Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
How Much Do White Americans Think It “Costs” To Be Black?
“How much should you be paid to continue to live the rest of your life as a black person?” This is the provocative question asked by a new study published in the Du Bois Review. According the the press release, the researchers found:
When white Americans were asked to imagine how much they would have to be paid to live the rest of their lives as a black person, most requested relatively low amounts, generally less than $10,000.
In contrast, study participants said they would have to be paid about $1 million to give up television for the rest of their lives.
The answer was different when the contemporary black/white context was stripped away. Some participants...
...were asked to imagine they were born into the fictional country of Atria, and were born either into the “majority” or “minority” population. They were given a list of the disadvantages that the minority population faced in Atria (which were identical to the real disadvantages faced by blacks in America). In this case, white participants in the study said they should be paid an average of $1 million to be born as a minority member in Atria.
The study results jibe with my own informal surveys over the years. The researchers also probed attitudes toward reparations for wrongs committed against ancestors. Whole press release here.
Discuss.
|6.22.07 @ 3:40PM|#
Of course people only said $10,000; the question was not asking
how much you should be paid to become black, but how much you
should be paid to tell other people you are black, all the while
you will continue to pass for white.
"In most cases, the participants were told to imagine they were
actually black, but had always passed for white. The imagined race
change required no physical transformation, just a change in public
status."
As people treat you in accordance with how you look and act, not
how your ancestors looked and acted, a person in such a situation
should not expect to be treated any differently from before. As
such, the "less than $10,000" figure sounds way too high to me.
|6.22.07 @ 3:41PM|#
This topic is as worthy of discussion as another thread on Paris
Hilton. Try again.
CB
Fluffy|6.22.07 @ 3:45PM|#
There's not enough money in the world to get me to change any element of my identity. I guess no one like me was averaged into the poll.
|6.22.07 @ 3:45PM|#
What is the difference between St. Patrick's day and MLK's
birthday?
On St. Patrick's day, everybody wishes they were Irish.
|6.22.07 @ 3:46PM|#
They were given a list of the disadvantages that the
minority population faced in Atria (which were identical to the
real disadvantages faced by blacks in America)
Just out of curiosity, I'd like to see that list. The word
"identical" is a pretty strong word.
VM|6.22.07 @ 3:47PM|#
This has all the makings of a quirky, touching comedy starring C. Thomas Howell...
|6.22.07 @ 3:51PM|#
which were identical to the real disadvantages faced by
blacks in America
Oh yeah? Says who? And did they also include all the "real
advantages" enjoyed by blacks in America?
Now excuse me, I'm leaving early to meet my foursome at the
clubhouse. It's pot-luck today and I want to be sure and get some
of Betty's creamy noodle salad before it's all gone.
Lord Duppy|6.22.07 @ 3:51PM|#
They were given a list of the disadvantages that the
minority population faced in Atria
I think it would be hard to compile an accurate list of
disadvantages as they will vary from person to person and place to
place. Even if they were uniformly distributed, it would be
difficult to get everyone to agree on exactly what they were.
That's crucial because what matters in this survey is the
comparison in the subjects' minds.
|6.22.07 @ 3:52PM|#
so is it time to feel guilty for being a white male again. Who do I make the reperations check out to?
Mark P Neyer|6.22.07 @ 3:52PM|#
The only reason you'd have to pay me is because I don't want to
change my identity, not because I think it would be crappy to be
black. You get many perks for being black nowadays.
Being poor, howerver, is another case. It's much better to be black
and middle class than white and poor in today's america. As for
being poor and white or black. Everything else equal, you're better
off black, becuase of the substantial number of scholarships given
to minority students.
Edward|6.22.07 @ 3:53PM|#
Fluffy,
No part of your identity? How much is that stupid name worth to
you? I'm assuming it has something to do with your identity.
|6.22.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Did they ask black Americans how much they'd have to be paid to be stuck in the West Virginia backwater fucking their sister, drinking moonshine and living out of a Volkswagen bus the rest of their lives?
Xanthippas|6.22.07 @ 3:56PM|#
The first thing that ocurred to me when I read this was that of course the number would be low, because nobody really wants to give the impression that their someone who is basically saying "Become a black person? Are you kidding??" In other words, they don't want to come off as someone who thinks that since black people are inferior, they should be paid a lot of money to be one. But then LoneSnark pointed out the phrasing of the question in his comment above, and now I just think it's confusing. So I'm not sure what this survey says now.
Edward|6.22.07 @ 4:03PM|#
Are there no black libertarians with enough leisure to waste time posting here? It would be nice to hear from one.
|6.22.07 @ 4:04PM|#
Does the ability to dance without out looking geeky come with
foregoing my pasty white and prone to burn to a lobster red,
pigmentally challenged skin?
Yeah, I'd pay $10,000 to live the rest of my life as black.
|6.22.07 @ 4:05PM|#
Xanthippas -
I agree. It's a faulty survey for exactly that reason.
Also, Warren - good show, my boy
|6.22.07 @ 4:06PM|#
PCASW,
Yeah. I'd like to know what the going rate on the Dwayne Dibley
transformation is.
Radical Somethingorother|6.22.07 @ 4:06PM|#
They were given a list of the disadvantages that the minority
population faced in Atria (which were identical to the real
disadvantages faced by blacks in America)
Oh really? I would like to actually see what disadvantages were
claimed in this survey. Tell us, don't just assume we believe that
the people putting the survey are telling the truth.
Edward|6.22.07 @ 4:07PM|#
NoStar
It's easy to say you'd do things you know you'll never have to do,
isn't it? Sort of like promising you'll say something intelligent.
You know it's not going to happen.
ed|6.22.07 @ 4:11PM|#
Are there no black libertarians...
Fewer than black Republicans, I'd say, so there are probably
about...oh...five.
In the whole country.
|6.22.07 @ 4:13PM|#
Edward,
There are no black libertarians. Any you happen to meet, are just
statistical anomalies.
Libertarian Wiki Dot Org|6.22.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Ed,
This article might help you:
http://libertarianwiki.org/Black_Libertarians
|6.22.07 @ 4:21PM|#
Statistically, there is no doubt that being black is a disadvantage. Statistically there is an advantage to being an Indian or Oriental immigrant compared to being a white immigrant. I'm not a goddam statistic and nobody else is. In any society, let me repeat that, any society there will be some groups that achieve more/differently than others. The question is how much of this difference is caused by bias, how much is cultural, how much is legacy? I'm sure I missed some factors there. That blacks face prejudice in American life is IMHO undeniable. How much bias and what should be done about it are not even addressed here and so requires no further comment from this quarter.
