Harvey Newstrom writes
>> I know this may seem like nitpicking definitions, but it's
>> important that words keep their meanings else more confusion
>> erupts. If you're going to use the word "racist", please have
>> the common courtesy to know what it means, and how it differs
>> from [bigotry and discrimination].
> Oh, please. This claim is so pathetic. I can't believe that
> anybody really needs to respond to such a demand for evidence.
> But for the sake of completeness, here I go.
Hey, thanks Harvey! But I'm sure that if you reflect a while,
you'll come to believe that it really would be good to examine
the evidence, especially if we can do so in an objective fashion.
The claim is not pathetic.
> The article clearly claims that there are inherent differences
> between "all" blacks and "all" whites. It does not even qualify
> these differences as statistically likely or commonly found.
Now I notice, for the first time that I can recall, statements
such as these being made without any quoting of the original
sources. This is very peculiar. I think the explanation is
that the original source (Fred Reed's essay) is heavy on
innuendo and implication, and doesn't so easily yield up
quotable examples. But this just makes discussing it only
more difficult, not impossible. If we are to find the truth,
then such effort must be undertaken.
> It clearly paints all whites with one description while
> painting all blacks with a difference description. The
> description of the whites is always superior than the
> description of the blacks.
I think that you may be right; I just commented in another
post about Fred Reed's exaggerations. Those who defend the
essay, like J.R. Molloy, are defending, it seems to me, its
open assertion of extremely impolitic truths about statistical
differences between the racial groups in America. I certainly
will not stand behind exaggerations and inflated claims, but
by the same token I will not flinch from speaking what seems
to me to be the unvarnished truth about these matters. And
J.R., do you or do you not believe that the article contained
> Not only does it argue that whites are better, but it claims
> that blacks are incapable of duplicating the achievements of
> whites. I don't know how the article could be even more
> racist if it tried.
You surely can't be serious about statements like this, Harvey.
Zero Powers, before he got carried away and blurted out
> With that, please accept my exit from this thread.
> It no longer has anything of value to offer.
(which turned out not to be true---but I know how he felt
and do sympathize)... Anyway, he had pointed out
> Well I grant you the post didn't contain anything on the
> order of: "All niggers are shiftless, lazy, criminals who
> have made no worthwhile contribution to society" or "The
> only good nigger is a dead nigger."
So you are exaggerating too, Harvey. Frankly, this is amazing.
I've never seen a thread before where it appeared that I was the
only person actually trying to unemotionally evalute the issue.
I honestly would have predicted better from extropians.
But I digress.
> Examples: The article clearly blames welfare, crime, large
> police departments, violence and fear on blacks only. It
> claims that countries without blacks do not have these problems.
Right. (Although it sure would help if you had condescended
to quoting a paragraph or to of these "clear" statements.)
> It clearly states that the author could determine the race of
> the bad teacher by the bad skills, obviously because only blacks
> would show such poor skills while whites would not.
Wrong. Here is the relevant quote from the Fred Reed piece itself
> A few years back, my middle-school daughter brought home a horrendously
> misspelled science hand-out...An understanding of chemistry clearly
> had never rippled the serene surface of the woman's mind.
> Without thinking, I asked, "What color is your teacher?" (If I had thought
> carefully, I would have asked, "What color is your teacher?") My daughter
> responded with an anguished, "Da-d-d-d-y!" She had made the connection, but
> knew she wasn't supposed to.
> I've got no problem with black teachers, if they are competent.
> No problem at all.
Fred Reed is implying that this was a *guess*, a hunch on his part,
that the teacher was black. (I will give him the credit for supposing,
as one should, that some white teachers, somewhere, are totally
incompetant.) Now, I don't see anything especially unbelievable about
this anecdote. So supposing that it's true, he made a guess, and was
right. His whole demeanor here is implying that there is a big problem
with the education level of too many black teachers---and given the
wholesale endorsement of affirmative action, this is easy to believe.
Mike made several other good points (and one more error, I think), but
this post is already too long.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:01 MDT