Foot in Mouth Award Nominee: Bennet

[Sue Denim]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/bennett.comments/index.html

Congressional Democrats blasted former Education Secretary William Bennett on Thursday for saying that aborting "every black baby in this country" would reduce the crime rate, and demanded their Republican counterparts do the same.
Not a clever thing to say, no matter what you think.

[Sue Denim]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170840,00.html

"The president believes the comments were not appropriate," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

[Dman]

I heard that on Howard Stern yesterday morning and thought of posting that here as well, but decided that dirtbag Bennett didn't deserve to even be responded to. That guy was Secretary of Education under Reagan. Scary. Makes you wonder what kind of people George W. has under his wing...

[booyalab]

I understand his intent and he's right, of course, but it was stupid because people aren't going to see the truth in what he's saying and will just focus on the way he chose to say it.

[Dman]

He knew exactly what he was saying and how it would be interpreted. What point was he trying to make in saying that? Was there a valid reason he chose to say that? We're not talking political correctness here, it's deeper than that and don't play innocent and think it isn't.

[Dman]

He could have also said abort every male baby in the country and the same thing would be true. Why did he instead focus solely on “black babies”? Because he’s a racist.

By trying to qualify it saying “That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down” he thinks he’s covered his ass. If it’s impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible, why even put it out there?

Again, he could have simply said the exact same thing and replaced “black babies” with “male babies” and made the same point. But his agenda was to get a dig in at black people, and THAT is what pissed people off.

What possible other purpose did he intend.

[MacGuffin]

I say abort the poor!

[CoHo]

According to google news this is the first time people have called William Bennett a racist (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=+William+Bennett+racist&btnG=Search+News)

If he has his own radio show... you'd think it would have sprung up more often...

really I have nothing to add.

[booyalab]

He knew exactly what he was saying and how it would be interpreted. What point was he trying to make in saying that? Was there a valid reason he chose to say that? We're not talking political correctness here, it's deeper than that and don't play innocent and think it isn't.

He admitted that it would be morally reprehensible to actually abort all black babies. So obviously his point was not to say that black babies should be aborted, but that there is a higher crime rate among blacks than whites. It was stupid to say because of the racial sensitivity in society so his intent was obscured by his style. I think this is largely about political correctness because the only ones vocal about the offense taken at talk of aborting babies are Christians, in any other context.

Would there have been such an outcry from democrats if he had said the babies of Halliburton executives should be aborted?

[mgb]

I'm not sure if the problem is that blacks are more likely to be criminals or if the system is inherently racist.

http://www.peace.ca/truthaboutblackcrime.htm

The Truth About Black Crime
by: R Jeneen Jones

Early last year, I wrote an article entitled "Who's Afraid of Black Men?",
which raised the issue of how society views black men as criminals,
regardless of their true nature. After posting the feature, I received tons
of email. While most African Americans praised my comments, many non-blacks
agreed that black men are generally violent and aggressive law breakers.
After all, one just has to look at the statistics. In all fairness, I decided
to do just that and discovered some very interesting details:

Among men, blacks (28.5%) are about six times more likely than whites (4.4%)
to be admitted to prison during their life. Among women, 3.6% of blacks and
0.5% of whites will enter prison at least once. (U.S. Department of Justice)
Based on current rates of incarceration, an estimated 7.9% of black males
compared to 0.7% of white males will enter State of Federal prison by the
time they are age 20 and 21.4% of black males versus 1.4% of white males will
be incarcerated by age 30. (U.S. Department of Justice)
Some have noted that more black men are in prison in America than are in
college. (The Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128)

Statistics on black crime are, on the surface, very bleak. There are,
however, some very important factors that help to influence the numbers.
Consider those and a strong case for a much different view unfolds. Since 62%
of persons admitted to Federal prison and 31.1% of those admitted to State
prison for the first time were sentenced because of drug offenses, let us
first take a look at the racial disparity in the war on drugs:

The National Institute of Drug Abuse estimated that while 12 percent of drug
users are black, they make up nearly 50 percent of all drug possession
arrests in the U.S. (The Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128)
According to the National Drug Strategy Network, although African Americans
make up less than one-third of the population in Georgia, the black arrest
rate for drugs is five times greater than the white arrest rate. In addition,
since 1990, African Americans have accounted for more than 75% of persons
incarcerated for drug offenses in Georgia and make up 97.7% of the people in
that state who are given life sentences for drug offenses.

In six California counties independently surveyed in 1995, 100% of those
individuals sent to trial on drug charges were minorities, while the
drug-using population in those same counties was more than 60% white. (The
Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128)
A CNN article in 1996 sited U.S. government figures that show more than 90
percent of all federal prosecutions for crack cocaine in 1995 were of African
American defendants. In addition, unlike convictions for powered cocaine and
other drugs (which wealthy, Caucasian defendants are more likely to use), a
conviction for selling crack cocaine can carry a lengthy prison term without
benefit of parole.

I know some people might think that African Americans are arrested so often
for drug offenses because police officers target drug dealers and most blacks
fit that profile. If that is indeed the case, why did an analysis by the
Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles find that 77% of the offenses
leading to the first conviction and 79% of the offenses leading to a second
drug conviction involved less than one gram of a controlled substance. In
addition, that same study found that 60% of the cases involved drug values of
less than $50. I'm sure Georgia isn't the only state in which such statistics
hold true.

What about figures for other types of crimes? According to the U.S.
Department on Justice, property and drug offenses account for 76.4 % and
56.4% respectively of crimes by individuals admitted to Federal and State
prison for the first time. Most criminal convictions are, therefore, not for
violent crimes. Even still, there is evidence to suggest that race also plays
a factor in those types of cases:

In 1997, the American Bar Association observed that quite often public
defenders, who are most likely to be assigned to poor and largely minority
defendants, are inexperienced, underpaid, overworked, and largely indifferent
to their client's plight. (Philadelphia Bar Association Calls for Moratorium
on Death, A-Infos News Service, 12/19/97)
Even though it is illegal, throughout the nation, there are incidents of
local officials influencing jury selection to include mostly white males.
This is done mainly because local police and law officials are afraid that
randomly selected jurors will be more liberal and less likely to convict
defendants. (Prosecutors Object to New Method of Jury Selection, St.
Petersburg Times, 12/28/98 and The Race of Decision Makers, RSTL Study)
A 1990 study by The U.S. General Accounting Office, indicated that racial
bias has influenced prosecutors' decisions to charge a defendant with a
capital offense and/or to proceed to trial rather than plea bargain. (U.S.
General Accounting Office Report, Death Penalty Sentencing, 1990)

What do all of these findings suggest? For starters, we cannot conclude how
many African Americans or black males are actually guilty of committing
crimes. We can only obtain data on the number of black males who are arrested
for and convicted of a crime. While arrest rates are highly subjective, one
could argue that a conviction is a guilty sentence in the eyes of the law.
Though that is true, given the racial undertones and biases still present in
the American judicial system, it seems highly unjust to assume that black
crime statistics are a valid indication of the state of the entire community
of African American males.

Am I implying that African American males do not commit crimes? Not at all.
In my opinion, there is an equal distribution of criminals (and law abiding
citizens) among all racial and ethnic groups and blacks are no more likely to
be criminals than are whites. The data shows, however, that African Americans
more likely than others to be arrested and convicted. It is for that reason
that I propose we use our intelligence and humanity to look beyond the
numbers. Even though it has been shown time and time again that racial
discrimination still exists in almost every segment of our society, (Driving
While Black, Police & Civil Rights Leaders Sit Down to Build Bridges,
Painting Insanity Black, Avis Charged with Discrimination, The New Face of
Racism, Race & The Death Penalty, Bell Atlantic Sued for Discrimination,
Judge OKs Boeing Bias Settlement, Black Customers Sue Denny's) why do some
people find it impossible to consider that it also exists in our judicial
process?

Will we ever be able to agree on the truth about black crime (or know the
real story on white crime) in this nation? I doubt it. I do hope we will
open the lines of communication and learn to discuss all of the facts. Only
then will we be able to make changes and overcome the tremendous effect that
race continues to have on the perception of black males in America.

[kendoiwan]

jesus christ... I don't believe you booya... you make it sound so cut and dry... jesus christ :dont:

[booyalab]

you make it sound so cut and dry...

well it seems really cut and dry to me, so that's probably why


I'm not sure if the problem is that blacks are more likely to be criminals or if the system is inherently racist.


there's a good book by Thomas Sowell cant remember the name..but he traces black ghetto culture back to the British Isles from which white American Southerners immigrated in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They brought what's now the basis of the 'redneck' culture and it eventually became the African American heritage. (although most everyone has abandoned it...it still exists among the poorest and least educated blacks..and among some white trailer trash, obviously)
Anyways, liberals like to say the violence in black ghettos stems from racism...but racism was a result of slavery, not a cause of it...and the destructive culture was there from the first point the south was settled. Racism still exists to the extent it does today because the culture still exists.
People need something off which to base a generalization.

[kendoiwan]

You make it sound like if you aborted the poorest 12% of white folks the crime rate wouldn't budge... like we got the market on crime locked... or as if that crime rate drop wouldn't only last as long as it took for another culture to fill the void... like we're inherently crooks... is it really that cut and dry in your mind? Crime is about money not culture... and as long as crime pays and unemployment is a necessary condition of capitalism in the world economy, someone will commit crime... this is not a black thing and I have yet to here anyone really articulate that... *I thought higher of you than that booya... so disappointed*

[Dman]

He admitted that it would be morally reprehensible to actually abort all black babies. So obviously his point was not to say that black babies should be aborted, but that there is a higher crime rate among blacks than whites. It was stupid to say because of the racial sensitivity in society so his intent was obscured by his style. I think this is largely about political correctness because the only ones vocal about the offense taken at talk of aborting babies are Christians, in any other context.

Would there have been such an outcry from democrats if he had said the babies of Halliburton executives should be aborted?

I believe the context in which he was speaking was regarding abortion rates and crime. Someone quoted a statistic about crime going down when abortion became legal, or something like that. Had nothing to do with race. Until he opened his mouth and made it about race. Again, why? Does he think no one knows that blacks are a larger proportion of criminal arrests than whites? Isn’t the more important question “Why are blacks a larger proportion?”