Russ 2000|6.22.07 @ 4:22PM|#
study participants said they would have to be paid about $1
million to give up television for the rest of their
lives.
Cable TV rates are far too low.
SIV|6.22.07 @ 4:22PM|#
"Fewer than black Republicans, I'd say, so there are probably
about...oh...five.
In the whole country."
Economist Walter Williams and 4 Neal Boortz listeners/small
businessmen in Atlanta
|6.22.07 @ 4:23PM|#
Edward,
I'd pay $2 million if I got to pick which black person I had to be
for the rest of my life. Call me Denzel.
And being married to Jada Pinkett Smith would be worth a million,
easy.
OTOH, You couldn't pay me enough to be Snoop Dog or Sean Puffy,
P-Diddy Dum Diddy Doo Combs. or Alan Combs for that matter.
highnumber|6.22.07 @ 4:27PM|#
Holy crap! It looks like there's more famous black libertarians than there are white.
D.A. Ridgely|6.22.07 @ 4:27PM|#
Eddie Murphy used to do a bit on this, essentially "There isn't
a white person in this audience who would change places with me,
and I'm rich! Even the white janitor back there is
thinking 'No, I think I'll ride out this white thing and see where
it takes me.'"
Much earlier, Lenny Bruce would say "So you tell the white bigot
'You're on a desert island and you're going to spend the rest of
your life with a white white woman or a black
black woman, who do you choose? .. and the black woman is
Lena Horne and the white woman is Kate Smith!'" (Update: Halle
Berry and Rosie O'Donnell)
Still, I wonder if the perceived disadvantages are as significant
as we continue to believe they are. Put differently, while Bruce is
still on the money, I'm not sure I wouldn't trade places
with Murphy. Then again, that would be far more than a $1 million
exchange.
anon|6.22.07 @ 4:31PM|#
There's a big difference between being born black and living the
rest of your life black. Whatever success someone has had in life
is not going to disappear just because he/she becomes black, thus
the low amount. Being born black as opposed to white, however,
there is a statistically higher chance of being born into a
slightly poorer family and thus a higher perceived difficulty in
becoming successful, thus the higher dollar amount.
This isn't racism, but a financial wager made about the perceived
chances of success.
|6.22.07 @ 4:33PM|#
Just out of curiosity, I'd like to see that list.
It probably consists of the actual, rather than imaginary, things
the Chinese faced in Malaysia; see T. Sowell for more info and more
examples. (Summary: the Chinese minority kicked ass, so nearly
everyone else got pissed off)
How much is that stupid name worth to you?
My stupid name is the result of a typo. How 'bout yours?
You get many perks for being black nowadays.
Here
is a statistical analysis of the financial benefits of anti-white
racism, er, Affirmative Action.
I\'m The Sheriff|6.22.07 @ 4:33PM|#
I can't find a link, but a recently done study of race-based
responses to online personals showed that a black man's income had
to be reported as more than $150,000 per year higher than an
equally otherwise attractive (as rated by the women in the study)
white man's in order for women of any race to respond equally
positively to his advertisement.
So there's your answer.
|6.22.07 @ 4:33PM|#
Wow Libertarian Wiki whatever... I actually cut-and-pasted your
link into another browser, and hit enter, fully expecting a "Page
Cannot be Found" error message.
Who knew?
Thanks!
CB
|6.22.07 @ 4:34PM|#
"Holy crap! It looks like there's more famous black
libertarians than there are white."
Think about it as a black person for a second. What has the
Democratic party ever done for your race? What has the Republican
Party done for your race since 1870? Yeah, maybe Libertarian would
be a rational alternative.
|6.22.07 @ 4:39PM|#
My stupid name is the result of a typo. How 'bout
yours?
My stupid name is the result of my maternal grandfather musing
"I've always like the name John David".
|6.22.07 @ 4:45PM|#
Better phrasing would have been, "...for you and your family to
switch places with a randomly-chosen black family for the rest of
your life."
That way, it's clear that you're not living the life you put
together for 35 years as a white person, and suddenly declaring
yourself black.
To have everything exactly the same in my comfortable, middle-class
life, with the background and experience I had up to this point,
except that people now "realize" that I'm black, you'd have to pay
me a very small amount of money. Black people in my social,
economic, geographic, and professional situation don't do so
badly.
To actually switch my life with a randomly-chosen black person, and
have the opportunities and experiences in my past replaced with
his, on the other hand, would be a huge gamble with very good odds
of putting me in a worse social, geographic, economic, and
professional setting - and one which would likely impose greater
burdens on a black man than my existing situation does.
Fluffy|6.22.07 @ 4:47PM|#
Edward -
I don't consider my pseudonym to be part of my identity. That's
kind of the point of a pseudonym, isn't it? That it's not
you.
I wouldn't want to be black. I wouldn't want to be Chinese. I
wouldn't want to be a woman. But I also wouldn't want to be any
other white male. There are [apparently] people out there who
fantasize about changing their identities, but I'm not one of them.
I'd be fine with being a stronger / faster / hardier / richer
version of myself, but that's it.
If they wanted to do the survey correctly, they should have asked
how much money a white person would want to be transported to the
White Man's Burden world. That would take "attachment to
self" out of the picture, and make the question do what the survey
designers really wanted - get whites to quantify what they think
being black is worth, by making white the new black.
|6.22.07 @ 4:49PM|#
It's very amusing to find out that there are people who think the most significant difference between the experience of white people and black people in the United States is affirmative action.
Edward|6.22.07 @ 4:53PM|#
Fluffy
Sounds like a pretty healthy attitude to me. On the other hand, I
think our identites are a little more fluid than we realize,
although I can't give you an example. Maybe I would like to be a
person with clearer thoughts.
Edward|6.22.07 @ 4:55PM|#
Joe,
Yeah that is funny. I think there are a lot of losers running
around who think they wouldn't be losers if it weren't for that
damned affirmative action. Black folk get all the breaks.
edna|6.22.07 @ 5:09PM|#
My stupid name is the result of a typo. How 'bout
yours?
mine just means "those guys."
the list of purported disadvantages is likely the factor which
makes this survey worth about... nothing. what kind of black? one
from the east indies or caribbean? sure, no prob; above average
income and education. apparently those awful white racists love
caribbean blacks.
if the extra ass size is included, then, "no thanks."
highnumber|6.22.07 @ 5:19PM|#
I'd be fine with being a stronger / faster / hardier /
richer version of myself...
Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology.
Jennifer|6.22.07 @ 5:21PM|#
To actually switch my life with a randomly-chosen black
person, and have the opportunities and experiences in my past
replaced with his, on the other hand, would be a huge gamble with
very good odds of putting me in a worse social, geographic,
economic, and professional setting -
I'm white but a woman, so I can claim to be either the Oppressor or
the Oppressed, depending on which one I find most convenient. But I
can't think of any advantages I got specifically for being white. I
grew up in an integrated neighborhood with integrated craptastic
public schools. Most of what I learned as a child I learned not
from school, but from books borrowed from the public library, also
integrated. I paid for college through a combination of jobs and
student loans (also available to people of all races).
|6.22.07 @ 5:27PM|#
Jennifer,
You are an attractive woman. You may not be an oppressor, but in no
way have you any adult experience with being oppressed.
|6.22.07 @ 5:33PM|#
Mr. F. Le Mur-
The thing I find most perverse about affirmative is its only
beneficiaries are mostly middle class or upper income kids anyway.
The children of, say, Bill Cosby and Clarance Thomas would get it
while the son or daughter of a coal miner in Appalachia (who
probably faced more disadvantages) doesn't.
If we have to have something like that (and I would prefer
we didn't), I'd rather see it based on economic background than
something as nebulous as race.
Jennifer|6.22.07 @ 5:36PM|#
You may not be an oppressor, but in no way have you any
adult experience with being oppressed.
You are quite wrong.
dunno|6.22.07 @ 5:39PM|#
To actually switch my life with a randomly-chosen black
person
Would you want to switch with a randomly chosen white person? I'm
white, but you'd still have to pay me to take that gamble.
|6.22.07 @ 5:48PM|#
Jennifer,
"But I can't think of any advantages I got specifically for being
white."
You got the advantage of not experiencing the disadvantages of
being black.
"I grew up in an integrated neighborhood with integrated craptastic
public schools." Black Americans are much more likely to grow up in
segregated neighborhoods and go to segregated public schools. (And
to head off the smart-asses, I'm using "segregated" in the same
sense Jennifer used "integrated" - to describe the racial
composition of certain populations.)
"Most of what I learned as a child I learned not from school, but
from books borrowed from the public library, also integrated."
Black Americans are more likely to live in areas with crappy public
facilities.
Your argument comes down to the phrase "specifically for being
white," apparently to distinguish it from advantages that accrue
based on your family's SES, or the town you were born in, for
example. And it is probably true that a black Jennifer whose family
had the same SES and lived in the same town would have similar
opportunities and outcomes.
But that's ducking the issue - if you were born into a black
family, there is a very good chance you would have grown up in a
different family, at a different SES, in a different community, and
had different experiences.
Saying that these differences in opportunity are not "specifically"
caused by race, but by wealth and political geography or whatnot,
is true, but that's a meaningless bit of semantics, because of the
connections we all realize exist between those factors and
race.
|6.22.07 @ 5:56PM|#
dunno,
I'm very fortunate, too.
Cesar,
A white kid from a poor family in Appalacia who has the same grades
as a white kid from Westchester County will leave tire tracks
across the rich kid's back as he rolls over him during the college
admissions process.
I don't know where this idea comes from that race is the only
factor related to social disadvantage that is taken into account.
Heck, a middle class white kid from South Dakota will get into more
quality colleges in the northeast than a middle class white kid
from Massachusetts, just so the school can brag about their
geographic diversity. For some reason, no one ever complains about
that.
(BTW, I'd like to see more emphasis on applicants' SES, too. If Ivy
League colleges committed to a policy of ensuring that 1/4 of their
enrollees were from families below median income, it would produce
a revolutionary change in how this country operates.)
D.A. Ridgely|6.22.07 @ 6:08PM|#
BTW, I'd like to see more emphasis on applicants' SES, too.
If Ivy League colleges committed to a policy of ensuring that 1/4
of their enrollees were from families below median income, it would
produce a revolutionary change in how this country
operates.
Probably not. There are already two Ivies; for example, the Harvard
the kid whose parents paid his Exeter tuition goes to and the one
the kid on scholarship goes to. That said, if such schools are
going to select on other than academic grounds at all, SES is
probably the way to go.
|6.22.07 @ 6:15PM|#
Are there no black libertarians with enough leisure to waste
time posting here? It would be nice to hear from one.
We used to have a good regular commenter named Born Again
Iconoclast, and I believe he identified himself as a black guy.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen him around for months, at
least.
Of course, it's possible that we have black commenters
today who are not immediately identifiable as such from their
writing alone. I mean, they may not necessarily work "my black
ass!" or even a more subtle "lawsy, lawsy, lawsy" into every post
for the sake of being easily identified ethnically.
|6.22.07 @ 6:20PM|#
D.A.R.,
Ha! There were two GWUs, too. There were the kids whose parents
paid sticker price, and the kids on scholarship who tutored
them.
Oddly enough, the former group seemed to be more diverse than the
latter.
|6.22.07 @ 6:21PM|#
Of course, it's possible that we have black commenters today
who are not immediately identifiable as such from their writing
alone. I mean, they may not necessarily work "my black ass!" or
even a more subtle "lawsy, lawsy, lawsy" into every post for the
sake of being easily identified ethnically.
Aye, tis a fecking disgrace the way some o' them carry on!
|6.22.07 @ 6:23PM|#
I would have to think about this. I know a hot white girl who
looks like Selma Blair who likes almost everything about me except
my physical "type" -- she has a pronounced preference for black
dudes.
I could probably handle being Denzel Washington or Will Smith. The
older illiterate guy who empties the trash cans around here, not so
much.
These targeted examples aside, I would not want a random identity
switch. I mean, if I had the option of switching identities with a
random white person, that's scary too.
For better or worse, I've spent too much time and effort being
me.
D.A. Ridgely|6.22.07 @ 6:25PM|#
Some commenters, I mean.
Sure, joe, sure. (I keed!)
BTW, not to denigrate your alma mater, but I would think both
categories of students would constantly be thinking to themselves
"This costs four grand more a year than Harvard?!?"
gw bush\'s mama|6.22.07 @ 7:18PM|#
i didnt realize that libertarians were such whiteys before i started reading reason.
|6.22.07 @ 7:27PM|#
Maybe the real reason for the difference in value between the
two sets of responses is that the "description of [how black people
are treated in] Atria" is a lot worse than how they are really
treated in America.
