to do just that....
its something....maybe not IQ...but its something...
This is, very unfortunately, looking at the situation from the wrong end.
Look at the issue from the perspective of dealing with dogs.
It is well-known that some breeds are more aggressive than others. When suddenly confronted by a pit bull is it appropriate to perceive yourself as at greater risk than if suddenly confronted by a golden retriever, all else being equal?
Obviously it is. Is the difference in breed the only relevant factor? Obviously not. Behavior is more important.
It is interesting that this analogy has been used in reverse, to claim that it is "breedist" or something equally silly to recognize this difference.
Let us say your chance of being assaulted in a black neighborhood is one in 10,000 on any given day and in a white neighborhood one in 100,000. The relevant issue is the difference in risk, not the risk factor itself.
Your chance of dying in a car crash is very low on any given day. That doesn't mean that driving without a seat belt is a good idea, even though your risk of dying without it is low.
It is interesting that up to and through the 50s, race riots consisted largely of whites attacking blacks. Since then they have consisted largely of blacks attacking whites.
I am personally astonished by the enormous reservoir of goodwill by most white Americans towards black Americans. Have expected (not wanted, but expected) the mythical "white backlash" for decades. But the reservoir is not infinite in extent.
Oddly, statistics show that as a breed, Golden Retrievers and Pit Bulls are in the same range of aggressiveness. Pit Bulls are perceived to be more dangerous, and for that reason some think more poeple raise them to be aggressive because they want an aggressive dog as a weapon, and that makes them more dangerous. But Golden Retrievers really are listed as one of the safest dogs.
You are absolutely correct that, because of “what we know”, people when confronted with a random dog will feel more threatened by a pit bull than a Dachshund.
But how do you use that information? Do you teach your children to take “special care” around what they think is a “pit bull”? Do you have training sessions for dog identification? About 16 people are killed by dogs each year, and some of them are not pit bulls; so if you tell your kid too much about avoiding “pit bulls”, will they fail to ignore the “really nice dog” who is being mistreated by his owner and therefore will lash out if you try to pet them?
Of course, you can reasonably tell your kid to never go near ANY dog that they don’t know. That is also a great rule for kids when dealing with people. But training people to be scared of pit bulls means that people act differently around pit bulls. In fact, there is some anecdotal evidence that people get more aggressive around pit bulls, EXPECTING to be attacked, and this invokes more aggression in the dogs, thus bringing on the attack they feared.
Dogs are pets. We are talking about fellow human beings. Imagine a world where every white child is trained that they should fear black people, should avoid black people, shouldn’t stop to help black people. They should not go to places where black people are. They should expect black people to be stupid, to be aggressive, to do a bad job at work. They should never vote for a black person because they make lousy politicians. When confronting a black person, they should assume that black person is going to cause them harm, and be prepared to strike first if necessary. And if they happen to find a really nice black person, they should work hard to pretend to be friends with them, because it’s good to have a pet black person.
I find it remarkable that so many people want to actually DEFEND that last paragraph, simply because it was written by a guy who worked at National Review, and the “left” is attacking him for it. You can’t treat human beings like dogs, and we will not survive as a society if we train our children to fear, loathe, hate, and ostracize entire races of people.
Of course, if I am walking in an unfamiliar place, and see someone who is acting suspicious, and they are black, I might feel more anxious — I was raised in that environment; I think I’d be suspicious regardless of race. I would also avoid large groups of kids of any race if they looked like they were up to no good. There are places I don’t walk when I am walking, especially at night, even in my own surroundings, because one area has a reputation of having more crime (it is a majority hispanic neighborhood with a large other minority population, and quite close in fact to where Zimmerman grew up — I live in Zimmerman’s old home town).
People see some of what Derb wrote and think it sounds reasonable, and ignore all the things he said that were well beyond polite. One writer at NR made a good point that Derbyshire may have been angry because Marion Barry gets away with attacking asians, and Derb is married to an Asian. I think if Derb had made it clear he was being sarcastic, writing satire, and was trying to point out the double-standard where his wife can be attacked by a black politician with no consequence, he would still have a job.
The problem is that too many people think Derb actually believed everything he wrote. I have no idea — I didn’t think he meant it, but I don’t know the guy.