I’m not a Christian and I think it was offensive. I heard it first on Howard Stern, before the news was even on the major media outlets, and Howard’s not a Christian and he objected to it also. The remark, taken in full context, was out of line.

[coffeezombie]

*I thought higher of you than that booya... so disappointed*
You obviously haven't read many of this board's old threads.

[Dman]

From here – http://mediamatters.org/items/200509280006

“Bennett's remark was apparently inspired by the claim that legalized abortion has reduced crime rates, which was posited in the book Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005) by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. But Levitt and Dubner argued that aborted fetuses would have been more likely to grow up poor and in single-parent or teenage-parent households and therefore more likely to commit crimes; they did not put forth Bennett's race-based argument.”

[eyebyte_atWork]

well it seems really cut and dry to me, so that's probably why



there's a good book by Thomas Sowell cant remember the name..but he traces black ghetto culture back to the British Isles from which white American Southerners immigrated in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They brought what's now the basis of the 'redneck' culture and it eventually became the African American heritage. (although most everyone has abandoned it...it still exists among the poorest and least educated blacks..and among some white trailer trash, obviously)
Anyways, liberals like to say the violence in black ghettos stems from racism...but racism was a result of slavery, not a cause of it...and the destructive culture was there from the first point the south was settled. Racism still exists to the extent it does today because the culture still exists.
People need something off which to base a generalization.


Yeah - Never heard of the author - From what you have posted - the writer is full of shit covered with some facts to validate his ideas and assertions.

THe older I get the more I realize that things are never all that cut and dry.

[kendoiwan]

You obviously haven't read many of this board's old threads.
:blush: guilty as charged...

[cjs55]

Things are never cut and dry for individuals, but are often more cut and dry on generalizations of large populations. The same concept behind surveys applies to population analysis and generalizations of violence rates/lots of other stuff

The older I get, many of the things I thought were nebulous become more and more cut and dry. And many of the things I thought were cut and dry become nebulous.

[cjs55]

Isn’t the more important question “Why are blacks a larger proportion?”

One should recognize that black ancestors were unwilling immigrants to america thanks to the abhorrent practice of slavery. This could explain much of why their descendents as a subculture have not bought into the rules of american society as much as other immigrants have.

Of course this assumes that genetics causes more impact down the line than any liberal will ever admit, regardless of any evidence put before them.

[eyebyte_atWork]

One should recognize that black ancestors were unwilling immigrants to america thanks to the abhorrent practice of slavery. This could explain much of why their descendents as a subculture have not bought into the rules of american society as much as other immigrants have.

Of course this assumes that genetics causes more impact down the line than any liberal will ever admit, regardless of any evidence put before them.

Or maybe its because they have been stripped of their culture, language , and religion - then anytime a group of them has shown to have any power whether it be monetary or potential man power - they were executed. This is true in the case where slave owners mixed slaves of differing languages to force them to not speak in anything other than english - A few from the congo are learned spanish from when spain had trade there - these slaves organized and led a somewhat successful revolution - they killed their white masters. They city was outraged and in turn executed them all. Slaves learn to keep secrets in very ingenius ways - those old religious hymns they would sing were not really religious - but were stego codes for escape routes in the under ground rail road.

Black people have a hard time being assimulated because the rest of the population has a hard time accepting them - and thus all the benefits of acceptance. For instance... My ex moved to an all white town. She bought a house for a great discount even though she did not know the previous owner before the interaction. I doubt this would have happened if she were black.

My brother is black and I see how people react to him - and he's the nice one. (My baby brother)

I just don;t buy the narrow minded thinking that means that black are in bad shape because they create the situation. I don;t - sorry - and the genetic arguements are worse.

[Claverhouse]

there's a good book by Thomas Sowell cant remember the name..but he traces black ghetto culture back to the British Isles from which white American Southerners immigrated in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They brought what's now the basis of the 'redneck' culture and it eventually became the African American heritage. (although most everyone has abandoned it...it still exists among the poorest and least educated blacks..and among some white trailer trash, obviously)
Anyways, liberals like to say the violence in black ghettos stems from racism...but racism was a result of slavery, not a cause of it...and the destructive culture was there from the first point the south was settled. Racism still exists to the extent it does today because the culture still exists.

Dunno, back in the 17th century I had occasional need to visit Alsatia and other rookeries to hunt down crafty roundhead vermin who had secreted themselves in these sanctuaries: London was as full of bestial mobs as any other capital at any time, but I never heard anything resembling hip-hop.

Anyway, I'd have thought racialism was a cause of slavery: admittedly, a/ there were just as many white slaves --- apart from the usual condition of the underclass in Europe ( same as anywhere to be exact ), with the Barbaries sweeping as far as Cornwall let alone Italy to raid for slaves and our governments shipping off convicts to the Jamaicas; and b/ the black slaves were already slaves before their black superiors sold them on; but the reason European traders bought slaves from Africa ( with the acceptance of their governing powers ) and couldn't justify trading fellow christians as slaves, would have been at least part racialist. The fact they looked different made it more acceptable; just as the fact that other mammals are different to humans justifies the hideous tortures they are put through for the supposed benefits of humans. Anyone who's different deserves what's coming to them: they shouldn't be different.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[eyebyte_atWork]

Dunno, back in the 17th century I had occasional need to visit Alsatia and other rookeries to hunt down crafty roundhead vermin who had secreted themselves in these sanctuaries: London was as full of bestial mobs as any other capital at any time, but I never heard anything resembling hip-hop.

Anyway, I'd have thought racialism was a cause of slavery: admittedly, a/ there were just as many white slaves --- apart from the usual condition of the underclass in Europe ( same as anywhere to be exact ), with the Barbaries sweeping as far as Cornwall let alone Italy to raid for slaves and our governments shipping off convicts to the Jamaicas; and b/ the black slaves were already slaves before their black superiors sold them on; but the reason European traders bought slaves from Africa ( with the acceptance of their governing powers ) and couldn't justify trading fellow christians as slaves, would have been at least part racialist. The fact they looked different made it more acceptable; just as the fact that other mammals are different to humans justifies the hideous tortures they are put through for the supposed benefits of humans. Anyone who's different deserves what's coming to them: they shouldn't be different.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


Jews were slaves too. (Granted a much longer time ago)

[cjs55]

Or maybe its because they have been stripped of their culture, language , and religion

Interesting as America is often described as a melting-pot homogenization of culture, this shouldn't be necessarily detrimental. But in fact there is certainly a african-american culture today, and probably more so than a 'white' american culture (culture being the key word), so I don't see what this has to do with anything.



My brother is black and I see how people react to him - and he's the nice one. (My baby brother)

Of course generalizations can be incorrect on an individual basis, but most generalizations arise out of patterns.

Why aren't asians feared/shunned if america is so racist?




Black people have a hard time being assimulated because the rest of the population has a hard time accepting them - and thus all the benefits of acceptance.

Interesting, there are a few black people that go to my school that have been eagerly assimilated in the name of diversity (if you didn't catch the irony here, please read this sentence again). There are a few that have not. There's a difference between the two and it can have nothing to do with racism. I think it has more to do with the black subculture, that I would guess even kendoiwan would admit is opposed to/at the very least quite different from the dominant ruleset of american society. Why this subculture exists is the main issue, because if continues to do so assimilation would never be possible.

But maybe, assimilation and conformity of all groups isn't the greatest idea to begin with. (this is to deny the basis of america, so I wouldn't tread here lightly)


Oh, and of course the genetic theories are worse. Who would ever question such a self-evident god given truth.

[Claverhouse]

Jews were slaves too. (Granted a much longer time ago)
I'm not sure what that has to do with it: most people's ancestors will have been slaves, either from the Ancient period in Europe, or the Middle East and Africa at all times, or in China and the Far East. And in the Middle East and Africa they still have slaves, owned ones apart from the credit-slavery ( you owe your boss and never ever can get out of the debt ) there and in South America and other places.

Still, the jews at least didn't let it get in the way of appreciating the positive sides of slavery, first of all they acted as agents and middle-men for the muslim slave trade, and then performed the same office for the christians. They even made good slave-ship captains themselves: much of the Old South's internal trade was dominated by those of the jewish faith for the same reasons they get to dominate any trading activity: because they're damn good at trading. And of course the christians benefited, which gives an interesting slant on the phrase 'Judeo-Christian Ethics'.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[eyebyte_atWork]

Interesting as America is often described as a melting-pot homogenization of culture, this shouldn't be necessarily detrimental. But in fact there is certainly a african-american culture today, and probably more so than a 'white' american culture (culture being the key word), so I don't see what this has to do with anything.

Some say it more of a salad bowl than a melting pot


Of course generalizations can be incorrect on an individual basis, but most generalizations arise out of patterns.

Why aren't asians feared/shunned if america is so racist?


Maybe because the total lack of force bring them here in chains. Maybe it is because they are more easily accepted. or Maybe dark skinned races are harder to accept by whites.





Interesting, there are a few black people that go to my school that have been eagerly assimilated in the name of diversity (if you didn't catch the irony here, please read this sentence again). There are a few that have not. There's a difference between the two and it can have nothing to do with racism. I think it has more to do with the black subculture, that I would guess even kendoiwan would admit is opposed to/at the very least quite different from the dominant ruleset of american society. Why this subculture exists is the main issue, because if continues to do so assimilation would never be possible.


Maybe because traditionally whites have not been nice to blacks?? call me crazy.



But maybe, assimilation and conformity of all groups isn't the greatest idea to begin with. (this is to deny the basis of america, so I wouldn't tread here lightly)


Evolutionary patterns suggest this assimilation to be the best course. But evolution does not happen over night. and those who resist are indicative of that. THere is a whole new generation of mixed children who will be desicion makers in the future - My NT nephew comes to mind





Oh, and of course the genetic theories are worse. Who would ever question such a self-evident god given truth.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean? I hope you're not suggesting that there is genetic proof supporting one race's station in society over another - I have never seen actual proof of this - though I have seen proof that everyone comes from the same genetic strain - from Africa.