I can't help thinking that in the not-too-distant future, medicine
will come up with a cosmetic procedure that can _actually_ change
your color. Once it is on the market for a few years, the price
will tell us how much it is really worth to become
white.
|6.22.07 @ 8:57PM|#
i'd switch with tiger woods in a heartbeat.
no more slices!!
of course, despite the "black community's" appropriation of tiger,
he is not black.
he is, as he claims - cablinasian (caucasian, black and
asian).
i agree with those that wouldn't want to be switched with any
RANDOM person, but there are people of any race that i would switch
with.
Jennifer|6.22.07 @ 9:03PM|#
But that's ducking the issue - if you were born into a black
family, there is a very good chance you would have grown up in a
different family, at a different SES, in a different community, and
had different experiences.
So now you're not talking about "being black," but about money or
community or whatever other factors. Even my lily-white self would
have been better off had I been born in a rich family. I'd've been
worse off had I been born to a poorer family. Better off born to a
family of college-educated intellectuals. Worse off with a family
of Mormon fundamentalist polygamists. SOL born in Saudi Arabia. But
these factors have nothing to do with race.
Jennifer|6.22.07 @ 9:06PM|#
"But I can't think of any advantages I got specifically for
being white.". . .You got the advantage of not experiencing the
disadvantages of being black.
Isn't that circular reasoning? "The advantage of being white is you
don't experience the disadvantages of being black. Well, what are
the disadvantages of being black? You don't have the advantages of
being white. Which are? You don't experience the disadvantages of
being black."
|6.22.07 @ 9:06PM|#
Joe-
But what about a white kid who is a son of a coal miner from
southwest Virginia who has 1100 on his SATs and a 2.9 vs. a black
kid from a wealthy Northern Virginia D.C. suburb who has 1300 and a
3.1? Who would get into UVA first?
Ronald Bailey-style Disclaimer: I'm bi-racial (white and
"hispanic") and could put either on my forms since I appear white,
However, anything relating to college admissions/job applications I
made sure to mark "white" since I oppose racial affirmative
action.
|6.22.07 @ 9:30PM|#
cesar, hispanic is not a "race". it's a cultural
designation
one can be an asian hispanic, a white hispanic, etc.
a blonde haired blue eyed white kid from spain living in the USA
is... wait for it... HISPANIC
|6.22.07 @ 9:37PM|#
cesar, hispanic is not a "race". it's a cultural
designation
Notice that I put it in quotation marks. I think its a bullshit
category, also. But the federal government uses it as a racial
category. I have no idea why. I heard it was Dick Nixon's idea, and
that explains a lot!
D.A. Ridgely|6.22.07 @ 9:37PM|#
a blonde haired blue eyed white kid from spain living in the
USA is... wait for it... HISPANIC
Um, no. he's a Spaniard, a European. A blond haired, blue eyed
white skinned kid from Mexico, however, is Hispanic.
joe,
That must have been back before GWU became a Real Estate Investment
Trust operating a university on the side. (I figure it's only a
matter of time before they make an offer on the State Department
building.)
|6.22.07 @ 9:50PM|#
RIDGELY... you are wrong. he's ALSO hispanic. from the
dictionary...
Hispanic: an American citizen or resident of Spanish or
Latin-American descent.
we commonly think of mexicans as hispanics instead of spaniards but
they are both HISPANIC.
common misperception
also, the federal govt. does NOT view hispanic as a RACE> they
view it as an ethnic category.
look at any NCIC reporting sheet (or federal reporting by local
PD's to the fed's).
hispanic is not a race. it's a seperate category. you can be ANY
race (or combination of races) and be a hispanic
also, in regards to hate crimes under federal legislation, hispanic
is listed as a victim CLASS, but not an offender class. iow, a
white hispanic commits a hate crime against a black, that is
designated as a white on black hate crime. but a black commits a
hate crime against a white hispanic, and that is viewed as a black
on hispanic hate crime
but, you are incorrect. it is not a race, nor does the federal
govt. view it as such.
|6.22.07 @ 9:50PM|#
Jennifer,
"But these factors have nothing do with race," is a false
statement. At least two of the factors you mention - family wealth
and parents' education level - correlate strongly with race in this
country. Obviously, race isn't the causal issue here - racism and
structural inequalities are the causes - but the question is about
being a black person in America.
As a statistical matter, socio-economic status, family wealth, and
residence in a community that provides good resources is not
randomly distributed among races in this country. If you are born
to black parents, you are much more likely to be disadvantaged in
these crucial areas.
So, no, I'm not talking about "being black," if you're going to
define that in biological terms. I'm talking about the experience
of black people who lives their lives in our society, and how it
differs from that of white people in our society. Many more of the
former then the latter face higher hurdles right out of the gate.
Hence, as I wrote, a random white person switching the
circumstances of their birth with a random black person in the U.S.
would be a bad wager for the white person.
And as far as your complaint about my phrasing, I think I went on
to explain what I meant by "the disadvantages of being black" for
you to follow my point.
|6.22.07 @ 9:52PM|#
whit-
That shows you how weird the "hispanic" category is. My mother is
"hispanic" and I'm not even sure what that means exactly. Is it
like being black or Asian? Or is it like being Irish Catholic or
Jewish?
|6.22.07 @ 9:52PM|#
Cesar,
I don't know what kind of weight UVA gives to geographic diversity
within the state. I'd guess that they'd go with straight academic
standards in that case. Which raises a whole 'nother question about
what the higher grades and scores of kid from a rich town actually
mean.
|6.22.07 @ 9:55PM|#
"racism and structural inequalities are the causes - "
um,no. in your OPINION they are the causes. many would argue that
much, if not nearly all of the differences stem from disparate
behavior, in the aggregate.
for example, black immigrants from the west indies tend to be MUCH
more successful on average than native blacks. that's because it's
not racism and "structural inequalities" that primarily cause
disparate results. it is (to quote thomas sowell) "cultural
capital"
imo of course ...
:)
|6.22.07 @ 9:57PM|#
Latino is a much more legitimate category than Hispanic. Latino
= background from Latin America. While "Latin America" is a region
with a great deal of diversity in cultures and bloodlines, so are
Europe and Africa.
