Ok, I got the article again, went over it and here's what I gathered.
> > I'm still waiting on someone to say what the racists statements,
> > tones, and
> > attitudes have been said here. I haven't heard anyone make
> any racists
> > statements. I haven't heard anyone say that any particular race was
> > inherently superior. I've heard bigoted ones, and I've heard
> > discriminatory
> > I know this may seem like nitpicking definitions, but its important
> > that words keep their meanings else more confusion erupts. If
> > your going to
> > use the word racist, please have the common courtesy to know what
> > it means,
> > and how it differs from bigoted and discriminatory.
> 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.
> The article clearly claims that there are inherent
> differences between "all"
> blacks and "all" whites.
I never saw this statement or anything close to it. He makes a lot of
generalizations, but doesn't point to genetics being the prime factor for
blacks having a different culture. Is he saying there are differences in
blacks and whites? Yes. Does he provide the conclusion that these
differences are genetic in origin or that they are not even repairable. No.
If there is no conclusion that the differences are genetic in origin, there
is no racism, only bigotry and discrimination (both of which have their
places... i.e. He is quite correct to assume that the assaults he knew about
were in fact NOT from little ole Presbyterian women, although it is possible
I guess) also, I discriminate against Pepsi every Coke I have based on
> It clearly paints
> all whites with
> one description while painting all blacks with a difference
> The description of the whites is always superior than the
> description of the
I don't know about the "always" part, I didn't get that, but once again...
unless their is a determination that genetics are the reason instead of
culture, there is no racism.
>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.
Didn't see this stated either, could you please provide reference?
> 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.
This statistically may be true (and I didn't see where he blames this on
them "only", but once again, cultural or genetics?
> 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
His guess is a result of statistical analysis, even if not done explicitly
and scientifically, and is instead by examination of certain things he
witnessed. Once again, no determination if these differences are genetic.
> The article clearly attributes an unsolved murder and
> unsolved thefts
> to blacks under the assumptions that whites wouldn't commit
> those crimes.
See above comment about little ole ladies... Simple discrimination is not
inherently without basis. This goes into issues like racial profiling and
such. Fact is, if it is known that blacks cause 75% of the murders in a
particular area, and if you are a police, then you would be doing a
disservice to the victim and future victims if you ignore this data and try
to put forth "equal" effort into researching ALL racial divisions. Take this
further, what if we wanted to divide our investigation time on religious
grounds as well? If there's a murder in a Amish community, you don't go
looking for Buddhists with the same intensity as you do Amish just to be PC.
> The article clearly attributes civilization, science and the wheel to
> whites. It claims that technology, such as Microsoft
> products, are produced
> by whites.
Historically correct and there was no indication that the reasons was
genetic in origin.
> Furthermore, the author claims that blacks are incapable of
> duplicating the
> achievements of whites. He expresses the desire that blacks
> were capable of
> studying or achieving academic degrees by their own merit, as
> if blacks were
> incapable of higher learning, and implying that all academic
> degrees earned
> by blacks were faked. The author claims that only whites can
> achieve higher
> levels of academic or civilized achievement, while blacks are
> incapable of
> achieving the same level.
I didn't see anything even close to this. As a matter of fact, here's one
statement he made that you seem to be forgetting.
<snip>I'd love to see blacks study, earn degrees on their merits, prosper.
Think of the trouble it would save.<snip>
I honestly think he means this. I don't think he wants an underclass that
needs constant monitoring and resources being dumped into it. His statement
about merit I'm sure refers to "affirmative action" programs designed to
alter the rules for particular races (discriminatory?). Also note the term
Like I said, I do not believe in the inherent genetic superiority of any
particular race or races. Everyone is capable of generally the same things
given the fact we all possess pretty much the same internal equipment.
Personally, I think the entire article is extremely witty the way it puts
forth its points. It does so by appearing superficially to be racist, but
deeper reading show nothing of the kind. You see hatred for blacks in this,
I see someone that actually would like to see blacks improve their
condition, I see caring even. The points made are put forth with satire that
Mark Twain would have been proud of.
My big hang up on the genetics vs. environmental is of course, there's not a
lot we can do about genetics (Yet!). Also, if its not genetically based its
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:01 MDT