[Claverhouse]

though I have seen proof that everyone comes from the same genetic strain - from Africa.
You have seen proof of this ? Golly. Real actual proof. Congratulations.


Actually though --- although it wouldn't reflect the faintest credit on present-day Africans that the human race 'began' there ( particularly as they can't run anywhere from the Congo southwards very well ) --- some people favour other sites as candidates for the birthplace(s) ( multi-regional ), including the Middle East, Java & China. The Chinese sometimes advocate the latter.

Strangely all the do-gooding one-worlders who urge the mixing up and disappearance of individual races never quite explain how the Chinese millions are going to mate with the African millions: let alone the Japs or the jews.

It's against the law for jews in Israel to marry gentiles: for some reason nazis were hanged for passing laws preventing jews from marrying gentiles, which laws the jews actually approved of, since they like to keep their race pure. Or as pure as possible.

Perhaps you could run a campaign to persuade jewish parents to encourage their children to marry Schwarzes. Both jews and blacks have an especial regard for each other in old New York.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[PenguinHunter]

some people favour other sites as candidates for the birthplace(s) ( multi-regional ), including the Middle East, Java & China. The Chinese sometimes advocate the latter.


psshhh! Silly Chinese. God made America first!

[eyebyte_atWork]

You have seen proof of this ? Golly. Real actual proof. Congratulations.



If you can;t argu a point - attack the evidence - like in the OJ Simpson trail.


Actually though --- although it wouldn't reflect the faintest credit on present-day Africans that the human race 'began' there ( particularly as they can't run anywhere from the Congo southwards very well ) --- some people favour other sites as candidates for the birthplace(s) ( multi-regional ), including the Middle East, Java & China. The Chinese sometimes advocate the latter.





Have you read anything recent? I mean from a currently credible source?



Strangely all the do-gooding one-worlders who urge the mixing up and disappearance of individual races never quite explain how the Chinese millions are going to mate with the African millions: let alone the Japs or the jews.

It's against the law for jews in Israel to marry gentiles: for some reason nazis were hanged for passing laws preventing jews from marrying gentiles, which laws the jews actually approved of, since they like to keep their race pure. Or as pure as possible.

Perhaps you could run a campaign to persuade jewish parents to encourage their children to marry Schwarzes. Both jews and blacks have an especial regard for each other in old New York.

Claverhouse :ph34r:

Some of the last leftovers of the older ways of thinking - Yes religious groups encourage separation - like in the old days where this insured survival of their culture. Woody Allen put it best- "Religion tells you who to hate"

With globalization - this will lessen. A one world government with a global inforcement of separation of church and state would solve most issues as religion mixed with government usually leads to genocides.

We are not yet ready but are starting to show sign's of mankinds next steps


btw - Thanks for sparring with me Claverhouse

[eyebyte_atWork]

psshhh! Silly Chinese. God made America first!


Did he shed his grace or shit on grace? - and who's thee?

[mgb]

Why aren't asians feared/shunned if america is so racist?



Ever heard of Japanese internment camp?

Hey, who built the railroads and how were they treated after?

You are nuts if you think Asians aren't treated differently than whites treat each other. There are just as many stereotypes about Asians as any other non-white race in America.

[Serotonin]

Anyone who's different deserves what's coming to them: they shouldn't be different.


Guess INTPs will have to resign themselves to this too.

:mellow:

Roe vs. Wade definitely did have an indirect effect on the lowering of the crime rate in the U.S in the 1990s. But the effect was that poor women could get abortions and not produce crime-committing offspring. Bringing race into the equation only dilutes the message further.

[SgtWalrus]

Roe vs. Wade definitely did have an indirect effect on the lowering of the crime rate in the U.S in the 1990s. But the effect was that poor women could get abortions and not produce crime-committing offspring. Bringing race into the equation only dilutes the message further.

Exactly. It's economics rather than race. To state that blacks = crime, as Bennett suggested, would infer that there would be some genetic predisposition to such behavior. Facts dispute this. African-Americans born to middle class, and upper class families tend to lead more productive lives (as they have access to better schools, health care, etc.). And poor whites (the ones stereotyped as 'trailer trash') have higher crime rates, and lead less productive lives.

The fact that gives bigots like Bennett fuel is simply that blacks are disproportionately poor, due to a history of segregation and other factors. If you've been watching TV lately, you've seen the blacks in my area, and you would also note that they are all in poverty. Hence New Orleans' high crime rate. The city was an urban housing disaster, with high concentrations of the poor in small areas. These 'pockets of poverty' were pressure cookers for crime, where the poor often had to turn to the 'alternative economy' of the drug trade to replace the lack of real jobs.


I think it has more to do with the black subculture, that I would guess even kendoiwan would admit is opposed to/at the very least quite different from the dominant ruleset of american society. Why this subculture exists is the main issue, because if continues to do so assimilation would never be possible.

This subculture is usually borne out of the ghetto, as poor blacks are often insulated from the rest of American society. As more blacks enter the middle class (i.e. mainstream American society), they tend to leave the more extreme elements of this subculture behind. Yet the dialect, slang etc. are products of a unique cultural heritage, and I don't believe that they have to be completely sacrificed to American homogeny. Most minorities in business fields, etc. can do a 'mode shift' between their cultural dialect and whatever vernacular used.

[cjs55]

Ever heard of Japanese internment camp?

Hey, who built the railroads and how were they treated after?

You are nuts if you think Asians aren't treated differently than whites treat each other. There are just as many stereotypes about Asians as any other non-white race in America.

And so why are asians not failing in american society if they are equally prejudiced against as blacks? You're playing for the wrong team on this one mgbradsh.




Exactly. It's economics rather than race. To state that blacks = crime, as Bennett suggested, would infer that there would be some genetic predisposition to such behavior. Facts dispute this. African-Americans born to middle class, and upper class families tend to lead more productive lives (as they have access to better schools, health care, etc.). And poor whites (the ones stereotyped as 'trailer trash') have higher crime rates, and lead less productive lives.

The black rate of violence even when correcting for poverty rates is still higher than average. Certainly there is a coorelation between povery and crime, however there is also a seperate coorelation between race and crime.



Facts dispute this.

What facts would these be?

[cjs55]

Evolutionary patterns suggest this assimilation to be the best course. But evolution does not happen over night. and those who resist are indicative of that. THere is a whole new generation of mixed children who will be desicion makers in the future - My NT nephew comes to mind

I don't see why assimilation would be the best course necessarily. Evolution is adaptation to environment. The natural course of evolution is one that relies on geography, but human beings dicatate their own evolution through ideological imperatives due to our reliance on our own society, not nature. So you are stating basically that assimilation is the best course, and races should be abolished because due to globalization the same skills will be needed by all individuals?

If one were to average out the environment through globalization and thus homogenize the human population, certainly the resulting lack of difference and excellence in any particular culture/language/skills would be somewhat disheartening? Do you really find this world that we have created in America to be all that amazing that you wish to perpetuate it across the globe?



What the fuck is that supposed to mean? I hope you're not suggesting that there is genetic proof supporting one race's station in society over another - I have never seen actual proof of this - though I have seen proof that everyone comes from the same genetic strain - from Africa.

Basic evolutionary theory dictates that genetics will determine subspecial superiority in various situations (differences which are originally based on what environment that subspecies came from). If you have read darwin and buy into modern evolutionary theory there is no possible way you could deny this.

One of the most basic concepts in anthroplogy is the biocultural approach: That is, biology allows culture to initially happen. And does continually influence it's existence. Of course, this goes both ways...

but biology always creates culture to begin with, which is a very important thing to understand. When tracing various cultures, many of the differences can be related to their adaptation to their environment. (Although not european culture particularly due to their christian/humanistic seperation of human from nature.)

[Claverhouse]

Facts dispute this What facts would these be? Facts are those subjective things believed in by a person which support their beliefs. Any evidence against those beliefs are anti-facts.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Vagabond]

So I guess it is all in their genes, right? Hmm. Perhaps the darker the skin/hair colour, the stronger the criminal-gene. I can live with that. Watch out blondies, I just might slit your throat and I have just been given the perfect excuse to do so.

You people really can't see how this makes no sense, can you.

[mgb]

And so why are asians not failing in american society if they are equally prejudiced against as blacks? You're playing for the wrong team on this one mgbradsh.


I really don't understand "what team" you are refering to.

There are probably several reasons asians are "not failing" (whatever the hell that means) in American society. Each of them probably points to doing things successfully despite how they are treated. Your correlation is way out of whack.

[Claverhouse]

So I guess it is all in their genes, right? Hmm. Perhaps the darker the skin/hair colour, the stronger the criminal-gene. I can live with that. Watch out blondies, I just might slit your throat and I have just been given the perfect excuse to do so.

You people really can't see how this makes no sense, can you.
http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/ssgs0155.jpg


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Vagabond]

Oh okay. Now you make sense ;P

[Imen de Naars]

So I guess it is all in their genes, right? Hmm. Perhaps the darker the skin/hair colour, the stronger the criminal-gene. I can live with that. Watch out blondies, I just might slit your throat and I have just been given the perfect excuse to do so.

You people really can't see how this makes no sense, can you.


I've always tought that the higher testosterone level - on average - of blacks could be a cause of an higher attitude to violent behaviour in comparison to whites.

But it could very well be that the black brain is adapted to these higher levels.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I've always tought that the higher testosterone level - on average - of blacks could be a cause of an higher attitude to violent behaviour in comparison to whites.

But it could very well be that the black brain is adapted to these higher levels.


Looking for a genetic reason is a good way of absolving the behavioral/societal causes for any obtrusive behavior - especially of the finger might point back at you or what you may consider your group. Personally - I do believe and INTX person should feel more related to other INTX's - instead to people with similar pigmintation.

[Claverhouse]

Looking for a genetic reason is a good way of absolving the behavioral/societal causes for any obtrusive behavior
Or possibly vice versa...

Dear old Nature versus Nurture... What would we do without it ?



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[eyebyte_atWork]

Ever heard of Japanese internment camp?

Hey, who built the railroads and how were they treated after?