So Latino is as meaningful a category as White or Black.
|6.22.07 @ 9:57PM|#
cesar, it's just different. hispanics can be of any race, but
most hispanics in the southwest (and many parts of the country)
just happen to be from mexico and are of mixed race usually (white
and native ancestors)
a black cuban person who moved to the USA is also hispanic.
a person of japanese origin who grew up in spain but lives in
bensonhurst is also hispanic.
D.A. Ridgely|6.22.07 @ 10:00PM|#
whit,
Keep it up with those CAPS. We find that very persuasive around
here.
Gilbert Martin|6.22.07 @ 10:01PM|#
I wonder if the study also asked the people surveyed just exactly who they thought should be the ones writing the checks to them for the amount they stated they'd need to become black?
|6.22.07 @ 10:02PM|#
whit,
"many would argue that much, if not nearly all of the differences
stem from disparate behavior, in the aggregate."
Sure, but that's just kicking the can down the road a piece. What
causes the disparate behavior? Individual behavior can be explained
through individual choice. When there's a meaningful, significant,
and persistent differences in behavior between two groups, you're
begging the question of an underlying cause.
BTW, comparing the segment of the Carribean community that
emigrates to the US with American-born African Americans is apples
and oranges.
|6.22.07 @ 10:07PM|#
joe, what a nonsensical response. neither are more "legitimate"
since they describe completley different things.
black, white etc. have to do with GENETICs. hispanic and latino
have to do with culture and geographical origin.
they are two different things.
they somewhat intersect but i have explained that they are
different. the dictionary recognizes this, as does the federal
govt. and anybody with sense (not that the feds and sense usually
go together but i digress).
Marshall Mathers|6.22.07 @ 10:07PM|#
"How much should you be paid to continue to live the rest of
your life as a black person?"
$25 million.
Michael Jackson|6.22.07 @ 10:08PM|#
"How much should you be paid to continue to live the rest of
your life as a black person?"
I don't know, but I've paid millions to be white.
|6.22.07 @ 10:10PM|#
no, joe. i would argue there is a BIG difference.
it's similar to the argument about "equal pay" for women and men
(that whole .77 canard).
disparity of results =/= (necessarily) racism or structural
inequalities.
that's an external locus of control argument (popular with
liberals)
the other argument (popular with libertarians a la sowell) and one
that i think is more in line with the evidence is quite
different.
|6.22.07 @ 10:16PM|#
Ugh, why do we need racial categories, again? What am I? My
mother is Mexican, my father is white. So, what do I mark? White,
or "hispanic"?
I look white as a sheet and have an anglo last name, so when marked
"hispanic" in publik skool sometimes my teacher would actually
think I was pulling a joke on them!
|6.22.07 @ 10:16PM|#
whit,
"black, white etc. have to do with GENETICs. hispanic and latino
have to do with culture and geographical origin."
Neither of those statements is entirely true. The biological basis
of "black" and "white" is very unreliable. There is some, but it's
not really that much more robust than the identifiable genetic
characteristics of Latinos.
What I'm saying is, if we're looking purely at genetic similarity
among those categorized as white, or black, we're not going to find
a whole lot more than if we did the same for those categorized as
Latino.
All three categories are simplistic stand-ins for complicated
amalgamns of genetics, culture, and geography. It's only through
custom that we call two of those categories "race" and the third
something else, but then, it's only through custom that we group
people into those categories anyway.
|6.22.07 @ 10:18PM|#
whit,
Come on. You know as well as I do that there is a lot more reason
to suspect that there are structural inequities related to race in
our society than just the unequal outcomes.
|6.22.07 @ 10:21PM|#
joe, we all know that race is not easy to define genetically. we
also know that it does exist. unless, one is a postmodernist
ninny.
there are also subgroups, and of course races can intermarry, which
makes the distinctions kind of meaningless (see: tiger woods)
but tell somebody with sickle cell anemia that race is just a
social construct!
|6.22.07 @ 10:22PM|#
Cesar,
Our culture doesn't exist the way it does because some blue ribbon
committee drew it up using AutoCAD. Why do we need racial
categories? Cripes, why does the word "through" need to be so hard
to spell? This isn't something someone decided was the smartest way
for us to understand the world; it's just what go handed down to us
from thousands of years of dynamic civilization, and we're dealing
with it the best we can.
|6.22.07 @ 10:24PM|#
whit,
At least 75% of black people do not have sickle cell anemia.
Sure, race exists. It's a socially constructed category that has a
shaky relationship with phenotype, and an even shakier relationship
with genotype. There's definitely some biology in there somewhere,
but there's a lot more history, culture, and politics.
|6.22.07 @ 10:25PM|#
Joe-
I wouldn't have a problem with arbitrary racial categories if it
didn't have an effect on government policy
|6.22.07 @ 10:28PM|#
I would, regardless. It sucks that these arbitrary racial
categories exist.
But they do, and have meaning. Socially constructed things are
still real.
|6.22.07 @ 10:40PM|#
Yeah, I do realize socially constructed things have really meaning. Hell, money is a socially constructed value.
Paul|6.23.07 @ 3:11AM|#
Better phrasing would have been, "...for you and your family
to switch places with a randomly-chosen black family for the rest
of your life."
That way, it's clear that you're not living the life you put
together for 35 years as a white person, and suddenly declaring
yourself black.
I understand what you're saying here, joe, but I think this might
be good in a different survey altogether. I think the results could
be very telling, though, I would agree.
But after thinking about it, I considered the flip-side. Would I
(white) choose to be any other existing random white family. My
answer is still "no".
Ultimately, these surveys are interesting, but not particularly
informative.
Fluffy|6.23.07 @ 7:05AM|#
"Hence, as I wrote, a random white person switching the
circumstances of their birth with a random black person in the U.S.
would be a bad wager for the white person."
But that's not what the survey was purporting to measure.
To isolate the meaning of actual blackness, you would have to be
exactly the same person you currently are, but magically turned
black. I thought this was a "then you would see how people treated
you and how much $ it would be worth to avoid that" test, and not a
"are you aware that blacks are demographically worse off than
whites in the US" test. The former test measures racial attitudes
and the latter test measures only knowledge of statistics.
|6.23.07 @ 9:56AM|#
@Joe - "Neither of those statements is entirely true. The
biological basis of "black" and "white" is very unreliable".
So... how can you advocate affirmative action when, as you say,
determining who is black or white is "very unreliable"?
