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
New at Reason
If criticizing lousy African-American pols makes you a racist, Steve Chapman needs to borrow your white hood.
|7.5.07 @ 12:21PM|#
Ah, they talked about how scary it would be for a woman and a
homosexual to be in leadership positions, too.
All right then.
Scooby|7.5.07 @ 12:39PM|#
joe,
Did the uses of Kennedy, Kerry, and Leahy as bogeymen demonstrate
anti-Irish bigotry? How about Levin as a JOOOOish devil?
|7.5.07 @ 12:42PM|#
Here's the key line in Chapman's piece:
Oh, please. This is like saying that Dan Quayle got ridiculed
because he's a blond.
In other words, Chapman thinks that, despite the history of race
relations in America, a black person is no more likely to have a
legitimate gripe about prejudice than a blond white person.
I'm sort of embarassed for Reason that they'd publish something
like this.
steveintheknow|7.5.07 @ 12:49PM|#
They don't seem to have any problems with minority Republicans, so, I just don't see it.
|7.5.07 @ 12:53PM|#
I live in the deep south and am white in a large urban city with
a black majority population. While there are few racial tensions ,
one can sense a lingering divide between black and white . Memories
of master-slave relationships are almost palpable in some
instances. The deeper and more rural south is a real step back in
time . Thoroughly black townships and communities are common and
they are generally desparately poor , like one would imagine in a
third world country . One of America's dirty little secrets .
My point is not that Chapman is wrong at all . In the world we
would choose to live , he is correct , absolutely , but only if the
intellect and not the visceral was predominate in the American
pysche.
Scooby|7.5.07 @ 12:56PM|#
Seems like Teddy has been the perennial favorite as liberal
bogeyman ready to drunk-drive right over the American people and
their rights to life, liberty & property.
Would it be right to exclude blacks, women & gays from ridicule
and/or criticism that the old white males get? Conyers, Rangel,
Pelosi, & Franks deserve everything they get, as long as it is
confined to their political views. I know that some morons will
spice things up with stereotype-based ridicule, but it is moronic
to lump all criticism in with that.
|7.5.07 @ 1:03PM|#
I usually come away from one of Chapman's articles with a sack full of qualms. I didn't even pick a nit for this one.
|7.5.07 @ 1:23PM|#
steveintheknow,
They don't seem to have any problems with minority Republicans,
so, I just don't see it.
This isn't about what "they" feel about black people and other
minorities in their heart of hearts, but about their media
strategies.
I don't believe Ronald Reagan had a racist bone in his body. It
didn't stop him from flogging away with the Southern Strategy.
|7.5.07 @ 1:29PM|#
To quote the immortal Chris Rock, "I hate niggers"--Charles Rangle is the lowest, most worthless form of nigger.
Brian Carnell|7.5.07 @ 1:30PM|#
"I usually come away from one of Chapman's articles with a sack
full of qualms. I didn't even pick a nit for this one."
True, but the question still is why these show up so often on the
Reason site since they seem so lightweight (sure this one didn't
have any major problems, but it was still pretty bland -- it must
be a slow week when the biggest thing you have to worry about is
some crap article Juan Williams penned).
Does Reason have a subscription to the Creators Syndicate that they
feel they just must use occasionally? These read like they were
pumped out by the op-ed editor at some college newspaper.
Chapman apparently writes his column twice weekly, and he might
want to consider trying to quality over quantity.
|7.5.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Nice prioties there, Fink.
Let's take a look at the posts here, and think about which one Fink
decided he needed to denounce.
Anyway, I sure am glad I live in a country where racism isn't a
problem anymore.
M|7.5.07 @ 1:57PM|#
Warren - not sure whether your memory-hole prophecy pertains to your own or H&R's sensibility, but hier's the redemptive context of Marcus's comment.
LarryA|7.5.07 @ 1:59PM|#
In other words, Chapman thinks that, despite the history of
race relations in America, a black person is no more likely to have
a legitimate gripe about prejudice than a blond white
person.