You are nuts if you think Asians aren't treated differently than whites treat each other. There are just as many stereotypes about Asians as any other non-white race in America.

word.

I would also like to add one .... um... well something I have noticed... people of other races are readily accepted by the mainstream white populace if they can demonstrate a submissive tone. WHere ever I have worked - any black person on board could never be accused of being an Alpha male - which has a side effect on their ability to get promotions - but at least they can get their foot in the door - and aggressive black man will most likely be seen as a threat and contra-indicative to the general work environment. This is why they do a face to face - to see if the team would "gel well".

Genetics has nothing to do with it -

But there is one thing I have not heard anyone elude to here... that is that biological evolution has taken a back seat to cultural evolution - that is the society has more of an effect on people than their genes. Want one example.... white people (people of European descent) may be able to argue that they are on top of the food chain globally because genetics has lead to this situation - they may sight many examples. THey would be missing a great deal of information that tears apart this arguement. They would fail to recognize that arabic cultures were the best mathematicians and crytpo analyst when europeans were only starting to learn the basic in these disciplines (they were able to crack even the best european cryptologist product). I could go on... but I think I will be speaking to the wind - and I do not want to be the next Ghandi. For if it was up to me - I'd pull a marvin martian and blow the earth up.

What I am trying to say is - sure there are genetic difference between people - but not enough to give a sifficient advantage to one group - this much has been proven by the study of Ape DNA. Cultural difference play a much larger part in today's problems - and thus - people can change the outcome.

Peace motha fuckas.

[Jacque]

What a Democrat would've said:

If you educate all American babies, the crime rate will go down

If you provide health care for all American babies, the crime rate will go down

If you provide adequate shelter for all American babies, the crime rate will go down

If you provide child care for all American babies, the crime rate will go down

If you provide safe food for all American babies, the corporate crime rate will have to go down

If you provide safe medicine for all American babies, the corporate crime rate will have to go down

If you provide safe water for all American babies, the corporate crime rate will have to go down

If you provide safe air for all American babies, the corporate crime rate will have to go down

[eyebyte_atWork]

What a Democrat would've said:

If you educate all American babies, the crime rate will go down

If you provide health care for all American babies, the crime rate will go down

If you provide adequate shelter for all American babies, the crime rate will go down

If you provide child care for all American babies, the crime rate will go down

If you provide safe food for all American babies, the corporate crime rate will have to go down

If you provide safe medicine for all American babies, the corporate crime rate will have to go down

If you provide safe water for all American babies, the corporate crime rate will have to go down

If you provide safe air for all American babies, the corporate crime rate will have to go down


Politicians say a lot of stupid crap. - You should never pay too much attention to the ranting of special interest puppets.

Note _ I am not attcking you - I am just saying that those are nothing more than tag lines - and should be treated as such.

[Jacque]

Yeah, but he was the Education Secretary and he couldn't even think of the first one.

[Claverhouse]

THey would be missing a great deal of information that tears apart this arguement. They would fail to recognize that arabic cultures were the best mathematicians and crytpo analyst when europeans were only starting to learn the basic in these disciplines (they were able to crack even the best european cryptologist product). If the europeans were so poor at maths, at the same time as they were building Chartres cathedral and Ockham...


considered (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/Mathematicians/Ockham.html) a three valued logic where propositions can take one of three truth values. This became important for mathematics in the 20th century but it is remarkable that it was first studied by Ockham 600 years earlier. He also came very close to stating De Morgan (http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/%7Ehistory/Mathematicians/De_Morgan.html)'s laws. In the Summa logicae Ockham defines a conjunctive proposition as a composite of two or more categorical propositions joined by 'and'. Similarly he defines a disjunctive proposition as a composite of two or more categorical propositions joined by 'or'. A conjunctive is true if and only if every conjunct is true and a disjunctive is true if and only if some disjunct is true. Ockham notes that a conjunctive implies, but is not necessarily implied by, each conjunct separately. He explicitly adds that if one conjunct implies the others it implies the whole conjunctive. Similarly, he notes that a disjunctive is implied by, but does not necessarily imply, each disjunct and that a disjunctive together with a negation of one of its disjuncts implies the disjunctive of the rest. He also notes that the contradictory of the conjunctive is the disjunctive of the contradictories of the conjuncts. He also states a similar statement for the contradictory of the disjunctive, with the obvious changes. then Arabs breaking their cyphers wasn't that big a deal.

and, er, in addition to not understanding the above, I don't understand this either:

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/hmk_medieval004.png

Anyway, although most european academics give far too much credit to the Arabic contribution through preserving Egyptian/Greek work, others suggest that they did little themselves,


The “Islamic scholars” (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/007439.php) who translated “ancient Greece’s natural philosophy” were a curious group of Muslims, since all or almost all of the translators from Greek to Arabic were Christians or Jews, as were the translators from Arabic to Latin. Consider the astonishing statement of Bernard Lewis in The Muslim Discovery of Europe:
We know of no Muslim scholar or man of letters before the eighteenth century who sought to learn a western language, still less of any attempt to produce grammars, dictionaries, or other language tools. Translations are few and far between. Those that are known are works chosen for practical purposes [philosophy being considered a practical discipline] and the translations are made by converts [who knew western languages before conversion] or non-Muslims.According to Franz Rosenthal in The Classical Heritage in Islam,

“Almost all of the translators [from Greek into Syriac or Hebrew or from Greek, Syriac, or Hebrew into Arabic] were Christians.”One possible exception is Masarjawaih, who may have been a Jew. Another is Thabit b. Qurrah (ca. 834-901 A.D.), a “heathen” Sabian from Harran.

Similarly, “Aristoteles latinus” by Bernard Dod, a chapter of The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, provides a comprehensive list of medieval translations of Aristotle from Arabic into Latin, none by Islamic scholars—unless by “Islamic” one means “Christian or Jewish.”

But if Islamic scholars did not actually translate ancient Greece’s natural philosophy from Greek into Arabic and from Arabic into Latin, didn’t they at least preserve these works? Didn’t they rescue Plato and Aristotle from oblivion? They “ignited the Renaissance.” Didn’t they?

No, they did not. Plato did not make the long journey from Greek to Syriac or Hebrew to Arabic to Latin, and Western Europeans preferred [surprise!] translations of Aristotle directly from the Greek, which were not only superior but also more readily available.
And an Assyrian gentleman who upbraided the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, a Miss Fiorina ( disclaimer I'm am prejudiced against HP, since I have used a Compaq ) What Arab Civilisation ? (http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm) and claims that their science was based upon that of a superior race, the Assyrians to be exact.


Arabs and Muslims appeared on the world scene in 630 A.D., when the armies of Muhammad began their conquest of the Middle East. We should be very clear that this was a military conquest, not a missionary enterprise, and through the use of force, authorized by a declaration of a Jihad against infidels, Arabs/Muslims were able to forcibly convert and assimilate non-Arabs and non-Mulsims into their fold. Very few indigenous communities of the Middle East survived this -- primarily Assyrians, Jews, Armenians and Coptics (of Egypt). Having conquered the Middle East, Arabs placed these communities under a Dhimmi (see the book Dhimmi, by Bat Ye'Or) system of governance, where the communities were allowed to rule themselves as religious minorities (Christians, Jews and Zoroastrian). These communities had to pay a tax (called a Jizzya in Arabic) that was, in effect, a penalty for being non-Muslim, and that was typically 80% in times of tolerance and up to 150% in times of oppression. This tax forced many of these communities to convert to Islam, as it was designed to do.

You state, "its architects designed buildings that defied gravity." I am not sure what you are referring to, but if you are referring to domes and arches, the fundamental architectural breakthrough of using a parabolic shape instead of a spherical shape for these structures was made by the Assyrians more than 1300 years earlier, as evidenced by their archaeological record.

You state, "its mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers, and the creation of encryption." The fundamental basis of modern mathematics had been laid down not hundreds but thousands of years before by Assyrians and Babylonians, who already knew of the concept of zero, of the Pythagorean Theorem, and of many, many other developments expropriated by Arabs/Muslims (see History of Babylonian Mathematics, Neugebauer).

You state, "its doctors examined the human body, and found new cures for disease." The overwhelming majority of these doctors (99%) were Assyrians. In the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries Assyrians began a systematic translation of the Greek body of knowledge into Assyrian. At first they concentrated on the religious works but then quickly moved to science, philosophy and medicine. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Galen, and many others were translated into Assyrian, and from Assyrian into Arabic. It is these Arabic translations which the Moors brought with them into Spain, and which the Spaniards translated into Latin and spread throughout Europe, thus igniting the European Renaissance.

By the sixth century A.D., Assyrians had begun exporting back to Byzantia their own works on science, philosophy and medicine. In the field of medicine, the Bakhteesho Assyrian family produced nine generations of physicians, and founded the great medical school at Gundeshapur (Iran). Also in the area of medicine, (the Assyrian) Hunayn ibn-Ishaq's textbook on ophthalmology, written in 950 A.D., remained the authoritative source on the subject until 1800 A.D.

You state, "when other nations were afraid of ideas, this civilization thrived on them, and kept them alive. When censors threatened to wipe out knowledge from past civilizations, this civilization kept the knowledge alive, and passed it on to others." This is a very important issue you raise, and it goes to the heart of the matter of what Arab/Islamic civilization represents. I reviewed (http://www.aina.org/aol/peter/greek.htm) a book titled How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs, in which the author lists the significant translators and interpreters of Greek science. Of the 22 scholars listed, 20 were Assyrians, 1 was Persian and 1 an Arab. I state at the end of my review: "The salient conclusion which can be drawn from O'Leary's book is that Assyrians played a significant role in the shaping of the Islamic world via the Greek corpus of knowledge. If this is so, one must then ask the question, what happened to the Christian communities which made them lose this great intellectual enterprise which they had established. One can ask this same question of the Arabs. Sadly, O'Leary's book does not answer this question, and we must look elsewhere for the answer." I did not answer this question I posed in the review because it was not the place to answer it, but the answer is very clear, the Christian Assyrian community was drained of its population through forced conversion to Islam (by the Jizzya), and once the community had dwindled below a critical threshold, it ceased producing the scholars that were the intellectual driving force of the Islamic civilization, and that is when the so called "Golden Age of Islam" came to an end (about 850 A.D.).
Had you said for non-western math the Indians, or the jews, or perhaps even the Assyrians, I might agree.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Imen de Naars]

Looking for a genetic reason is a good way of absolving the behavioral/societal causes for any obtrusive behavior - especially of the finger might point back at you or what you may consider your group. Personally - I do believe and INTX person should feel more related to other INTX's - instead to people with similar pigmintation.