CB
No need to answer joe. You think I'm a troll.
|6.23.07 @ 10:32AM|#
Cracker's Boy,
Not to get too deep into the thick of this, but the biological
basis of the distinction is unreliable but that does not map
directly onto the reliability of the designation used for
affirmative action, which deals with the more complex matrix of
features joe already described.
In the world, the benefits of a program can be weighed against a
factor like reliability/accuracy and one can decide to support the
overall aims/results despite the sloppiness.
|6.23.07 @ 11:53AM|#
I swear to The All-father, Odin, If I never hear another discussion about the BS concept of race it'll be too soon. Ooh, We, as a society, have a sore, let's keep picking and picking at it. Yeah, that'll make it better.
M|6.23.07 @ 12:05PM|#
Who remembers this from Walker Percy's Love in the
Ruins?
Was it the nigger business from the beginning? What a bad joke:
God saying, here it is, the new Eden, and it is yours because
you're the apple of my eye; because you the lordly Westerners, the
fierce Caucasian-Gentile-Visigoths, believed in me and the
outlandish Jewish Event even though you were nowhere near it and
had to hear the news of it from strangers. But you believed and so
I gave it all to you, gave you Israel and Greece and science and
art and the lordship of the earth, and finally even gave you the
new world that I blessed for you. And all you had to do was pass
one little test, which was surely child's play for you had already
passed the big one. One little test: here's a helpless man in
Africa, all you have to do is not violate him. That's all.
One little test: you flunk!
|6.23.07 @ 12:26PM|#
I was hoping J sub D's posting (11:53) would be the last word on this - but it seems scab picking is just too satisfying!
|6.23.07 @ 2:28PM|#
I'm late here, and those who have had their minds turned to mush
by political correctness are probably going to call me a fascist
swine, but I read something from John Derbyshire this week about
race and it is something I've always thought
Merlin Chowkwanyun (there's a name to conjure with!-sorry) at
The New Republic (there's an annoying, but free, registration
thingy) goes to the ramparts to defend the no-such-thing-as-race
(NoSTAR) dogma. Justin Shubow has engaged with him. At least one
friend of NR/NRO-Sally Satel-gets caught in the crossfire.
NoSTAR baffles me even more than Intelligent Design. It is an
exceptionally brazen form of reality denial. If some small group of
humans (or any other sexually-reproducing organism) settles in some
region of the world and proceeds to interbreed almost entirely
among themselves for a few hundred generations, then OF COURSE they
will develop particular group characteristics. Some characteristics
will be visible to the eye: stature, hair form, skin color, facial
features. Some won't: blood types, disease susceptibilities, PTC
tasting. Since individual behavior and personality have
physiological, biochemical, and genetic substrates, there are
undoubtedly group-statistical differences there, too. We already
know some of them. All this is as well established as the orbit of
the moon.
Whether any social policies ought to "notice" these group
differences, and if so, which ones and how, is a fruitful and
interesting topic of discussion (which, to be fair, comprises a
part of the Chowkwanyun-Shubow exchanges). That the group
differences exist is simply not controversial. If they did NOT
exist-THAT would be controversial. It would contradict the most
basic known facts about living organisms, not to mention our own
lying eyes.
I've never heard a rational defense of this "race does not exist"
fantasy. Even believing that it doesn't mean much seems
implausible.
To those who are not religious believers and accept a materialistic
explanation of the origins of life, please enlighten me.
|6.23.07 @ 4:35PM|#
joe: Sure, race exists. It's a socially constructed category
that has a shaky relationship with phenotype, and an even shakier
relationship with genotype.
I'm never sure if ole 'joe' is extremely ignorant or extremely
dishonest.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1196372
"Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed
genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified
race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic
differentiation between different current geographic locales within
each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which
is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity-as opposed
to current residence-is the major determinant of genetic structure
in the U.S. population."
To those who are not religious believers and accept a
materialistic explanation of the origins of life, please enlighten
me.
I think it's pretty simple: denial of the genetic and biological
reality of race is a combination of ignorance and dishonest
self-congratulation. (An offshoot of Marxist egalitarianism,
according to some).
|6.23.07 @ 4:56PM|#
So how much would an American black pay to be white? Or be a
member of the ethnic majority in Atria?
And what is the size of the market for skin lightening creams these
days? To some extent race is optional, even now.
|6.23.07 @ 4:57PM|#
Chalupa-
You can be very politically incorrect and still think Derbyshire is
an asshat of the first order. Sorry.
|6.23.07 @ 5:08PM|#
And, theres also a middle ground besides saying theres no such thing as race, and thinking all that matters is race.
|6.23.07 @ 6:19PM|#
Why is he an asshat? He seems extremley intelligent and at even
a "conservative" magazine like National Review the only one with
the courage to say the r word.
I'm starting to believe that the denial of racial differences is
the major lie that educated people tell themselves in this era of
ours, much like the belief that the sun revolved around the earth
for pervious generations.
|6.23.07 @ 6:32PM|#
"Why is he an asshat? He seems extremley intelligent and at even
a "conservative" magazine like National Review the only one with
the courage to say the r word."
Hes an asshat pretty much because he thinks everything in the world
can be explained by race. He doesn't just say the "r" word, he
beats it into the ground. His entire world
view revolves around race first, and his IQ fetish second. So, in
short, hes an asshat for the same exact reason Jessie Jackson and
Al Sharpton are.
To sum up my position-
Yeah, there is probably such a thing as race.
No, that doesn't mean such a reality should influence your entire
world view, anymore than the existence of class should make one a
hard-core Marxist.
|6.23.07 @ 6:38PM|#
BTW Chalupa, there are differences between races. There will be
differences between any two groups. Duh.
But that doesn't mean the differences are 100% genetic,
pre-determined, and immutable.
|6.23.07 @ 6:41PM|#
He comes down more on the "nature" side of the debate, as do I,
so race is going to be a big part of our world view. When blacks
score as much as 40% lower than Asians on IQ tests, race turns out
to be not only one of a million things that need to be considered,
but a ten thousand ton gorilla in the room that we are ignoring.
And most modern educated people consider anyone who points it out
not only wrong, but immoral. Maybe if he was writing in 1920 he
wouldn't have to keep screaming for the world to recognize the
obvious.
And no one is saying that the differences are 100% genetic,
pre-determined, and immutable. Well, except for the immutable
part.
|6.23.07 @ 6:43PM|#
Hey Chalupa, Walloons score higher than Flemmings on IQ tests in
Belgium (you can look it up).
