Sub-Saharan peoples are somewhat lacking in two genes that are the cause of art, living in cities, and so on. (I read this yesterday on Netscape). The researchers were trying to identify evolution within the human brain. The genes responsible for civilisation are less-prevalent in the sub-Saharans. The research has been questioned, but if true, it would explain a sub-group with more violent tendencies.
I don’t write this due to rascism but merely citing of physical facts. The lack of these genes may explain why a small minority of black people seem more violent. The vast majority of black people have the genes, but some do not.
[quote]randman wrote:
Really, forget about the argument? Why can’t he see this? Someone explain this to me. And seriously folks, what is the individual’s motivation for his racially-biased and callous statements on T-Nation?[/quote]
That isn’t the question I would like to ask. I would much rather ask why it is being tolerated and why so few seem to even care that this sentiment is on the board. I can guarantee that if I made a thread entitled, “People who voted for Bush have IQ’s under 45” that it would get more responses than this one calling out an entire race of people regardless of what statistics I showed.
I knew there were a few racists on this board as there are in most places. I just find it odd that whenever discussion comes up about racism that some minority has experienced, that excuses are made for it and it written off as either exaggeration or seeing what they want to see. This has happened before. I think the truer statement is that many people who think this way truly believe that they are not being racist. The man posted quotes applauding segregation but no one thinks he is a racist, including him? Please.
Most people see the obvious racism and just want it to go away.
Don’t feed the trolls.
[quote]JJJJ wrote:
The anomalies exist when you start comparing rates in those categories that are hard numbers . . . things like MURDER and NUMBER OF PRISON INMATES.
That’s where you begin to find behavior patterns like 13% of blacks make up 65% of the prison population. 13% are responsible for 50% of murders. Blacks are 7 times more likely to kill than whites. etc
Those are the type of abnormal statistics that require an explanation. [/quote]
If you are going to draw that conclusion from the fact that 65% of the inmate population is black there are some things you should look at.
Read this and get back to me:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/usa/Rcedrg00-04.htm
Notice that 73% of both whites and blacks are sent to prison for non violent crimes.
So it appears that blacks commit violent crimes at the same rate as whites. Since the majority of the blacks in prison are there for non violent crimes, it makes sense to me to look at the crimes they are commiting and the sentencing differences between the races.
The following seems reasonable if blacks are using drugs at a higher rate, but studies show that the same percentage of blacks use illegal drugs as do whites, so why are more blacks getting arrested and convicted?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The man posted quotes applauding segregation but no one thinks he is a racist, including him? Please.[/quote]
PROFESSOR . . . With all due respect . . . since you appear to be an intelligent and thoughtful person . . . I think part of the reason you object to my ideas is THAT YOU CAN’T FUCKING READ.
I invite you to return to the part where you think I applauded segregation.
I would CHALLENGE you to copy the EXACT WORDS I USED and post them.
What I think you will find is an article that I quoted where the WRITER said that federal and social programs to integrate the races had FAILED . . . and that left alone . . . racial groups SEGREGATED THEMSELVES . . . he went on to explain that you find the same behavior in colleges, prisons and other places.
At no point do I advocate “segregation” . . . yet you quickly LIBEL me on this thread.
Now, I would ask for an apology for your derogatory and defamatory statement which was obviously made to discredit and ridicule me.
But obviously, I’ll never get it.
I’ll just settle for knowing THAT YOU KNOW I’m right.
[quote]JJJJ wrote:
Professor X wrote:
The man posted quotes applauding segregation but no one thinks he is a racist, including him? Please.
PROFESSOR . . . With all due respect . . . since you appear to be an intelligent and thoughtful person . . . I think part of the reason you object to my ideas is THAT YOU CAN’T FUCKING READ.
I invite you to return to the part where you think I applauded segregation.
I would CHALLENGE you to copy the EXACT WORDS I USED and post them.
What I think you will find is an article that I quoted where the WRITER said that federal and social programs to integrate the races had FAILED . . . and that left alone . . . racial groups SEGREGATED THEMSELVES . . . he went on to explain that you find the same behavior in colleges, prisons and other places.
At no point do I advocate “segregation” . . . yet you quickly LIBEL me on this thread.
