Showing posts with label racist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racist. Show all posts

May 3, 2010

The Intent......Second Class Humans

Harvard 3L - Stephanie Grace 
 Racist - a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.
The unequivocally racist argument that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites has once again been brought t to the fore by the outing of a third year law student at Harvard Law School, known by her online pen name as "Crimson DNA" and in real life as Stephanie Grace (photo courtesy of Gawker).  Stephanie's opinion on the genetic inferiority of blacks was brought to light when an email with her views on the subject were outed by another Harvard law student she had some beef with. So for kicks, they forwarded her email to the Harvard Black Law Students Association (BLSA). It also got circulated to other BLSA chapters and went viral.  The Above the Law blog broke the story :

I just hate leaving things where I feel I misstated my position.
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don’t think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn’t mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.
I also don’t think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores (statistically, the measurable ones like income do account for some raw differences). I would just like some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects. One example (courtesy of Randall Kennedy) is that some people, based on crime statistics, might think African Americans are genetically more likely to be violent, since income and other statistics cannot close the racial gap. In the slavery era, however, the stereotype was of a docile, childlike, African American, and they were, in fact, responsible for very little violence (which was why the handful of rebellions seriously shook white people up). Obviously group wide rates of violence could not fluctuate so dramatically in ten generations if the cause was genetic, and so although there are no quantifiable data currently available to “explain” away the racial discrepancy in violent crimes, it must be some nongenetic cultural shift. Of course, there are pro-genetic counterarguments, but if we assume we can control for all variables in the given time periods, the form of the argument is compelling.
In conclusion, I think it is bad science to disagree with a conclusion in your heart, and then try (unsuccessfully, so far at least) to find data that will confirm what you want to be true. Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case. {Emphasis mine}
Got all that? I think her views on the genetic basis of lower black intelligence are pretty clear. I also noted in passing her allusion to blacks having a cultural issue that makes us more violent, especially in comparison to our docile slavery years.  As I noted earlier, she is a third year student and is apparently off to a federal clerkship this summer for Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Alex Kozinski, who had to recuse himself from an obscenity trial because he had posted cow porn on his personal website. But she has an opinion about the intelligence of black folk. For the record, I'll bet Stephanie is a perfectly nice person. I'll bet we could sit down and have a lovely conversation.  I'll bet she knows at least one or two or more black people personally which whom she has perfectly cordial relations. But this is the conversation she is having within her white peer group....at Harvard....in 2010.


The fallout has been mildly impressive for something that doesn't matter much in the big scheme of things. She's gone into hiding, many people  have expressed a desire or intention to try to derail her clerkship and the Harvard BLSA chapter had such a tepid and controlled response that they were basically called ball less. To the extent that there were people who wanted to aggressively try to prevent her from getting her clerkship, I would not have advocated that. The Above the Law blog put some effort into protecting her identity until she was outed by Gawker and in publications like the Boston Globe.

Fundamentally, the conclusion that blacks are genetically less intelligent is based on lower scores on intelligence, cognitive or whatever test used. Its about some X number of point difference.  In other words, the discussion of genetic black intellectual inferiority is not about a performance gap in intelligence as wide as say that between a healthy human being and a human being who's cognitive function was seriously impaired,  so low as to require supervision and support to ensure they survived.  We're just talking about a point spread on these tests which claim to measure something called "intelligence". I'll stipulate to the point spread. Using such tests as the measure of "intelligence", black humans are less intelligent than white humans.  So what?


On the basis of that point spread, conclusions about an entire segment of our population are drawn, and people want to build social policy around these dangerous conclusions. People will base their behavior around such ideas, consciously or unconsciously, overtly and covertly, in the workplace, in the home, in the community, in government. They are not academic exercises.  They are foundational for ideas about how we behave or should behave.  They become the justification for how we treat other human beings.

Lets be clear about something.  We live in an imperfect world of imperfect human beings. Don't think for a minute that this is merely an "academic" discussion or harmless thought exercises.  Once people reach the conclusion that black human beings are genetically inferior to white human beings in intelligence, people want to do something with that conclusion.  I've already seen in comments on this controversy round the web people allude to the idea that if this were true, we could use that knowledge to "improve" society in some way, practice some form of social engineering.

What on earth of any value to me or my children can come of such conclusions? Why hire genetically stupid people for important jobs or permit them to make important decisions for themselves or for others?  What manner of things might be done to such a group or for such a group or for the benefit of the genetically superior group who perhaps might need to be insulated from the inferior group?