Mine was intented to be just a kind of "detached" supposition, it wasn't meant to be a real means to make the genetic background account for the behaviour etc.

I didn't even mentioned other causes; that is, my post was intended "all other things being equal"

[eyebyte_atWork]

Mine was intented to be just a kind of "detached" supposition, it wasn't meant to be a real means to make the genetic background account for the behaviour etc.

I didn't even mentioned other causes; that is, my post was intended "all other things being equal"

thats cool - someone cut me off yesterday - so I am taking it out on my cyber buddies :)

[eyebyte_atWork]

If the europeans were so poor at maths, at the same time as they were building Chartres cathedral and Ockham...
then Arabs breaking their cyphers wasn't that big a deal.

and, er, in addition to not understanding the above, I don't understand this either:

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/hmk_medieval004.png

Anyway, although most european academics give far too much credit to the Arabic contribution through preserving Egyptian/Greek work, others suggest that they did little themselves,


And an Assyrian gentleman who upbraided the CEO of Hewlett-Packard, a Miss Fiorina ( disclaimer I'm am prejudiced against HP, since I have used a Compaq ) What Arab Civilisation ? (http://www.ninevehsoft.com/fiorina.htm) and claims that their science was based upon that of a superior race, the Assyrians to be exact.



Had you said for non-western math the Indians, or the jews, or perhaps even the Assyrians, I might agree.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


Dude - I am honored that you found the time to look up a bunch of stuff off the internet to rebutt my assertions - I am really.

My point was not who did what in mathematics - it was that the arab world dominated once - because it was their time (from a cultural perspective - not genetic) as it is currently a western european (and it's derivatives -like the USA) turn to dominate. My point was that dominance as evidence of genetic superiority is baseless. Miss that one - didn't you. It's OK - I was that way once.

As for you cut and paste documentation presented...


If the europeans were so poor at maths, at the same time as they were building Chartres cathedral and Ockham...

Yeah - europeans built castles and cathedrals and all sorts of great buidlings - not to take away from their achievments because I do consider civil engineering practices to be the noblest - but today - many home buidler (not the companies but the actual people building homes) are usually very badly educated - so no big deal.



then Arabs breaking their cyphers wasn't that big a deal.


I am not sure you wanna tangle with me on this one - I do have a background in cryptography and what you stated here is more opinion than anything else... and In hind sight all previous cyphers are easy to break - even by elementary school children.



Had you said for non-western math the Indians, or the jews, or perhaps even the Assyrians, I might agree.


Details - Like I said - it wasn;t the point - My point again was (now I am using your research technique of cutting and pasting) ... My point was that dominance as evidence of genetic superiority is baseless.

I will add this - It is baseless because there is always some evidence that contradicts that assertion. I'll leave it to you to remember the names of people - You do that well. Still doesn;t change what I was saying.


I was going to elaborate a little more using the DNA evidence to draw some simple conclusions - but I'll wait to see what you have to say next.

Again - I like it when you spar - having taken martial arts since I was 13 (I am now 33) I love that feeling of a bloody nose - you know -to get me started. However - you;re going to have to draw actual conclusions from the evidence you present - not the other way around. Finding evidence to support you assertions is bad science - good science draws conclusions from evidence observed.

your turn - :)

btw - If you would like to talk about crypto - please PM me as I love this subject - and your country has my respect for what it did in WWII

[Claverhouse]

Dude - I am honored that you found the time to look up a bunch of stuff off the internet to rebutt my assertions - I am really. No trouble.


My point was not who did what in mathematics - it was that the arab world dominated once - because it was their time (from a cultural perspective - not genetic) as it is currently a western european (and it's derivatives -like the USA) turn to dominate. I'd rather think that it was a separate viewing of math, vide earlier posts quoting Oswald Spengler --- which I am not going to find, since math bores me rigid --- which determines a civilisation's worldview, rather than a pure chain of knowledge and alternate dominance by an array of cultures.

My point was that the Arabic contribution, as distinct from their preservation of previous knowledge from other cultures, such as the Indian and Greek, was overrated. Something to do with the Koran containing all that is needful, just as some christians applying the same thing to the jewish testaments. ( Which are not only overrated, but often make little sense. )


My point was that dominance as evidence of genetic superiority is baseless. Miss that one - didn't you. It's OK - I was that way once. Not really, since it was the basis of your entire post. And it still remains as your subjective assertion.


As for you cut and paste documentation presented... Yeah - europeans built castles and cathedrals and all sorts of great buidlings - not to take away from their achievments because I do consider civil engineering practices to be the noblest - but today - many home buidler (not the companies but the actual people building homes) are usually very badly educated - so no big deal. Don't leave it there. Let's be truthful, most professional builders are very close to morons, and the companies may be intelligent, but are greedy bastards whose practices are often criminal ( In GB they use breeze-block a sort of light concrete brick, and then put regular brick on top ). I doubt though if Abbot Suger was a thickie.


I am not sure you wanna tangle with me on this one - I do have a background in cryptography and what you stated here is more opinion than anything else... and In hind sight all previous cyphers are easy to break - even by elementary school children. No. You stated a/ the Europeans weren't that bright. b/ the Arabs, surpassing them at math, could break any of their cyphers. Ergo: to break the cyphers of people who aren't very good at math is no great achievement.


Details - Like I said - it wasn;t the point - My point again was (now I am using your research technique of cutting and pasting) ... My point was that dominance as evidence of genetic superiority is baseless. How else do you offer evidence over the internet except by cutting and pasting ? Other than telepathy.


I will add this - It is baseless because there is always some evidence that contradicts that assertion. I'll leave it to you to remember the names of people - You do that well. Still doesn;t change what I was saying. There is always evidence to support any assertion. See my post above on 'facts'.


I was going to elaborate a little more using the DNA evidence to draw some simple conclusions - but I'll wait to see what you have to say next. About what ?


Again - I like it when you spar - having taken martial arts since I was 13 (I am now 33) I love that feeling of a bloody nose - you know -to get me started. However - you;re going to have to draw actual conclusions from the evidence you present - not the other way around. Finding evidence to support you assertions is bad science - good science draws conclusions from evidence observed. I haven't actually made any assertions, merely commented. How do you draw conclusions from observed evidence on an internet forum ? People come here with their views and back-up what they say. As Dman puts it somewhere recently: no one says 'I was wrong', and confesses themselves changed people.

And drawing conclusions from the evidence you present ? That means no more than choosing evidence and then expounding on those of your beliefs you suggest it proves. Apart from which there is a multitude of --- usually conflicting --- evidence to choose from; which, ah, means, pre-selection of evidence.


btw - If you would like to talk about crypto - please PM me as I love this subject - and your country has my respect for what it did in WWII Thanks, but as said I am a dunce at math: even simple math. Yup, Bletchley was pretty good, and apart from the Red Army was the major cause of Allied victory in Europe; but the US had Purple... Did you see the last Navaho code-speaker died a week or so ago ? My hero Charles I was addicted to cyphers, but he was also addicted to chess. Not even my admiration can emulate his pleasures if I don't have the talents.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[tinribz]

I this, I that, blah blah blah...

Why do these threads always deteriate in to I'm cleverer than you.

Back to the debate, does anyone these days really think that there is any difference between newborn babies of all the races other than appearance? I'd like to hear their reasoning if they do.

Also, are you saying abortion is illegal in America?

[Claverhouse]

Also, are you saying abortion is illegal in America?
No, it's a growth industry since some famous decision saying go forth and not multiply ( Wade-Roe or something like that ). But about a third of Americans don't think it should be legal, or only sometimes legal.

And many non-Americans think it should be compulsory for both those Americans for and against.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[eyebyte_atWork]

I this, I that, blah blah blah...

Why do these threads always deteriate in to I'm cleverer than you.

Back to the debate, does anyone these days really think that there is any difference between newborn babies of all the races other than appearance? I'd like to hear their reasoning if they do.

Also, are you saying abortion is illegal in America?

I dunno - I was going to quit soon as I see that we (me and others here) prolly disagree a bit - but agree on other things.

I do enjoy these talks a little bit - and value the discourse too.


-EYEBYTE

[eyebyte_atWork]

No trouble.

I'd rather think that it was a separate viewing of math, vide earlier posts quoting Oswald Spengler --- which I am not going to find, since math bores me rigid --- which determines a civilisation's worldview, rather than a pure chain of knowledge and alternate dominance by an array of cultures.

My point was that the Arabic contribution, as distinct from their preservation of previous knowledge from other cultures, such as the Indian and Greek, was overrated. Something to do with the Koran containing all that is needful, just as some christians applying the same thing to the jewish testaments. ( Which are not only overrated, but often make little sense. )



I did not read the whole thing - but I got the jist of what you were saying - and I will state - that I won;t contest what facts you placed there - cause it has no bearing on my point - either way.




Not really, since it was the basis of your entire post. And it still remains as your subjective assertion.



All opinion and hypothesis are subjective - ofcourse mine is backed and inspired by data - and I actually do hesitate to discuss things outside of my area of comfort.




Don't leave it there. Let's be truthful, most professional builders are very close to morons, and the companies may be intelligent, but are greedy bastards whose practices are often criminal ( In GB they use breeze-block a sort of light concrete brick, and then put regular brick on top ). I doubt though if Abbot Suger was a thickie.



Hey - I was being nice...

I did hear about that light concrete stuff - ofcourse I heard nothing but positive things - please gimmie more info on this as I have never actaully seen it used.




No. You stated a/ the Europeans weren't that bright. b/ the Arabs, surpassing them at math, could break any of their cyphers. Ergo: to break the cyphers of people who aren't very good at math is no great achievement.