So let's say I go to Thomas.loc.gov and look up Barack Obama's
record concerning gun control, and criticize him because he wants
to take my guns away. Does he have a "legitimate gripe about
prejudice" even though I say the same thing about Lieberman,
Kennedy, and other white gun control advocates?
If the NRA tells me that if Obama becomes president he'll try to
take my guns away does he have a "legitimate gripe about prejudice"
even though they say the same thing about Giuliani?
Just because something's "more likely" doesn't mean we should
without proof assume it's pervasive.
|7.5.07 @ 2:05PM|#
In other words, Chapman thinks that, despite the history of
race relations in America, a black person is no more likely to have
a legitimate gripe about prejudice than a blond white
person.
Oh bullshit bullshit and bullshit again! What he's saying is that
it has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with
politics. Dan Quayle got slammed because of politics, though Joe
may think it acceptable if he was slammed simply because he was
white and blond. Rangle gets slammed out of politics, but he
squeals racism because white guilt is so bad that it causes people,
like you, to take a step back and say "hey now...that guy might
actually be right" so it gives him power over you, which as a
politician is his ultimate aim.
By your measure, nobody could say anything against a black
politician, simply becuase the country in general, not the
individuals involved, has had problems with race in the past.
That's just ignorant.
|7.5.07 @ 2:07PM|#
LarryA,
If the NRA aired a series of ads about a Congressional gun control
bill, and only mentioned black Congressmen, could there possibly be
a racial element?
What if the ad showed a bunch of good old boys with their deer
rifles?
What if it mentioned crime, and showed William Horton's
photo?
You can play on people's prejucides without making Marcus-esque
slurs about people.
|7.5.07 @ 2:11PM|#
I criticize black politicians all the time. Steele, Keyes, Rice,
Powell - the list is endless.
I just don't go out of my way to equate the problem I'm criticizing
with their race, or to single out only black Republicans to embody
the threat associated with voting Republican.
When Pat Buchanon wanted to complain about global financial
magnates during the 1992 campaign, he always mentioned
"Goldman-Sachs." Never Fidelity, never anyone with an
Anglo-sounding name. Goldman-Sachs. Whether he was using this trick
in the furtherance of a legitimate political argument is irrelevant
- he knew exactly what he was doing.
steveintheknow|7.5.07 @ 2:17PM|#
Joe
True that on the Southern Strategy, and media strategies playing on
"constituency bias", if you will. But that sword cuts both ways.
Your team obviously has the minority demographic, and you can't
tell me that they never, ever… never-ever…never use
questionable claims of racism as a kind of "bizzaro Southern
Strategy" tactic. If for no other reason, it would be
un-opportunistic not to.
BTW in my prior statement, when referring to "They", if you
substitute "Republican constituency" for "Republican politician" it
still holds up.
In the end what most people can't stand about the opposing parties
figureheads are there ideas and values.
|7.5.07 @ 2:26PM|#
By your measure, nobody could say anything against a black
politician, simply becuase the country in general, not the
individuals involved, has had problems with race in the past.
That's just ignorant.
No, I didn't say anything like that. I'm not saying that every
attack on a black politican is racial in nature, but Chapman is
basically saying that no attack on a black politican is ever racial
in nature, and to even suggest it shows that you simply want to
play the race card.
Scooby|7.5.07 @ 2:32PM|#
"Does he have a "legitimate gripe about prejudice" even
though I say the same thing about Lieberman, Kennedy, and other
white gun control advocates?
If the NRA tells me that if Obama becomes president he'll try to
take my guns away does he have a "legitimate gripe about prejudice"
even though they say the same thing about Giuliani?"
I get it, now. Lieberman isn't white, he's JOOOOish. Kennedy isn't
white, he's Irish (and Catholic). Giuliani isn't white, he's
Italian (and Catholic). These right-wingers don't just attack
blacks and hispanics, they'll go after anyone that isn't a male
WASP.
Of course, are there many male WASPs left in the Democratic party?