The English is Great Britain score higher on IQ tests than the
Scots or Welsh.
Protestants in Northern Ireland score higher on IQ tests than
Catholics.
Isn't playing around with group identity and IQs fun?
|6.23.07 @ 6:47PM|#
Oh, and heres my personal favorite, there is an IQ gap in Japan
between the Japanese and Koreans that is similar to the one in the
United States between blacks and whites.
Yet, in the USA, the gap between Japanese and Koreans is almost
non-existant.
Gee, why do you think that is?
|6.23.07 @ 7:02PM|#
Keep burning straw men.
Yet, in the USA, the gap between Japanese and Koreans is almost
non-existant.
Gee, why do you think that is?
When Japense or Koreans have similar IQ scores to blacks or
Mexicans, then we can talk.
And I didn't know what the hell Waloons were, but I looked them up
on Wikipedia and they look pretty white to me.
Using the examples of the enviornment creating small differences
between whites compared to whites and east asians compared to east
asians shows how weak your case is. In some countries there may be
more Jewish doctors than English ones, and in other places the
opposite may be true. But you'll NEVER find a country where the
same percentage of Jews and blacks practice medicine.
|6.23.07 @ 7:08PM|#
The Walloons and Flemings are both white, that was my entire
point. The only difference is Flemings speak a form of Dutch, and
the Walloons speak French in an accent the French find extremely
funny. I can't tell a difference between them, but they absolutely
hate each other. They are both white, and theres an IQ gap that is
statistically significant.
But clearly the Walloons are superior, right Chalupa? Belgium would
be better off if there were fewer Flemings and more Walloons.
Fluffy|6.23.07 @ 9:08PM|#
Hey Chalupa, do you understand the difference between a
characteristic which is heritable and a characteristic which is
genetic?
Or would thinking about that question interfere with your whole
"Coloreds are inferior" obsession?
highnumber|6.23.07 @ 9:18PM|#
Cesar,
Putting a number on Urkobold's IQ is like measuring the size of the
universe, or like counting the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly
appendages.
Check under your bed tonight. Urkobold will have left you a stinky
present to punish you.
Or maybe to thank you. He works in mysterious and very disgusting
ways.
|6.24.07 @ 11:11AM|#
Where does that myth of the WHITE man as being rich come
from?
There are plenty of rich white men,
but there are a whole lot more less than rich white men.
If a teacher, or policeman, or other such job,
the white man and the black man
are going to make the same amount of money.
Why does the average white person
envy the class struggle of the blacks
and long for the black sense of identity?
Who do they have to call brother?
Why do the rednecks have to turn to a rebel flag?
I see poor whites with those confederate flags on their
trucks
and blacks with the plastic slave shackles, Malcohm X's and African
colors
and I wonder how the one handles the stereotype
of being the rich oppressor
and the other being the poor victim.
Know who the oppressor is for white and blacks alike?
It is a pregant teenage girl.
From that comes a train of sorrow,
comes the under-educated,
financially burdened single parents of more children,
more children raised without advantage and with want.
The mother's age at the birth of her first born
is the single biggest predictor of poverty.
The father not being in the home comes from that.
The second predictor is a child being a poor reader.
|6.24.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Isn't playing around with group identity and IQs
fun?
Am I the only one posting on this forum with a "high IQ" (145-154,
two seperate tests) who, by paying attention to the debate, has
come to the conclusion that IQ tests do NOT measure
intelligence.
By Odin, I hope not.
highnumber|6.24.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Obviously, those IQ tests you took did not measure intelligence accurately. ;)
|6.24.07 @ 12:15PM|#
J Sub D- I got 130 and 132 on two different tests, but I
graduated high school with a 2.0 and college with a 3.0
So yeah, color me skeptical also.
joe|6.24.07 @ 8:06PM|#
Fluffy,
To isolate the meaning of actual blackness, you would have to
be exactly the same person you currently are, but magically turned
black.
I disagree - I think being black is part of "who you actually are,"
and suddenly going poof like Steve Dallas in the Bloom County
cartoon can only change one's visible appearance, not make one
"actually black."
Cracker's Boy,
So... how can you advocate affirmative action when, as you say,
determining who is black or white is "very unreliable"?
First, I didn't say that determining who is black or white is "very
unreliable." I said that determining if an individual or group is
black or white via genetic testing.
Second, I can advocate it for the same reason that I can advocate
the use of force in the defense of our country on occasion, despite
realizing that the cases for military action are usually less than
wholly pristine; the bad guys (whether racists, aggressors, or just
the vagaries of racial injustice) don't demonstrate such pristine
scruples; I see no reason for the good guys to unilaterally
disarm.
|6.24.07 @ 8:08PM|#
For what it's worth: On a bad day I test at 135, on a good day I
peg out at 157.
Also, the man I admire, like, and love the most is black. He is my
friend, teacher, mentor, and pastor. He puts God and individuals
above race. I try to follow his lead.
NoStar
joe|6.24.07 @ 8:16PM|#
Flemur, if you cud read gooder, you'd have noticed that I never
argued that there was no biological component to race, only that it
is unreliable.
I could go further, buy you are way too much of a flaming asshole
to be worth it.
Grand Chalupa,
I have never heard a single person deny that there are differences
in standardized test scored among races. What you are alluding to
in your comment is the widespread acknowledgement that we cannot
attribute more than a small part of these differences to
genetics.
joe|6.24.07 @ 8:20PM|#
J sub D,
Am I the only one posting on this forum with a "high IQ"
(145-154, two seperate tests) who, by paying attention to the
debate, has come to the conclusion that IQ tests do NOT measure
intelligence.
Nope.
I'm so good at standardized tests that I made money after college
teaching high school kids how to ace them. I only wish taking
standarized tests was a career.
|6.24.07 @ 9:49PM|#
I have never heard a single person deny that there are
differences in standardized test scored among races. What you are
alluding to in your comment is the widespread acknowledgement that
we cannot attribute more than a small part of these differences to
genetics.
If it was ONLY differences in standardized testing I'd agree that
race was a small factor in shaping who we are. But when you combine
it with the relative wealth of nations and things like crime
statististics and economic success in countries where different
races live together, me thinks that you are not giving the natural
differences between different groups of men justice.
I'm not using standardized test as the be all and end all measure
of human worth.
|6.24.07 @ 10:02PM|#
Chalupa-
I'm not using standardized test as the be all and end all
measure of human worth.
Its well known that "racial realists" have a real hard-on for
standardized tests.