Not quite what I said - and sorry if I gave that impression - what I meant to convey was that many believe that Europeans and their descendants are superior due to genetics - I was providing a fly in the ointment. Thats all
- I am from euro-descent myself.

I never meant to imply that that europeans are not bright - that would contradict what I was trying to get across. I was simply providing logical evidence that the genetic argument has holes in it. Many civilization have had their hey days - the US too will fall in time and give way for another civilization to rule as top dog.





How else do you offer evidence over the internet except by cutting and pasting ? Other than telepathy.



Ha ha ha.... that was a good one.

I meant that I read these subject before - a long time ago in fact. I didn't have to look them up.




There is always evidence to support any assertion. See my post above on 'facts'.

About what ?

I haven't actually made any assertions, merely commented. How do you draw conclusions from observed evidence on an internet forum ? People come here with their views and back-up what they say. As Dman puts it somewhere recently: no one says 'I was wrong', and confesses themselves changed people.



Valid point - Though I m pretty sure about things before I talk about them _ i will state that if I am wrong I will admit it. But I am not. :)




And drawing conclusions from the evidence you present ? That means no more than choosing evidence and then expounding on those of your beliefs you suggest it proves. Apart from which there is a multitude of --- usually conflicting --- evidence to choose from; which, ah, means, pre-selection of evidence.



Not what I said -

First you observe - then you deduce.
NOT Choose what to observe so that you may deduce.






Thanks, but as said I am a dunce at math: even simple math. Yup, Bletchley was pretty good, and apart from the Red Army was the major cause of Allied victory in Europe; but the US had Purple... Did you see the last Navaho code-speaker died a week or so ago ? My hero Charles I was addicted to cyphers, but he was also addicted to chess. Not even my admiration can emulate his pleasures if I don't have the talents.


Claverhouse :ph34r:


You and I admire similar minds -

Peace.

[cjs55]

I was simply providing logical evidence that the genetic argument has holes in it.

To say that one race is objectively better than another is of course foolish and impossible. To state however that races are different in significant ways is an evolutionary inevitability.

And I personally argue based on conceptual logic first. Only if there is a large amount of oppositional data from a variety of sources will I change my entire worldview. This is why I try to steer conversations away from singular examples of 'facts' and more into conceptual frameworks that may be backed up on a large scale of potentially correct observations about the world around us (the one I would like to steer this one towards is human evolution).

[eyebyte_atWork]

To say that one race is objectively better than another is of course foolish and impossible. To state however that races are different in significant ways is an evolutionary inevitability.

And I personally argue based on conceptual logic first. Only if there is a large amount of oppositional data from a variety of sources will I change my entire worldview. This is why I try to steer conversations away from singular examples of 'facts' and more into conceptual frameworks that may be backed up on a large scale of potentially correct observations about the world around us (the one I would like to steer this one towards is human evolution).

I agree with everything you have said and add that I would steer it towards cultural evolution.

[cjs55]

What I am trying to say is - sure there are genetic difference between people - but not enough to give a sifficient advantage to one group - this much has been proven by the study of Ape DNA.

First off, as far as I know this hasn't been 'proven' by any study of ape DNA, and I would like for you to back up this claim with the actual study you are referring to.

Second off would you really say that a group of subsaharan africans would do as well in the northern canadian region as eskimos? There are only 2 logical viewpoints here that I can see being held: 1) Human beings adapted to their environment and evolved like every other species. Because they are spread out across the world, they are different strengths in different geographical settings.

Or, 2) Humans are not a part of nature (the christian/humanistic view).

-----

Yes cultural evolution is a significant factor. But most of the time the creation of this culture itself was based on genetics. This means that in many societies the dominant group is uniformly of one race, (the race which created the society). This culture will value that which the race is good at, meaning that it's tough for minorities to do well in any culture other than their own. America is somewhat of an anomoly here, but there are various peoples that ingrained themselves early enough in it's cultural formation to still accord to my framework here.

Lastly, I currently think that racial strife is a natural thing that cannot be removed without removing races entirely. This is because in order for races/subraces to preserve themselves over the longhaul they usually are fairly xenophobic. Any race that isn't xenophobic will usually merge into another one, until they stop merging. Thus the established races in the world today are mostly xenophobic because it was necessary to their continued existence. This is somewhat proven in worldwide racial conflict (it's never just been an American problem), and also the fairly low racial mixing rates in even fairly integrated societies.

Finally again, the argument here in concern with globalism as cultural evolution is do you wish for a diverse world or a boring one? You won't make an uber-race by mixing everyone together: You'll make a bland one. Note I speak here on more of a large-scale level: A small amount of mixing will always occur and does not 'destroy' any race, nor are the individuals of such relationships necessarily any worse off. I am not making any individualistic arguments here (and indeed, I never would in this matter). If the preference for ones own race was totally eradicated however, this would lead to the destruction of race. Something liberals would seem to prefer to maintain their cultural...diversity?

If that's what you want, we can't really argue about it. I personally am very opposed to it.

[cjs55]

I really don't understand "what team" you are refering to.

There are probably several reasons asians are "not failing" (whatever the hell that means) in American society. Each of them probably points to doing things successfully despite how they are treated. Your correlation is way out of whack.
Reply With Quote

1) The team you are siding with is my own, that is the anti-liberal stance. I'll explain this further at #3.

2) Failure in a society is determined by the mainstream culture of society. I am also a failure by societies standards (due to my opposition to both the capatalistic progression and the liberal progression, the two seperate camps of value in America currently), however less a failure than someone who commits violent crime.

3) By pointing out that asians have succeeded on average despite discrimination you lead me to ask the question: Why haven't black people on average succeded despite discrimination? You did a great job of pointing out the horrible conditions that railroad workers were in, as well as those in internment camps. )

So why did asians succeed after such discrimination?

(You also pointed out that the majority race almost always discriminates against the minority race, so its not just a american white vs. black thing)

[cjs55]

So I guess it is all in their genes, right? Hmm. Perhaps the darker the skin/hair colour, the stronger the criminal-gene. I can live with that. Watch out blondies, I just might slit your throat and I have just been given the perfect excuse to do so.

You people really can't see how this makes no sense, can you.

Paint in broad extremist strokes and use sensationalism to invalidate any opposition to ones own ideals. Sounds like propaganda to me!

[Imen de Naars]

Finally again, the argument here in concern with globalism as cultural evolution is do you wish for a diverse world or a boring one? You won't make an uber-race by mixing everyone together: You'll make a bland one. .

Mixing does not necessarily mean a lower level of entropy, speaking of complex organisms as humans, since there is no definite distinction between the entropy-level of the aggregate of the asians and the aggregate of hispanic-black crossing - both unlikely to happen from a systemic point of view.


This is just an idea I had now, it could be totally incorrect.

[mgb]

1) The team you are siding with is my own, that is the anti-liberal stance. I'll explain this further at #3.

2) Failure in a society is determined by the mainstream culture of society. I am also a failure by societies standards (due to my opposition to both the capatalistic progression and the liberal progression, the two seperate camps of value in America currently), however less a failure than someone who commits violent crime.

3) By pointing out that asians have succeeded on average despite discrimination you lead me to ask the question: Why haven't black people on average succeded despite discrimination? You did a great job of pointing out the horrible conditions that railroad workers were in, as well as those in internment camps. )

So why did asians succeed after such discrimination?

(You also pointed out that the majority race almost always discriminates against the minority race, so its not just a american white vs. black thing)


I don't see how you come to conclusion one at all. I'm saying that racism is abhorent no matter whom it happens to and you are saying it's a natural result.

As for your second conclusion, your methodology is oversimplified. You've gone back to slavery and then made a quantum leap to the present, without examining any of the social and cultural factors that have gotten us to the present. In essence, you are calling blacks failures without wondering if maybe the system has ever failed them. As supporting evidence you call upon another racial group which you deem to have "made it" as evidence of a lack of racism in a America and conclude that it must have something to do with some sort of general malaise on the part of African Americans. What began this conversation was me saying that Asians in America have been treated just as poorly over time. What I didn't say was their history in America has been extremely different which, if examined more closely, may explain why under your umbrella, they seem to have made it.

I didn't point out that Asians have succeeded "on average" (I'd like to see those stats) and black people haven't, you did, on post 24. And again, you misread my comments about Asians being mistreated. It wasn't to show how they've risen up against all odds because they are genetically superior, it was to show that you live in a pretty mother fucking racist country that treats anyone who is a little bit different with the utmost contempt. With that in mind, I really start to wonder who is truly genetically inferior, I mean, if that's the case.

[cjs55]

As I pointed out earlier, I think that races are inherently somewhat racist (or at least more predisposed to sticking to themselves) in order for them to exist at all today (which could be argued against I suppose, but I don't really have the patience for another pbs.org style expose which is totally myopic). I don't necessarily think that they have to be evil towards each other though, and mistreat one another. I think these are grievous offenses. I do think that conflict sometimes is inevitable when races are competing for the same resources. And I know that you don't think in terms of being of some sort of caucosoid race in reference to your world. But I guarantee you african-americans often think in those terms, as well as asian-americans, as well as jewish people. (not all of course, but many)



It wasn't to show how they've risen up against all odds because they are genetically superior, it was to show that you live in a pretty mother fucking racist country that treats anyone who is a little bit different with the utmost contempt.


No doubt this has been the case with many people, but certainly things have changed somewhat at least. Because, at least by American standards of success, one or two minority groups are doing extremely well. And finally, I don't see much proof of racism in the system today. Obviously it existed in the past, but is it still existing today? For instance, the amount of white on black crime is quite low (lower than black on white crime). Unless of course if the entire system is amazingly biased in some sort of racist consipracy involving individuals who don't seem to exist except in the imagination.

I know what you wanted to show. But again, if America is so racist as to turn minorities violently against it and discriminates against them so they cannot succeed, why do Asians currently have the highest median wage and the lowest crime rate in the U.S?

(to be totally accurate, Asians are more spread out economically, with both more people earning over 75k than whites but also more people earning under 25k than whites. This could possibly because of the lumping of many different cultures under the asian category)

Maybe it has to do that Asian culture is more similar to American culture than West African culture, resulting in Asians being more likely to 'fit in' over the long haul?