The few that I can think of catch plenty of flak from the VRWC-
Edwards, Gore, Dean, Byrd.
|7.5.07 @ 2:32PM|#
I live in the deep south and am white in a large urban city
with a black majority population. While there are few racial
tensions , one can sense a lingering divide between black and white
. Memories of master-slave relationships are almost palpable in
some instances.
There used to be a nightclub in New York called The Vault where it
was pretty palpable too.
|7.5.07 @ 2:37PM|#
You know, one doesn't actually have to go all the way back to the 1860s to find regrettable history that helped to further racism in this country.
dhex|7.5.07 @ 2:37PM|#
i actually saw a crash worship show at the vault so many moons
ago.
got kicked out into the parking lot then broken up by cops though.
good times.
|7.5.07 @ 3:06PM|#
but Chapman is basically saying that no attack on a black
politican is ever racial in nature, and to even suggest it shows
that you simply want to play the race card.
So when, by your measure, it it just (admittedly sickening)
politics to attack a black politician as opposed to race? Can we
just shift the bias towards it NOT being a racially motivated
comment, instead of it starting there, until proven so?
|7.5.07 @ 3:30PM|#
The truth, he said, is that questions "about the intellect
of black and brown Americans sadly extend from lagging SAT scores
to the halls of Congress."
A valid object of interest, and perhaps a valid concern, to anyone
with a knowledge of the subject.
Oh, please.
Oh really?
This is like saying that Dan Quayle got ridiculed because he's
a blond.
Actually, no, it's not like that at all.
U.S. blacks, as a group, consistently score about 1 to 1.1 std-dev
below U.S. whites, as a group, in virtually every test of cognitive
ability (IQ, SAT, ACT, police hiring exams, standardized school
exams, etc). This is equivalent to an IQ difference of 15 or 16
points. With U.S. Asians (meaning Chinese, etc) it's more
complicated, depending on their geographic origin: they score
condiderably higher at math-oriented tests, about the same or
slightly worse at verbal, Hence a *lot* of Asian engineers and
scientsts, no so many attorneys and writers.
Because of the 'tail' effects of the Gaussian distribution, small
differences in averages make a big difference in the extremes. For
example, a recent Reason artile reported on a 2 or 3 point average
differnce between eldest male children and other male children; a
small 3-point difference means that the eldest will be *twice* as
likely to qualify for Mensa. There's a similar 2 or 3 point average
difference between men and women.
An IQ of around 120 is considered a 'floor' for most professional
work: doctor, engineer, a competent political leader, etc. About
8.5% of whites have IQs above 120; about .3% to .5% (yup, less than
1%) of blacks have IQs above 120.
Read all about it, and
much more, here.
Or, as expressed on this pro "Affirmative Action" (cough cough)
site:
"The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education estimated that if the
top 10 highest-ranking medical schools in the nation dismantled
their affirmative action policies and replaced them with strict
MCAT cut-off scores, only 7 Black students would meet entrance
requirements.[4] Another study revealed that under admissions in
which MCAT scores are of primary importance, the percentage of
Blacks enrolled at the 25 most selective medical schools would drop
from 10% to 1%."
Express your righteous outrage regarding the unfairness of
reality...
Randolph Carter|7.5.07 @ 3:59PM|#
joe,
I don't know the context, but I think that when Buchanan was making
those statements, it was because Goldman-Sachs was the biggest
financial services/IB house out there. BUT I MIGHT BE WRONG.
Guy Montag|7.5.07 @ 4:28PM|#
There used to be a nightclub in New York called The Vault
where it was pretty palpable too.
They closed that place? Try The Crucible in DC, it is still open
and is close to the new baseball stadium.
|7.5.07 @ 4:36PM|#
"Thoroughly black townships and communities are common and they
are generally desparately poor , like one would imagine in a third
world country . One of America's dirty little secrets ."
That s so true! I live up north, but a few years ago I rode
amotorcycle through rural Alabama (never again!). I could tell the
color of a town even before seeing its residents. The disparity
between black and white was that extreme.
|7.5.07 @ 4:38PM|#
"To quote the immortal Chris Rock, "I hate niggers"--Charles
Rangle is the lowest, most worthless form of nigger."