Now, I would ask for an apology for your derogatory and defamatory statement which was obviously made to discredit and ridicule me.
But obviously, I’ll never get it.
I’ll just settle for knowing THAT YOU KNOW I’m right.
[/quote]
Speaking of apologies, you owe about 13% of the US population an apology for your racist statements on this forum. As a matter of fact, include me in that apology. Becuase YOU KNOW I’m right and you are totally and utterly wrong; and a bigoted butthead to boot.
Makkun,
[quote]JJJJ wrote:
MAKKUN, I wanted to respond to your comments. Thanks again for a comprehensive look at the situation
First, I agree that the ?Fixing? thread has failed. We?re still mired in name-calling and explanations of what constitutes a racist. Maybe by the time of the 2008 elections, we?ll have sorted the issue out a little further. And as I said before, I disagree with your interpretation that ?political correctness? has not interfered with the study of race. It has ABSOLUTELY interfered and we?ve seen some examples why right on this thread.[/quote]
What might have interfered with it that the “scientific tradition” of racial studies was discovered as flawed and it apologists tended to feed into political radicalisation.
I would also argue that you have not, except for the “entrepreneurial argument” offered any “fixes”; so you kinda invited the continuation of the earlier thread.
[quote]Let?s begin.
Somewhere near the middle of your literature review you start to suspect that there are “lively discussions” on the concept of race . . . and you begin to wonder “if it even is an appropriate biological category.”
I would say the following. Go stand in front of your local Walmart and racially classify the first hundred people who walk by you. Keep it simple and use the same definitions used by the Census Bureau. You probably won?t have much problem doing that. We humans find it surprisingly easy to categorize each other.
Now, go home and write a precise definition of each racial group . . . then give it to a friend and have him go back to the Walmart and conduct the same experiment, but this time using your exact definitions. If done correctly and if he sticks precisely to your definitions, what you should find is that it is very difficult to be precise when describing race.
In simple terms, this is the problem engaging scientists. It doesn?t “invalidate” the concept of race any more than not being able to properly define “pornography” or “love” mean that they don’t exist.[/quote]
If you follow correct scientific methodology, you will see that pure empirical observation is not “proof” enough to support a theory. Just because me and my friend only see white swans all the time in front of Walmart, does not mean that there are no black swans (look up Karl Popper on that topic). The main point is: simple observation (e.g. incidence of crimes perpetrated by “blacks”) without evidence of a clear correlation (we are all still waiting for that) in many cases leads towards a false perception.
Example: It’s a known fact that in countries where the stork population is higher there is normally also a higher birthrate. Now tradition would hint towards believing that there is a correlation between the two: More storks bring more babies. But this is clearly a false correlation, you would say. But so far, except for quoting more and more observation, you have given no proof why you think there is a correlation. From a scientific point of view this is not enough, and if you read a little bit more about methodology, you will understand that it is not “the scientists” who are wrong, but you. Sorry, I don’t want to be patronising, but that is just a fact.
[quote]Moving on . . . after reviewing a paragraph that address the mixing of races, you ask: “Huh, did that last paragraph discuss the possibility that “race” as a taxonomic category is an oversimplification at best?”
No. What it says is that the concept of RACE is imprecise (as in the case of Hispanics) and that when it comes to black Americans, the “black race” is becoming diluted through the mixing of blacks and whites. This is not unique either to Southern Europeans or American blacks. Whenever populations share a boundary, you always have racial mixing. No doubt the Romans and the Gauls produce many Romanic Gauls and no doubts when the aliens finally get here, we?ll have Alien-Americans.[/quote]
The research (and somewhere in the sources) says also, that the most biological variation happens within the “racial” groups, which can lead to the suggestion that “race”, even if it were clearly defined might not be a strong determinant at all.
[quote]Moving on, you now appear to be getting more locked into your position. You say: “I can’t decide if “race” as a category does exist or not - neither seem the biologists. This is obviously an ongoing discussion. I find it quite problematic though, to state, as has happened in the two threads on the topic, that there is a clear link between “race” and violence - facing the danger that science might come up with the explanation that “race” as used commonly does not even exist.”