People want to suggest that we ought to be able to discuss such things in the marketplace of ideas, that there is something neutral about these discussions. An Above the Law editor notes that distinguished sitting jurists on our federal bench think so:

None other than Judge Richard Posner, it turns out, of the seventh circuit, has written with similar open-mindedness about the possibility of a racial IQ gap.
In “Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline,” Posner defended Charles Murray and Harvard’s Richard Herrstein, authors of “The Bell Curve,” writing that their discussion of race and IQ was, at worst, a “rhetorical mistake.” There ought to be nothing controversial, Posner continued, about the propositions that 1) a black-white IQ gap exists and 2) it has genetic as well as sociological roots.


That's a sitting judge on the federal bench who thinks establishing the genetic inferiority of black intelligence is a fine and legitimate subject  for journalistic, academic, scientific or other discussion. Hey thanks, but no thanks. I don't require scientific, academic or any other type of commentary and debate on where my genetic potential for intelligence ranks against my supposed white betters.  I would suggest to Judge Posner and anyone else who views these discussions as simply food for the mind that people who don't find them offensive to notions of common decency would feel quite different if they were on the receiving end of this baloney.  I imagine Ms. Grace would not particularly care for a world in which female intelligence were questioned in such a way and or our behaviors as a society were based on such conclusions.As she and the judge demonstrate, black people have to navigate a world populated with people who think this way. If you doubt it, merely sample the comments on this story at the ATL.

A day or two passed and I returned to peruse the comments at the Above the Law blog just for kicks, hoping not to be  disappointed by the number of people who think there is any redeeming value in an ongoing debate about whether my children are genetically inferior in  intelligence. It is disheartening in the extreme to watch white people in 2010 debating the inferiority of black humans to themselves.  They dance around the issue and pose as though discussing whether my children are genetically "inferior" in intelligence is merely some objective examination of the results of scientific study.  Its not. 

Don't kid yourselves. Calling black humans inferior in intelligence is calling them inferior period.  People want to trade in these supremacist ideas (its what they are) go ahead, I simply wish they  would drop the BS about what they are really saying. For all the times that black people react or overreact to the various and sundry behaviors of white people, or race hustlers shake down a corporation, whites really have little to complain about when this is the conversation you're still having....in 2010....at Harvard.

 If you're white, the next time you find yourself irritated at black people engaged in a knee jerk reaction to some incident as racist, think about the fact that in 2010, educated, intelligent white people are still having a spirited and raucous conversation with each other about whether or not blacks are inferior to yourselves, intellectually or otherwise. Can you blame us?

People  espouse "the content of their character"  and merit out of one side of their mouths and have this conversation out the other. This discussion makes a mockery of American ideals of equality and merit when whites are arguing with all of their might to establish a biological determinism that cements white humans as superior to black humans. I imagine that most of ATL's readers know black people personally, socially, professionally.  Perhaps many of them even call a black person friend. I'll bet you money that Stephanie Grace knows a few black people.  Yet she and they are discussing how inferior we and our children are.  How they can prove it with science.  In 2010. Shameful.

Frequent reader Phelps pointed out to me recently that white people regard racism and being a racist as synonymous with evil.  Its why the Tea Party denies accusations of racism as vehemently as they do. I get that. So people should get this.  If you are a white person and you entertain this bullshit, you are engaging in evil. What you are doing is helping to give legitimacy to a scientific foundation for treating me and my children as second class humans. You are championing a science of subjugation. No sensible black person would regard these ideas or social, political or economic policy derived from them as anything other than a threat to our security, freedom and our very lives, nor should any white person be surprised at that upon hearing this garbage. This is a morally bankrupt discussion.  Even more disturbing is how lost on many people that fact is.

That's not just some white people. It amazes me that some black people operate from a misguided, mistaken idea that there is utility for blacks to discussing this as though it had serious scientific merit..  James Collier of the blog Acting White is one of those. He opined on this controversy thusly;

The fact that Blacks score, on average, one standard deviation below Whites on IQ test and under perform on a myriad of standard empirical measures, across all education levels, establishes a basis, however incomplete, for Ms. Grace’s statement. This incomplete basis stands, and will remain as the ‘best case’ line of reasoning in the censored mouths of all, until the point which it is openly and critically debated. For this debate to happen, people like Ms. Grace must not be crucified.

James is an intelligent guy, which is why I simply can't understand why he doesn't get that if you accept the premise that there is something to debate in the first instance, you've already lost.  Why should I accept a premise which calls into question my equality of humanity in the first instance? I don't give a damn what the so- called "science" says. I regard any "science" which purports to judge the comparative quality of my humanity based on racial genetics as suspect, self serving, morally bankrupt, and clearly intended to be used to justify treating people as inferior.