Black is beautiful,
Nigger, a pathology.
|7.5.07 @ 5:00PM|#
I declare Marcus, Other Matt, and Sam racists, since they
misspelled Rangel.
Scooby, my brother.
Every time I'm about to use any form of hyphenated "American", I
try to ask myself if it is needed.
|7.5.07 @ 5:20PM|#
I declare Marcus, Other Matt, and Sam racists, since they
misspelled Rangel.
Must be. Could be no other explanation.
|7.5.07 @ 5:45PM|#
"There used to be a nightclub in New York called The Vault where
it was pretty palpable too."
"They closed that place? Try The Crucible in DC, it is still open
and is close to the new baseball stadium."
I have no firsthand knowledge, and I live far from the East Coast.
But in my earliest days of roaming the Internet, some guy in
another forum used to talk about The Vault all the time. I'm sure
there are many like places.
|7.5.07 @ 5:47PM|#
"Express your righteous outrage regarding the unfairness of
reality..."
I, for one, am outraged by this ugly reality and simply won't stand
for it.
|7.5.07 @ 6:02PM|#
Stevo - they still miss your ass at the Vault , they just don't remember your face .
|7.5.07 @ 6:02PM|#
Ah, yes, that "reality" where the existence of racial disparities on standardized tests, and not the reason for those disparities, is a hotly-debated subject.
LarryA|7.5.07 @ 6:20PM|#
If the NRA aired a series of ads about a Congressional gun
control bill, and only mentioned black Congressmen, could there
possibly be a racial element?
Absolutely. OTOH if the bill was a product of the Black Caucus and
only black representatives cosponsored it, would mentioning that be
racist?
What if the ad showed a bunch of good old boys with their deer
rifles?
Depends on the racial composition of the bunch. (Yes, there are
black good-'ol-boys, but other blacks often label them
oreos.)
What if it mentioned crime, and showed William Horton's
photo?
And what
if the furlough program was originally one of Al Gore's
campaign issues and he mentioned the case during the Democratic
primaries against another Democrat, and the Republicans didn't pick
it up until after the nominations?
You can play on people's prejucides without making Marcus-esque
slurs about people.
And you can cite voting records and oppose candidates without
racism being a personal factor.
I get it, now. Lieberman isn't white, he's JOOOOish. Kennedy
isn't white, he's Irish (and Catholic). Giuliani isn't white, he's
Italian (and Catholic). These right-wingers don't just attack
blacks and hispanics, they'll go after anyone that isn't a male
WASP.
The NRA isn't "right-wing" it's pro-gun. It supports politicians
that are pro-gun and opposes politicians that are anti-gun,
regardless of what other affiliations they may have.
|7.5.07 @ 6:56PM|#
LarryA,
OTOH if the bill was a product of the Black Caucus and only
black representatives cosponsored it, would mentioning that be
racist?
I'd say it could be handled in a racist manner. There doesn't seem
to be any point in highlighting that the sponsors were black. But
if it's the "Rangel-Conyers Bill" and they show Rangel and Conyers
shaking hands over the bill, I wouldn't categorize that as
inherently racists.
But there's an element of your hypothetical that I want to point
out: your bill was actually drawn up by the CBC. In the actual
situation, two black Congressmen were singled out to scare the
public about the Democrats taking over Congress.
Depends on the racial composition of the bunch. So, other
than your incredibly important parenthetical, that's a yes, you can
see how that could be a racist appeal if it shows bad black
Congressmen threatening good old boys' "way of life." Good.
And what if the furlough program was originally one of Al
Gore's campaign issues and he mentioned the case during the
Democratic primaries against another Democrat, and the Republicans
didn't pick it up until after the nominations?
Then you'd have a really good case study of how the same issue can
be handled in a way that exploits the racial element, or not. For
example, you could look at whether and how pictures of Horton was
ever used to appeal to race. Or whether the campaign of Dukakis's
opponent took to referring to him as "William," which he was called
his whole life, of "Willie," and why that might be.