From the U.S. Census:
Black households had the lowest median income in 2004 ($30,134) among race groups. Asian households had the highest median income ($57,518). The median income for non-Hispanic white households was $48,977. Median income for Hispanic households was $34,241.

Asian-americans account for 3.6% of the U.S. population but 1.2% of the arrests.
Whites/Hispanics (which are for some reason in the same category in the crime report but not the census report) account for 82.6% of the population and 69.2% of the arrests.
African-americans account for 12.3% of the population and 29.3% of the arrests.

Obviously this isn't going into specific data about what sort of crimes are commited, which should be done. (it's hard to do that however, because the FBI's crime reports are not categorized particularly well)




PS In fact, when it comes to racism in schools, one interesting thing to note is that recently with things such as affirmative action and the cries for diversity on campus, if anything there has been reverse discrimination.)

[cjs55]

Mixing does not necessarily mean a lower level of entropy, speaking of complex organisms as humans, since there is no definite distinction between the entropy-level of the aggregate of the asians and the aggregate of hispanic-black crossing - both unlikely to happen from a systemic point of view.

I think in this case it does, because a globalistic environment will reinforce the some traits in every individual regardless of where they live, so in adaptation to globalization the human phenotype will become globalized. Potential variation still could be high, but acceptable variation would be low. Also, there would be very little or no genetic immigration which would cause problems (in the small scale it's a big factor in varation and adaptation to environment)

It's not just mixing that necessarly destroys diversity, it's globalism resulting in the same needed characteristics across the globe. If there were no globalism but there were somehow only one race of human beings, the peoples living in different areas of the world would begin to become distinct again just like they are now.

Again, I sincerely doubt globalism will occur on such a huge scale and there will be one human race any time soon. I'm merely pointing out the conclusions of said globalism.

[mgb]

As I pointed out earlier, I think that races are inherently somewhat racist (or at least more predisposed to sticking to themselves) in order for them to exist at all today (which could be argued against I suppose, but I don't really have the patience for another pbs.org style expose which is totally myopic). I don't necessarily think that they have to be evil towards each other though, and mistreat one another. I think these are grievous offenses. I do think that conflict sometimes is inevitable when races are competing for the same resources. And I know that you don't think in terms of being of some sort of caucosoid race in reference to your world. But I guarantee you african-americans often think in those terms, as well as asian-americans, as well as jewish people. (not all of course, but many)





No doubt this has been the case with many people, but certainly things have changed somewhat at least. Because, at least by American standards of success, one or two minority groups are doing extremely well. And finally, I don't see much proof of racism in the system today. Obviously it existed in the past, but is it still existing today? For instance, the amount of white on black crime is quite low (lower than black on white crime). Unless of course if the entire system is amazingly biased in some sort of racist consipracy involving individuals who don't seem to exist except in the imagination.

I know what you wanted to show. But again, if America is so racist as to turn minorities violently against it and discriminates against them so they cannot succeed, why do Asians currently have the highest median wage and the lowest crime rate in the U.S?

(to be totally accurate, Asians are more spread out economically, with both more people earning over 75k than whites but also more people earning under 25k than whites. This could possibly because of the lumping of many different cultures under the asian category)

Maybe it has to do that Asian culture is more similar to American culture than West African culture, resulting in Asians being more likely to 'fit in' over the long haul?

From the U.S. Census:
Black households had the lowest median income in 2004 ($30,134) among race groups. Asian households had the highest median income ($57,518). The median income for non-Hispanic white households was $48,977. Median income for Hispanic households was $34,241.

Asian-americans account for 3.6% of the U.S. population but 1.2% of the arrests.
Whites/Hispanics (which are for some reason in the same category in the crime report but not the census report) account for 82.6% of the population and 69.2% of the arrests.
African-americans account for 12.3% of the population and 29.3% of the arrests.

Obviously this isn't going into specific data about what sort of crimes are commited, which should be done. (it's hard to do that however, because the FBI's crime reports are not categorized particularly well)




PS In fact, when it comes to racism in schools, one interesting thing to note is that recently with things such as affirmative action and the cries for diversity on campus, if anything there has been reverse discrimination.)


People sticking together isn't the racism I'm talking about. It's when people are treated differently because of the color of their skin I'm refering too.

I'm not really convinced that things have changed much at all. Katrina kind of blew the hatch off some notions that I even had about that.

As well, I think we have also made the mistake here of grouping "Asian Americans" together as if they have an incredible amount in common. I think your economic statistics also get skewed because of that.

I'd be willing to bet that there are two huge factors that have contibuted to the wealth of your high income earners. The first is being rich to start with and moving to the US, or at least moving partially to the US. I'm not sure if the US is the same, but I know one of our immigration requirements is that a person start a business within X amount of time being here and after X years employ a certain number of residents. Pretty brutal, but much easier to do if you have a great deal of wealth going into it. The other factor is education. Quite often Indians that move to the US had a state funded education and are well ahead of many of their American counterparts from the same income bracket. So they get the jobs that an American could never have afforded the education to get.

That's not all to say that there aren't people that haven't worked really hard to get what they have, all of them probably have. I just think your path of success might be much different than the path of success that has faced most Americans, white or otherwise.

With that said, when we look at Blacks in the US, they came here via a much different route than the average Asian American. Most of them were chained up and removed from their homes. While the Asians might have been lied to about what to expect, they for the most part came to the US of their own free will. I think that has carried on for a long time in both the development of their North American identity and in they way they have been treated by whites. I'll still contend that it's far worse than whites will treat each other. To back up that claim I'll get you to look at the highest income earners. You'd think that once you have it made, you reach some sort of equal footing with everyone else that has it made. But it's just not true. You are probably more likely to be stopped by police for driving an expensive car, have more trouble getting memberships at exclusive clubs, like a golf course or country club.

As for white on black crime. If I was a black person in the US, the last people I'd go to for help if I'd been attacked by a white person is the cops. Second, I imagine a great deal of the laws are broken in the work place, and if you'll refer back to your own numbers about the average income in black households, they don't seem to have much negotiating power in the work place. And why are they more poor than whites? Maybe instead of getting paid for their first couple hundred years of work, they weren't. Maybe the effects of that are a little longer reaching than you think.

As for the crime statistics, look at how hard it is to tag the Enron guys. Have any of them been convicted yet? How fast do you think the average trial for a convience store robbery takes? Years? No, probably decades. I guess there is a big rush to convict someone who stole 10's of dollars over a group that collaborated to steal hundreds of millions.

As for the claim of reverse-discrimination of campus, I'd ask you to look around at your own campus. Using your own population statistics, do you really feel that your campus is exactly representative of the society around it. There is a culture of going to university in the white world. As such, you see that white's make statistically more than many other races, why not extend the opportunity to more people of other races and help them climb up the ladder? It's not reverse discrimination to do that. They aren't discriminating against white people, they are trying to give minorities who otherwise had a low incentive to go to university because of the cost and lack of traditional family interest, to go to university.

[cjs55]

People sticking together isn't the racism I'm talking about. It's when people are treated differently because of the color of their skin I'm refering too.


One implies the other (because if races generally stick together then they are treating the other races differently than their own). Just not necessarily in a violent fashion. I noticed my favorite chinese place was hiring the other day...I'm pretty sure I couldn't get a job there though. They certainly will let me eat there, but not integrate that closely into things. Obviously there are cultural barriers: I don't know chinese. But even if I did, I still somewhat doubt my ability to get a job there.



As well, I think we have also made the mistake here of grouping "Asian Americans" together as if they have an incredible amount in common. I think your economic statistics also get skewed because of that.

This is a good reply and I think there is roo much variation in culture and situation to group all asians into one category. However, one thing: When it comes to immigrants, the U.S. accepted about 1 million last year. Only 150,000 of them were employment-based. There is no way to figure out from which countried the employment-based immigrants came from, unfortunately. It is certain however that only 15% of American immigrants meet your skill based/business based requirements in Canada (or at least, are being allowed to immigrate because they have certain skills).


I think that has carried on for a long time in both the development of their North American identity and in they way they have been treated by whites. I'll still contend that it's far worse than whites will treat each other.

Do you have any reason to believe this mistreatment other than the current racial divide forces you to since you won't accept any other hypothesis? You mentioned new orleans, but I wouldn't take that as proof of racism: They didn't do particularly well in their texas evacuations either. I would take it as proof of a government which has overextended itself and is ignoring internal issues, the telltale sign of the beginning of the end of an emprire.



As for white on black crime. If I was a black person in the US, the last people I'd go to for help if I'd been attacked by a white person is the cops.

Why? Because all cops are racist, or the system is racist? Again, where's the proof of this? Do you just take it as an a priori as necessary to explaining the crime rates in this country? I bet if you talked to some cops and judges about this subject they'd be fairly offended by this (of course most cops are somewhat corrupt, because power does corrupt, but this doesn't have to do with race).


Second, I imagine a great deal of the laws are broken in the work place, and if you'll refer back to your own numbers about the average income in black households, they don't seem to have much negotiating power in the work place.

My numbers were taken from assaults and murders, so this isn't really relevant. The financial divide is relevant since white people are generally more affluent they'd get assaulted more. When it comes to the murder rates...it's not just about money, it's about something else at that point.


Maybe instead of getting paid for their first couple hundred years of work, they weren't.

So how many years do you think it will take for things to get better then? There's not been many signs of improvement since the civil rights movement.



As for the crime statistics, look at how hard it is to tag the Enron guys. Have any of them been convicted yet? How fast do you think the average trial for a convience store robbery takes? Years? No, probably decades. I guess there is a big rush to convict someone who stole 10's of dollars over a group that collaborated to steal hundreds of millions.

Yeah, the reason the enron guys take forever to convict is becuase they have a shitload of money and can postpone the inevitable. It's true that money is power in this society. However, very few people have enough money and power to act like the enron guys do. I personally would take a page from the chinese government and publically hang them, too bad I don't run the show, eh?

But the average middle class citizen doesn't have the kind of cash to manipulate the system like those guys do. I don't really see your point here. It's like pointing to the O.J. Simpson trial as an example of how the justice system works for black people.