Bottom line.  I consider these ideas and people who subscribe to them to be dangerous to me and to my loved ones, my life, security and freedom.  I can't imagine why any decent human being would want to live in a world ordered around such ideas. This discussion of the inferiority of black humans as against white humans (intellectually or otherwise) has an intent. The point, the purpose, of having a conversation about the genetic inferiority of black humans is so that you can justify treating them like their inferior. Of what other use is a drive to PROVE the inferiority of one set of humans vs. another? This abhorrent debate has no other utility. Point blank and period. The long bloody history of humanity is replete with the carnage humans wreak upon each other fueled by such ideas. So I don't give a damn what some think the "science" tells them. Trust that irrespective of how stupid some think the science proves blacks to be, we're not stupid enough to sit around and let people establish a so-called "scientific" foundation for subjugation and treating us as second class humans.

Exit question: I wonder what portion of the Tea Party movement and indeed whether its patron saint, Sarah Palin, would agree with the statement "The fact that Blacks score, on average, one standard deviation below Whites on IQ tests and under perform on a myriad of standard empirical measures, across all education levels, is evidence of a genetic predisposition to lower intelligence worthy of additional scientific study"

I would pay money for video of the initial, first reaction, verbal and non verbal, to that question.

March 29, 2009

Online Home of Gutless Racists

Way back in March of 2007,  fellow blogger Villager of Electronic Village posted on the hate site Detroit Is Crap. Interestingly enough, the site owner showed up in the comments to deny that his site was racist in any way.  I thought it was an interesting exercise in stupidity, that this racist pig would show up on a black blog and try to argue to black people that his view (that we are sub human animals) is correct and supported by evidence.  I was rereading that particular post today and popped over to see if the Detroit is Crap racist crowd was still at it.  Indeed they were. I'm sure that each and every one of them would all claim that they are not racists, but indeed they are, which means not only are they racist, but they are gutless racists to boot.  Give me good old fashioned racists, the kind with enough balls to say so.  

This band of wingnuts would happily kill every black man, woman and child in America and enslave any of us left alive.  I'm incredibly sorry that I didn't mosey over to this site the day Obama won, it would have been a hearty laugh. They link to a variety of other hate sites, but since I can only stomach so much bile in one sitting, I have not checked the others.  I have nothing but contempt for these people who are probably among the lamest folks you could ever meet.  Only lamers would spend their time the way these gutless wonders do. 

January 13, 2009

Color of Change Spins Up the Reactors on Oscar Grant Killing

Color of Change has entered the fray in the Oscar Grant killings in California, with the following email to its members:

On New Year's Eve, Oscar Grant was shot execution-style by a transit police officer in Oakland, California. He was shot in the back while face-down on a subway platform--unarmed and posing no threat.


Twelve days later--despite several videos showing exactly what happened--the officer who killed Grant hasn't been arrested, charged, or even questioned. He quit the force and has refused to speak. The District Attorney has done nothing.

It's time to demand that California Attorney General Jerry Brown take over the case and arrest Grant's killer, and to ask that the US Department of Justice launch an independent investigation into the conduct of local authorities. Please join me:

http://www.colorofchange.org/oscar/?id=2176-544691

In the case of Grant's murder, the DA has already let 12 days pass while doing essentially nothing--the officer who killed Grant is able to travel and leave the state, and he's free to talk with other officers and attempt to construct a story to justify his killing of Oscar Grant.

California's Attorney General needs to step in now and arrest Oscar Grant's murderer. And the US Department of Justice should investigate the failure of the authorities in Alameda County to act. It's the first step towards justice. After that, we will push for systemic changes to create public accountability for BART and other police departments. Creating those structural changes will be a much longer fight, but Oscar Grant's tragic death is a wake-up call that should give us a real chance to help prevent this from happening again.

Please join me in demanding justice, and then ask your family and friends to do the same:

http://www.colorofchange.org/oscar/?id=2176-544691

Our take: The refusal to act 12 days later by the authorities is sorta like them indifferently spitting in the face of the black community. This guy blows away an unarmed, defenseless and helpless man on camera and has not been subjected to so much as a question by the authorities? That is unmitigated &%#@*%*. I followed COC's link and submitted a customized letter about this egregious failure by the authorities. You should too.

November 3, 2007

The Secret Lives of White People?



Dog the Bounty Hunter really stepped into the poo pile on this one. In a taped phone tirade during a conversation with his son, Dog tells him in no uncertain terms that he has to break off his relationship with a black woman he's been dating because they use the word "Nigger" and its too big a risk to their livelihoods to chance being caught doing so. To make it even more odd, he also tells him that other people would not understand their meaning when they say nigger, that its not meant to be pejorative, but they mean it some.......other kind of way...I guess.

And so began another of these increasingly prosaic and silly mini dramas of a white person caught out engaging in racially inappropriate behavior and going into full blown redemption seeking behavior (kind of like drug seeking). Its a pathetic spectacle to watch Dog do it and I think I'm equally disgusted with how gleefully willing the culture is to humor this nonsense, indeed to facilitate it.