Reading about such a situation would be an excellent way for
somebody who isn't terribly comfortable talking about black people
or racial issues, and who doesn't quite get what makes some
comments about race inappropriate and others perfectly inoffensive,
to pick up some pointers on what the difference is.
And you can cite voting records and oppose candidates without
racism being a personal factor.
Sure you can. You can also frame disagreements about issues and
values in a manner that appeals to racial sentiments or prejudices.
Really, lauching a racist appeal is completely unrelated to
poitical substance.
|7.5.07 @ 7:31PM|#
On the "Willie" Horton ad, from Wikipedia:
The first person to mention the Massachusetts furlough program
in the 1988 presidential campaign was Al Gore. During a debate at
the Felt Forum sponsored by the New York Daily News, Gore took
issue with the furlough program. He did not, however, mention
Horton by name. He asked it in the form of a rhetorical question,
asking Dukakis whether or not he would extend Massachusetts-style
furloughs to the federal level. Dukakis' retort was, "The
difference between you and me is that I have run a criminal justice
system. You haven't."
OK, see what Gore did there? Asked a question at a debate about a
program.
Republicans would pick up the Horton issue after Dukakis
clinched the nomination. In June of 1988, Republican candidate
George H.W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up
repeatedly in campaign speeches. Bush's campaign manager, Lee
Atwater, predicted that "by the time this election is over, Willie
Horton will be a household name."
Beginning on September 21, 1988, the Americans for Bush arm of
the National Security Political Action Committee, began running a
campaign ad entitled "Weekend Passes," using the Horton case to
attack Dukakis. The ad was produced by media consultant Larry
McCarthy, who had previously worked for Roger Ailes. After clearing
the ad with television stations, McCarthy went back and added a
menacing mug shot of Horton, who is African-American. He called the
image "every suburban mother's greatest fear."
OK, can anyone spot the difference?
Scooby|7.5.07 @ 7:32PM|#
"In the actual situation, two black Congressmen were singled
out to scare the public about the Democrats taking over
Congress."
I never saw Rangel & Conyers singled out at all- I recall very
few mentions of them, and when they were mentioned, it was grouped
with others based on politics, not race. It was all Pelosi and
Teddy Kennedy are going to turn Middle America into some kind of
Gommorrah with 99% income tax rates, not Charlie Rangel coming to
carry off our white women. There have been many cases of political
ads playing to racial fears, but mentioning that a spendthrift like
Rangel would end up in charge of the nation's checkbook as chair of
House Ways & Means.
Re: Willie Horton: Al Gore brought up the furlough issue, but he
didn't put out ads with a photo of a scary, wild-eyed, dark-as-coal
Willie Horton being let out of prison to rape and kill innocent
white girls to personify the shortcomings of the program- that was
Lee Attwater & GHW Bush. That's an example where the racism
accusation is appropriate.
|7.5.07 @ 7:40PM|#
Scooby,
I recall them going especially heavy on Conyers, Rangel, Pelosi,
and Frank, but that could just be my impression.
|7.6.07 @ 12:36AM|#
Stevo - they still miss your ass at the Vault , they just
don't remember your face .
Excuse me, have my ass and your face met? \:)
|7.6.07 @ 1:25AM|#
If Willie Horton was let out and raped and killed, which he did,
then it is absolutely appropriate to publish his picture and
record. It would be racist not to publish his picture, since we
routinely publish the pictures of white rapists and killers.
Charlie Rangel was a good man back when I saved his life.
JohnD|7.6.07 @ 9:07AM|#
Come on people, Rangel is a race baiting jackass. As far as i'm concerned he is fair game
|7.6.07 @ 12:30PM|#
"I declare Marcus, Other Matt, and Sam racists, since they
misspelled Rangel. "
So your expectation is that I check the spelling of every quote I
cut and paste?
But to my point, you don't think running around shooting up your
neighbors (including young girls) because you couldn't get into a
birthday party and you think being tre-tre is a sign of manhood
isn't a pathology?
You don't think little 10-year-old black kids shouting racial slurs
at white folks they don't even know isn't a pathology?
