> > 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.
> 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.
Ive gone back and tried to locate the original artical, but I think Ive
already deleted it, so I cant verify your particular interpretation of his
Look, I dont believe that genetics play into peoples behavior per se, but I
do believe theres some major cultural differences. My problem is, it is
called racist when a white person even brings up the fact that blacks have a
disparate percentage of crime or other cultural problems.
> 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
Maybe he was privy to "actual" statistics that verify a larger percentage of
teachers that are black are underqualified, I dont know. If thats the case,
then he could say with a statistical probablity that such a thing is true. I
dont recall him saying his premonition on this 100 percent, but I could be
>The article clearly attributes an unsolved murder and
> unsolved thefts
> to blacks under the assumptions that whites wouldn't commit
> those crimes.
Once again, this could be a statistical statement... and whites most
certainly COULD have commited it.
> The article clearly attributes civilization, science and the wheel to
> whites. It claims that technology, such as Microsoft
> products, are produced
> by whites.
Once more statistical. Blacks most certainly are capable, but it turned out
that whites generally beat them to the punch on most the inventions of the
last few centuries. Theres a hundred theories, but one Ive read lately was
the book "Germ, Guns, and Steel" (I may have that backwards). The book does
its best to explain why the Spaniards started conquering in South America
and not the inverse and other disparencies. His statement that Microsoft was
produced by whites is correct. Bill Gates is in fact....White (just ribbing
ya there, blacks similarly trained and in a similar position would have made
it just the same).
The author does not even seem to imagine that any
> blacks could
> have ever contributed to any technology company such as Microsoft.
I dont know that we can invade his mind to say what he actually believes
thats blacks are incapable of such inovation. I dont belive that, but I
wouldnt conclude that someone else belives that simply because they had made
the observation that historically, whites have produced more inventions.
> Furthermore, the author claims that blacks are incapable of
> duplicating the
> achievements of whites.
If he said that, I would disagree and say hes wrong.
> 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.
Once again, I would disagree with him if that was what was exactly said. I
will note that theres a certainly tendancy for grade dilution these days,
but thats not just race based. Its my opinion based on my reading that
degrees are easier to get then they were 100 years ago in general.
> I am (in)famous on this list for playing devil's advocate, giving the
> benefit of the doubt, and for assuming the honest intentions
> of posters.
> But even I cannot imagine how anybody can seriously consider
> this to be a
> real article and not a blatant hate-filled ad hominem attack.
> I believe
> that it violates many of the list rules and should not be on
> this list.
> Only the fact that it was not aimed at specific list members
> has prevented
> me from seeking a ban on this topic and the posters who
> distributed this
Please dont get me wrong, I am not defending someone if they honestly
believe that one race is inherently superior. I am simply trying to prevent
someone from being railroaded because they state facts, that while may be
true, are not politically correct. I didnt have the original email and I
havent heard any of the particulars you state here discussed. Just the
attacks on him in general for putting forth "The Email". Your not going to
find anyone more individualistic then me anywhere and I always try to look
at a person as an individual then a group. But Im not going to pretend that
their arnt serious issues that need to be dealth with about certain groups
of people (not just US based urban blacks). Well never solve them unless you
identify them and face them head on.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:01 MDT