He runs, crying, to Jim Storey, to Rev. Al, hangs out with Roy Innis and anyone else who is looking for an opportunity to be part of one of these sad little plays. As though they have any real consequence or meaning anyway. My take:

On Dog: Is he a racist? We all have our prejudices. I think most black people assume that most white people have a level of prejudice when it comes to black people, and that it would come as no surprise to them to hear the average white person they actually know express some viewpoint they would not otherwise say in mixed company because it would be considered a prejudiced sort of statement (indeed there are plenty of people who just go there and call you a racist). Sounds like Dog and his family have been calling black people niggers for a long time, since by his own statements to his son, its a commonplace thing to hear around his household. At the same time, I'm sure he has black friends, his minister is black (wonder how much the guy actually attends/participates in church life) and blah, blah, blah. He claims he says nigger around his black friends and that its always been cool. So is he a racist? Yeah, I guess so. Not the rabid lynch'em, castrate'em, kill'em kind, but that sort of everyday, practical I live my life smiling and talking in black people's faces but inside and in private I don't really respect them type. To me, the tape reveals that about him and that generally he is sort of a low class, undercultured sort of caveman. No self respecting black person I know will sit around sharing the word nigger with a white person and in my opinion no decent white person or one with any cultural sense gets comfortable with using the word nigger in casual conversation, whether the black people around them seem to accept it or not. And Dog has been that kind of private disrespecter of black people for so long, that he can casually use that word (which I guarantee that he rarely if ever uses to describe anyone but a black person) and think that it doesn't really mean anything or say anything about him, that he's not really prejudiced. Its an interesting form of denial, because at the same time, he is totally cognizant of the fact that if other people knew or heard this conduct, that it could mean the loss of his show, impact his finances and the whole deal. So he does know that there is something wrong with it, but figures he's okay as long as he is a private low life type. Interesting.

On the Son: Dog seems to be a bit of a low life, and I think like father like son. Tucker the son had been sent to prison at the age of 18 and served four years of a 20 year sentence for armed robbery before being released on parole. So he has questionable character out the box. He's a grown man, he's got a girlfriend and his Dad, out of concern that she is a bad influence and might lead him to violate his parole, advises him to dump her. So what does Tucker do? He tapes his Dad making all these funky remarks and then SELLS the tape to the Enquirer. All because his Dad doesn't like his girlfriend. He's over 18, he's grown and I don't think his Dad is taking care of him, so he could do what he damn well pleases. He could ignore his Dad, just stop talking to him or any number of things. But what does he do? Effectively destroys his Dads show and wacks his livelihood by SELLING the tape to screw his Dad over. Definitely a low life. You don't sell out your blood like that. Not over a girlfriend, over some chick you aren't married to, aren't engaged to, have no real commitment to and I'll be SHOCKED if in a year, he and this girl are still together. For her, he threw his Dad under the bus just because the guy is the private little racist he's always been. So he's a low life.

On the Girl: Dog was concerned about the girl and her character, what kind of woman she was and maybe he was right. Cuz, I don't believe for a minute that Tucker got the brilliant idea to sell his Dad out to the Enquirer like that on his own. He had inspiration and guidance and I think she was it. A theory only further solidified by the fact that she is now pursuing a lawsuit against the Dog for slandering her. This is the same sort of wack, silliness as the lawsuit by the brothers in the club after Kramer's racial meltdown, claiming they were "made afraid and emotionally damaged". Whatever. So since she is offended, she advises and supports her boyfriend to sell his father and other family down the river. She had every right to be offended, but what they have done was a low class sort of way to handle it.

On Dog's Redemption Tour: This is what really disgusts me about these episodes. It is a pathetic spectacle to watch this guy run around trying to find the magical media forgiveness formula to save his TV show and his self respect from any black person that will hold out to him the hope of absolution. I find it despicable that Roy Innis should rush to his defense, or that Sharpton entertain a conversation with him as though either of them have the power to convey absolution for all black people. All of this attention paid as though this pathetic family dysfunction meltdown was even important enough to have such a conversation. As though it is significant enough for such self appointed race champions to get involved with in the first instance. The shallowness of it all is evident in Sharpton's lack of interest in it. Clearly his calculation is that Dog is not a high profile enough racial offender to saddle up on and ride into the media spotlight. Dog runs around from program to media outlet, making his pleas for forgiveness and confessing the shame and regret of the caught (its not sincere, he was never this reflective in all the years he was casually saying nigger this and nigger that) crying and begging, and the culture happily piles on to watch him embarrass himself with this insipid groveling. It demeans him and it demeans the people who give it an audience and a forum.