You don't think having your 3-year-old kid take a piss at a central
business district bus stop with scores of people around isn't a
pathology?
Nigger, as a mind-set, IS a pathology. And to claim otherwise is
just plain ignorant.
But lest you forget, BLACK, is beautiful.
oh yeah|7.7.07 @ 2:42AM|#
"Memories of master-slave relationships"
Knowledge of, not memories, please. I doubt anyone is that old to
remember.
"Thoroughly black townships and communities are common and they are
generally desparately poor , like one would imagine in a third
world country. One of America's dirty little secrets."
Secrets? Are the towns not on the map and the folks in the census?
If there is no opportunity there, and they can't create it, why
don't they move to find it, like others have? Are they waiting for
someone to give it to them? Who are you blaming today, there, for
keeping them down on the farm? Take a drive in the southern
mountains. That's no secret.
The playing of the race card by either party is truly getting OLD.
The BLACK Caucus is the most powerful group in congress. They
should be able to fend for themselves based on merits of their
positions, not deflect questions based on their race.
|7.7.07 @ 12:46PM|#
FLeM,
Joe's comment about covers it.
I wonder how you can be so informed on the topic and yet so
misguided. And why link to the crank website. Isn't there a more
respected resource for reviews of the topic?
I seem to have pointed this out recently, but even Jensen only
attributes 14% of IQ variance to race. That leaves the other 86% to
be explained by other factors. So even if you buy into the very
questionable construct that race is a reasonable proxy for a
coherent phenotype, you would need to conclude that it is, at most,
an unimportant factor in explaining the discrepancy.
Lewontin took data on blood group polymorphisms (those that
have two or more alleles in high frequency such as blood types A,
B, AB and 0) and tested how much variation was explained at three
levels: within local groups, within a race but among local groups,
and among races. He found that on average 85.4% of variation was
explained at the local level and only 6.3% among races. Since
Lewontin, a series of papers using larger and larger data sets have
replicated his results [see review of Brown, R. and Armelagos, G.
J. (2001). "Apportionment of Racial Diversity: A Review."
Evolutionary Anthropology 10: 34-40.] demonstrating once again that
"race" does not statistically explain much. Humans fail the test
for biological races [Templeton, A. (1998). "Human races: A genetic
and evolutionary perspective." American Anthropologist 1998; 100:
632-650.].
This forum has a nice discussion of the issues.
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/
|7.7.07 @ 1:17PM|#
FLeM,
Because of the 'tail' effects of the Gaussian distribution,
small differences in averages make a big difference in the
extremes.
For a look at the complication involved calculating probabilities
from the tails of Gaussian distributions.
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001461.html?entry=1461
|7.7.07 @ 1:27PM|#
An admirable attempt to tease out the influence of environment
on IQ
http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/fryer/papers/fryer_levitt_infants.pdf
The debate over racial differences in intelligence is among the
most divisive in the social sciences. Utilizing a newly available,
nationally representative data set with measures of mental function
among children before their first birthday, we find little evidence
of systematic racial differences. Some substantively small, but
statistically significant differences are present in the raw data.
Including controls for age, socioeconomic
status, home environment and prenatal environment largely erase
these small differences. A simple calibration exercise suggests
that many of the basic facts in the
data can be generated from a model in which there are small mean
differences in intelligence across races, but large environmental
differences across races that become increasingly important as
children age.
Of course this study is using the vague proxy race just like the
other studies. Differences in outcome from studies that find IQ
disparity may be directly due to difference methods for assigning
participants to one race or the other.
It is also likely that IQ cannot be measured at this age.
|7.8.07 @ 7:59PM|#
joe asked
If the NRA aired a series of ads about a Congressional gun
control bill, and only mentioned black Congressmen, could there
possibly be a racial element?
Actually, joe, it is gun control itself which is racist. From the
1857 Supreme Court decision that a black man couldn't be a citizen
(citing the right of gun ownership as something which would be
gained), to the media stereotype of guns owners as white men. Look
at the media, and the only armed black men you ever see are
soldiers, cops or criminals.
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