And BTW, about crime etc. Walloons have a higher crime rate than
Flemings. Jews from the Soviet Union in Israel have a higher crime
rate than Jews from Europe or the USA.
The Scots-Irish in the United States have a higher poverty rate
than Irish Catholics, who have a higher poverty rate than
English-Americans.
Again, you can play around with any kind of group identity and come
up with all sorts of differences.
Why not be an "ethnic realist" too, and realize those damn
beer-swilling Flemings are inferior to those cultures, Francophone
Walloons.
|6.24.07 @ 10:04PM|#
*Should read Flemings have a higher crime rate than Walloons. Its difficult to remember which is which when they both sound like characters from a Dr. Seuss book.
Fluffy|6.24.07 @ 10:07PM|#
Chalupa -
On the time scale of human evolution, do you seriously propose that
a difference of a couple of centuries in discovering how to forge
iron, or in militarizing gunpowder, reflects an underlying
biological difference in intelligence? And those centuries
lie at the root of the disparate economic success of nations.
And when are we making our measurement? In the year 900, the
"relative wealth of nations" would not have made the Caucasian race
look very good. And the Vikings were kind of messing up the crime
statistics. But if we're talking about a biological
difference, it should manifest itself equally at all historical
time periods.
|6.24.07 @ 10:25PM|#
There is not enough money in the world that I could be given to be black. The only plus to being black is the government would give me a check every month that I didnt have to work for.
|6.24.07 @ 10:52PM|#
Cesar,
The only way you'd have a point is if I said race and genetics was
100% determinite of everything. See my previous post...
Using the examples of the enviornment creating small differences
between whites compared to whites and east asians compared to east
asians shows how weak your case is. In some countries there may be
more Jewish doctors than English ones, and in other places the
opposite may be true. But you'll NEVER find a country where the
same percentage of Jews and blacks practice medicine.
Your straw man has already been burned to a crisp.
On the time scale of human evolution, do you seriously propose
that a difference of a couple of centuries in discovering how to
forge iron, or in militarizing gunpowder, reflects an underlying
biological difference in intelligence? And those centuries lie at
the root of the disparate economic success of nations.
And when are we making our measurement? In the year 900, the
"relative wealth of nations" would not have made the Caucasian race
look very good. And the Vikings were kind of messing up the crime
statistics. But if we're talking about a biological difference, it
should manifest itself equally at all historical time
periods.
History has not simply shown that different parts of the world
invent things at different rates. Once in a while a tribe still
comes out of some African jungle or Brazillian rain forest that TO
THIS DAY has not invented a written language, or the wheel, or in
the case of the Australian Aboriginals, never figured out that
preganancy had anything to do with sex until the white man was able
to point out the connection.
And of course I haven't investigated every single period of human
history, but I'd bet that even at its lowest point, European still
would've blown Africa and the Native Americans out of the water,
even if East Asia may ocasionally take the lead in objective
measurements of well being.
To all interested in learning more, please read this book,
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1593680201/reasonmagazineA/
highnumber|6.25.07 @ 12:25AM|#
Consider this statement to be akin to one of those statements
made for the Congressional record, something said for posterity's
sake.
Grand Chalupa is an ignorant, racist piece of garbage.
G.C.,
Take it elsewhere. We're interested in reasoned discourse. You do
not offer that.
|6.25.07 @ 12:31AM|#
Sorry, the fact that an idea breaks your bleeding heart doesn't make it untrue.
|6.25.07 @ 9:36AM|#
Joe - really NOT trying to troll... just trying to show you the
error of your ways. You really ARE a well educated man... just
lacking in what we, in the South, call "common sense".
"First, I didn't say that determining who is black or white is
"very unreliable." I said that determining if an individual or
group is black or white via genetic testing."
Okay... so if you ARE going to champion affirmative action, how
will you determine WHO to affirm? Since, as you say, the biological
test is inaccurate, what test WILL you use? Is it enough to simply
say "I am black, therefore I deserve special dispensation"? Every
time I am asked what my "ethnic group" is (for lack of a better
term) I respond "I am a Native American". I was born here... my
parents were born here... my grandparents were born here. That
makes me a native.
Do you propose a "means test"? Based on what? Income? Family
income? Hell, there are plenty of poor people. Some are black. Some
are white? So THAT can't be it.
How do you equitably implement Affirmative Action? That's just it,
joe. You can't. Discrimination is discrimination, whether it be
white against black, or black against white, or man against woman,
ad infinitum. It's wrong. And just because it produces a result
that YOU approve of, doesn't make it right, or fair.
Just my thoughts... nothing new to see here.
CB
|6.25.07 @ 9:55AM|#
I don't think Europe in the dark ages would have blown the
Aztecs or Incas out of the water, Chalupa.
Did you ever think that Africans and aboriginees in Australia
didn't develop because, oh, I don't know, something crazy
like having no navigable rivers and very few natural harbors, or
animals native to their land that could be domesticated?
The horse and iron working--which were closely connected to
geography--not genes, gave Europeans, Middle Easterners, East
Indians, and Asians an advantage over everyone else in the
world.
How about not being located near easy deposits of copper and iron
(like in the Middle East, the birthplace of civilization)?
Naw, that couldn't be......the answer is in the blood! Its the key
to explaining all of history, right?
Sorry GC, you aren't much better than a Marxist historian who sees
the "class struggle" in every god damned thing.
And btw the differences between Walloons and Flemings are not
small. In fact the gap is quite comparable between whites and
Hispanics in this country.
|6.25.07 @ 9:58AM|#
Oh, if you are ever interested in a much more sensible view of race, put down the Steve Sailer and go pick up some Thomas Sowell. Read his trilogy on race and ethnicity.
|6.25.07 @ 11:54AM|#
It is also worth noting that differences in performance on standardized tests between races or groups do not really give us much instruction on how we should deal with individual members of races or groups when we meet them.
|6.25.07 @ 12:17PM|#
Oh, if you are ever interested in a much more sensible view
of race, put down the Steve Sailer and go pick up some Thomas
Sowell. Read his trilogy on race and ethnicity.
I think Sowell is brilliant, (I often reccomend him to liberals)
and I agree geography has a role.
Genes do too.
No matter what the case, fuck affirmative action and the culture of
victimization.
Let's leave it at that.
|6.26.07 @ 12:00AM|#
I wonder how much black people would pay to be white? Maybe the authors could email Michael Jackson and ask how much it costs?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245