Using your own population statistics, do you really feel that your campus is exactly representative of the society around it.

Well, according to utah population statistics...basically we need more hispanics. That would be about it. Probably less asians.

Your claims about reverse discrimination would make sense if there weren't a limited amount of college seats available. My sister got a 3.9 GPA, had an ACT score of 31 (dont remember SAT) ran cross country, played lacrosse, took 8 AP tests, played in the band, was a sterling scholar. She couldn't get into top-end schools because she was white, plain and simple. How does this not get a rise out of you for treating people differently due to their skin color?

You do realize there are just as many poor white people as there are poor black people in the U.S., right? Why do we need to bring race into the equation when it comes to something which should be based soley on need and merit? Do you really think it's right to tell someone: Sorry, you can't get the scholarship, I know your family isn't wealthy and that you've got a good record, but you're not a minority. Also, the minority student doesn't have nearly as good of a record as you, but he's black and we need diversity on campus.

[cjs55]

Summary of current thought: I think you make some decent arguments, and that it is obvious that discrimination can cause severe issues for anybody. But I've always been balanced between the nurture and nature side of the debate, and I don't see anything which disproves in the slightest the conceptual evolution-based claims that I have made regarding race and cultural integration. There is no reason these things don't both occur together, and I think they definitely do. However, if my statement is correct, even in a totally unbiased and perfectly tabula rasa U.S., african-americans would still do worse on average in some areas (crime rates due to testoterone and other factors which are important to have in west africa, and poverty rates, and IQ tests). And asians would probably still get higher IQ scores and have very low crime rates due to their differences from europeans.

There is little disproof of this above, just a forwarding of what you consider to be an alternate picture, when I see them both occuring at the same time. And less so now, since I see much less proof of anti-black discrimination currently occuring today.

I'm not saying that these are necessarily great measures of worth. Crime rates only measure what crime you get caught doing, not crimes you get away with. Organized crime, as I'm sure kendoiwan would love to point out, definitely exists in white and asian populations. Corporate execs probably steal much money than we will ever know about, and are often the moral equivalency to dog shit. Europeans throughout history have done alot of fucked up shit (of course I generally blame christianity for it, I usually blame christianity for everything wrong in the world anyways.)

This is only an examination of integration troubles which I believe to be inherent in multi-racial societies, not any moral forwardings.

[mgb]

One implies the other (because if races generally stick together then they are treating the other races differently than their own). Just not necessarily in a violent fashion. I noticed my favorite chinese place was hiring the other day...I'm pretty sure I couldn't get a job there though. They certainly will let me eat there, but not integrate that closely into things. Obviously there are cultural barriers: I don't know chinese. But even if I did, I still somewhat doubt my ability to get a job there.



This is a good reply and I think there is roo much variation in culture and situation to group all asians into one category. However, one thing: When it comes to immigrants, the U.S. accepted about 1 million last year. Only 150,000 of them were employment-based. There is no way to figure out from which countried the employment-based immigrants came from, unfortunately. It is certain however that only 15% of American immigrants meet your skill based/business based requirements in Canada (or at least, are being allowed to immigrate because they have certain skills).



Do you have any reason to believe this mistreatment other than the current racial divide forces you to since you won't accept any other hypothesis? You mentioned new orleans, but I wouldn't take that as proof of racism: They didn't do particularly well in their texas evacuations either. I would take it as proof of a government which has overextended itself and is ignoring internal issues, the telltale sign of the beginning of the end of an emprire.



Why? Because all cops are racist, or the system is racist? Again, where's the proof of this? Do you just take it as an a priori as necessary to explaining the crime rates in this country? I bet if you talked to some cops and judges about this subject they'd be fairly offended by this (of course most cops are somewhat corrupt, because power does corrupt, but this doesn't have to do with race).



My numbers were taken from assaults and murders, so this isn't really relevant. The financial divide is relevant since white people are generally more affluent they'd get assaulted more. When it comes to the murder rates...it's not just about money, it's about something else at that point.



So how many years do you think it will take for things to get better then? There's not been many signs of improvement since the civil rights movement.



Yeah, the reason the enron guys take forever to convict is becuase they have a shitload of money and can postpone the inevitable. It's true that money is power in this society. However, very few people have enough money and power to act like the enron guys do. I personally would take a page from the chinese government and publically hang them, too bad I don't run the show, eh?

But the average middle class citizen doesn't have the kind of cash to manipulate the system like those guys do. I don't really see your point here. It's like pointing to the O.J. Simpson trial as an example of how the justice system works for black people.



Well, according to utah population statistics...basically we need more hispanics. That would be about it. Probably less asians.

Your claims about reverse discrimination would make sense if there weren't a limited amount of college seats available. My sister got a 3.9 GPA, had an ACT score of 31 (dont remember SAT) ran cross country, played lacrosse, took 8 AP tests, played in the band, was a sterling scholar. She couldn't get into top-end schools because she was white, plain and simple. How does this not get a rise out of you for treating people differently due to their skin color?

You do realize there are just as many poor white people as there are poor black people in the U.S., right? Why do we need to bring race into the equation when it comes to something which should be based soley on need and merit? Do you really think it's right to tell someone: Sorry, you can't get the scholarship, I know your family isn't wealthy and that you've got a good record, but you're not a minority. Also, the minority student doesn't have nearly as good of a record as you, but he's black and we need diversity on campus.

Maybe you need to drop a resume off at the Chinese place and see what happens. You are being presumptuous. And out of curiosity, do you have any restaurant experience? Are restaurants places you want to work? If so, I suggest you apply.

If I remember reading US immigration/visa papers right, I think that employment based immigration means that you have a skill that no other American has, and therefore you won't be taking jobs from Americans. So the rest of the immigrants have to be able to provide employment for themselves, again, so they aren't taking jobs from Americans or just free-loading off the system.

I just know that when they showed the line up heading into the Superdome, there weren't a lot of white faces. These were the poorest of the poor, the ones who didn't even have a car to leave with. Without saying much about the ensuing response, I do find it odd that so many of the poorest of the poor were black.

I never said that all cops or judges were racist. But they might appear to be to the average black person. And appearences are going to count for a lot if you are thinking of dialing 9-1-1.

The civil rights movement didn't happen that long ago. 40 years? That's a dent. The generation that went through the civil rights era is still alive. Their kids are just having kids now. It's not enough time to see measurable change. Also, I'd say that Civil Rights Movement is pretty aptly named. It wasn't a Civil Rights Revolution. Hell it was only 5 years ago that South Carolina buckled under the pressure and removed the Confederate Flag from it's capitol building.

So how many years until things get better? Depends on how fast people want things to move. It take hundreds of years if people aren't willing to do anything.

Your sister. What if there were just as many minorities equally if not more qualified for those limited spots than she was? Did you have a good look at all the application forms that all the universities got? You are assuming that because A and B happened it must be because of C. Hardly logical.

And what if it was because she is white? I wonder how many black kids never got to go to university, no matter how smart they were, because universities wouldn't take black people? It's pretty tough to say that university entrances have ever had anything to do with being mertious. Now you are just pissed off because the political system for admissions isn't working in your favor anymore. Sure there are victims, there always have been. If your sister is serious about a higher education she'll work hard at a lesser university or college and transfer into the college of her choice after all the "pity" students admitted because of their color and not their grades drop out because they can't handle it, assuming that's the case.

As for your last paragraph, do I think it's fair to tell someone that? No. But it's happened that way for a long time (both ways) and there isn't shit you can do about it. What you can do is blame the system and not the people that benefit from it.

[eyebyte_atWork]

I am surprised that this thread is still going on strong...

Not all cops are racist - only a sizable portion - but the blue wall unites the ill-actions of the ones that are. Those Fuckers (I hate that show COPS)
Cops are racist in as much the general population is racist. No more and No less. (And thus the system) There are good people everywhere and there are bad people everywhere.

Affirmative Action is greatly misunderstood - especially by white people - It is hard to get into any of the major colleges - especially of you're not megawealthy or politically connected. btw - after your first job - it does not matter which college you went to - so what is the big deal?



You do realize there are just as many poor white people as there are poor black people in the U.S., right? Why do we need to bring race into the equation when it comes to something which should be based soley on need and merit? Do you really think it's right to tell someone: Sorry, you can't get the scholarship, I know your family isn't wealthy and that you've got a good record, but you're not a minority. Also, the minority student doesn't have nearly as good of a record as you, but he's black and we need diversity on campus.


Umm... this is a very one sided argument... yes there are poor of every race in the US - but in the hiring practices of many companies - whites have alway been given preference and this tends to be the dominant way.

I did watch this TV program where the TV expert comes into your home to help change your life - the husband and father of the family was what you would consider an jobless slob couch potato dipshit. During the course of the show (2 months actual time) he, amoung other things, bought a suit and applied for work as a web designer - and got the job with no previous experience (no doubt entry level). I have personally known black people who were well trained and well versed developers who could not get work - period. The world does not work equally as of yet.

Scholarships - Scholarships that have a race component built in are usually outlined as such and given as such (example - The United Negro College Fund - given to black people). Sholarships that are open do not give merit points for race - if a black student got an open scholarship over a white student it is prolly because he/she was better suited.

I don;t wanna have to come in here and comment - so break this up soon - I am getting exhausted haivng to chime in. If I wanted to argue points all the time I would have stayed married - Sheeeeesh!

[Nighthawk]

Affirmative Action is greatly misunderstood - especially by white people - It is hard to get into any of the major colleges - especially of you're not megawealthy or politically connected. btw - after your first job - it does not matter which college you went to - so what is the big deal?
When I attended grad school, I remember being really pissed off when I found out that Latin women could get a $14,000 computer science fellowship with only a 2.5 GPA ... whereas all I could get was a $2,000 scholarship with a 4.0 GPA. My anger tempered over time however ... because I still made it thought with a combination of scholarships, GI Bill, and being a teaching assistant. Basically, the system still worked for me. If the $14,000 fellowship made the system work for somebody else who needed it, then more power to them. Affirmative action doesn't really piss me off anymore.