As to your point about “relative risk”, my argument is that it is NOT particularly relevant. If you were trying to live the safest life possible, and had a choice with no other consequence where the ONLY decision was which street to walk down, it would be relevant that one street is “10 times more dangerous”. But nothing is in such a vacuum. The harm to teaching people to live a life in fear of an entire race of people is far greater than the minor increase in risk of not always choosing the more absolutely safe path.
There was an interesting statistic leading up to the last powerball lottery. Apparently, if you drove your car more than a mile to buy a ticket, you were more likely statistically to get killed in a car accident than to actually win the lottery. So, should everybody have stayed home and not bought tickets? Well, no, because while driving is dangerous, people want to drive because there are great benefits.
And we don’t all buy the safest car to drive, even though the statistics tell us which cars are safer. We don’t all buy the safest dog, or live in the safest neighborhood, or work at the safest job. We judge our happiness, satisfaction, hundreds of other things, and properly dismiss the minor risk of harm, even though one job is 10 times as dangerous as the next job.
I mostly agree.
I would not, and have not, taught my children to automatically distrust all black people.
However, race is one factor that should be taken into consideration when determining your actions.
John’s descriptions of the facts is, unfortunately, generally accurate. When I am around some black people, I sense a definite underlying hostility, which obviously makes me feel uncomfortable and defensive. With others I sense no such hostility. I do not know if my feelings are accurate.
Some of his descriptions of appropriate ways to change ones behavior in response was unnecessarily harsh, and I agree truly racist.
Personally I suspect his judgment as to what can be said was affected by his being on heavy-duty meds for cancer treatment.
It is also relevant, though I don’t know what to do about it, that “people of color” can say much harsher things about white people without consequences to themselves. In fact, they are applauded for doing so.
That John was defenestrated for what he said when Al Sharpton retains his job is disgusting. AFAIK, Derb never got anybody killed, and never ruined the life of any individual. Al built his career on doing exactly this.
This is Rich Lowry:
“Al Sharpton Is Right
George Zimmerman should be charged.”
Who is the embarrassment to NR?
There is definitely hostility, and it is a problem. I wrote a local opinion column on that subject today, in part based on some of the ideas I’ve been trying out here the past week.
When we train our children to act differently based on a person’s race, or color, or gender, we sow the seeds of distrust, fear, and anger. I think the “black leaders” have truly done a disservice in perpetuating a sense of oppression and violation in the black youth population. The “Black Talk” as some have called it is little more than a brainwashing of youth promoting a hatred of “white people”.
” During halftime of the NBA All-Star Game, Martin left the home of his fathers girlfriend to walk to the local 7-Eleven for Skittles and iced tea. It was about 7 p.m., and he caught the attention of 28-year-old George Zimmerman, who had taken it upon himself to patrol the neighborhood armed with a gun. He considered Martin suspicious and called 9-1-1, which dispatched police. Ignoring the 9-1-1 operators urging not to pursue Martin, Zimmerman followed the young man, got into an altercation with him, and shot him dead.”
Lowry sounds like Keith Olbermann...National Review, R I P
Thanks. I try, though as this thread shows, I'm not always succeeding.
Bottom line up front: conservatives have a bad reputation for many things. Some of the attacks are unavoidable — for example, people who have no convictions will always call people “stubborn’ and “unreasonable” if we say we won't go along with people who we believe are fundamentally wrong, and that will often happen no matter how hard we try to listen to and interact with liberal arguments.
However, some liberal attacks on conservatives don't need to happen. If people call us racist, ignorant, homophobic, etc., we need to carefully explain that conservatives may be highly educated or self-taught people who can carry on a logical argument, may consider the color of somebody’s skin irrelevant, and may believe homosexuality is sin from which people can be saved.
Dealing with liberals can be difficult, but that doesn't mean it's impossible, and some liberals really can be convinced they're wrong. The best conservatives are former liberals who saw the light because somebody took the time to convince them they're wrong.
The article was interesting. The real problem with blacks, just like every other race, is that most of them are atheists.
Men who fear God are not to be feared.
48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Skin color doesn't count. Biblical faithfulness does, and that directly impacts things commonly considered to be “culture.”
BTW, nice to see a Class of 1998 Freeper who is Reformed. I've been here since 2006 but lurked a lot.
1 John 4:18
There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
So glad to be here!
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
I tried to post this Fred collumn, but FR won’t accept material from Fred’s site. You will appreciate it, though.