Science has trouble deciding what race is because of mixing and evolution, but that doesn’t mean that race DOES NOT exist. We can speculate that hundreds of years before mass transportation and the colonization of Africa and South America, racial differences were much more distinct.[/quote]
Nope. That is not what the articles say. And there have always been population movements on big scales (there is e.g. evidence of mongolian traits in people living in remote areas of France and Switzerland) over all our history. It is a common misperception within the racial argument that there is such a thing as “pure” populations. I’m German - that’s about as mixed up as it gets.
[quote]What this really says is that racial differences are dynamic and evolving.
At this point you begin to think you have discovered the ?smoking gun? . . . and I begin to yawn because I sense that I’m about to get a bucket-full of more of the same one-sided argument about black poverty and inequality. Methinks your smoking gun is a water pistol.
You say:
“Now that indeed sounds like a smoking gun to me: There is evidence of massive social inequality, linked to (perceived) “racial” difference. Now the argument that “non-black” poor people don’t resort to violent crime starts falling apart, when you see the parallels between level of inequality due to perceived “racial” status and delinquency.”
Falls apart how, exactly? Are you saying that poor Hispanics are less sensitive to perceived inequalities or that blacks are hyper-sensitive?[/quote]
I would argue that “blacks” (after being hauled over for centuries from their home continent, while their countries where being systematically raped and ripped of their resources) had a worse start and a tougher stance within US society. Not to forget their countries that only slowly within the last century could get rid of their former oppressors. Also, at least I have offered a possible explanation, which also hinted towards a widely discussed correlation. Nuffin from you so far.
Please feel free to read this list of riots. My favourite is the Nanjing Anti-African Riot (1988-9). You’ll see it’s a common feature of humans, who feel disadvantaged (if it’s real or not) to take matter into their own hands and kill a few innocents. List of riots - Wikipedia
[quote]Could there perhaps be a problem within the black social group?
In other words . . . are blacks more violent because of poverty . . . or is there something wrong with the black social group that makes them react more violently to their poverty than other groups do?[/quote]
Now that is interesting: This is the first time I have noticed you to accept a social influence, by refering to the stigmatised “social group” term. Good. Show me scientific evidence of a correlation of being “genetically black” and violence, rather than “socially black” (disadvantaged in society), and I might accept your argument. But still you have produced nothing like this. Just stating a lack of research for the sakes of PC cannot suffice.
[quote]It appears to me that much of your explanation for what happened in New Orleans can be summed up by this paragraph:
“Neighborhoods plagued by high levels of jobless-ness are more likely to experience low levels of social organization: the two go hand in hand. High rates of jobless-ness trigger other neighborhood problems that undermine social organization, ranging from crime, gang violence, and drug trafficking to family breakups and problems in the organization of family life.”
So . . . let me sum up if I may. You begin by acknowledging that race and racial characteristics MAY BE an issue shaping black culture . . . but then when the literature describes the inexactitude of race, you abandon all faith in that concept and fall back on the usual explanations . . . poverty, disenfranchisement, history of repression etc.[/quote]
Nope. I discussed a variety of models, pointing out to possible holes in your argument. Some of them included the possibility that race does not even exist, some worked based on the common perception that it does. I have offered alternative explanations to yours. In order to support you theory, you will have to give evidence of a clear correlation (not simple observation), and to be scientifically correct, a reason why the poverty argument is false. Good luck.
[quote]Well . . . . shucks, a great deal of material and at the end your explanation still leaves some very basic questions unanswered:
WHY, IF THE SAME FACTORS ARE AT WORK IN OTHER SOCIAL GROUPS . . . DON?T THEY REACT THE SAME WAY AS THE BLACK COMMUNITY DOES?
COULD THERE BE A PROBLEM WITHIN THE BLACK SOCIAL GROUP?[/quote]
Those two are valid questions. For the first, I would say it is an oversight on your part to accept evidence to the contrary that the black community is just more disadvantaged than others. As for the second - the answer is yes, and everyone here has acknowledged that, but they do not accept your explanation, because it is unproven so far. Repetition of observations does not suffice as scientific evidence.
Unfortunately a few openly really racist posters have joined in and it’s now really an even more ugly thread than before. It would be cool if other posters who declare themselves political animals (especially some good speakers from the conservative camp) would join in.
Makkun
MAKKUN made four points:[quote]
-
What might have interfered with it that the “scientific tradition” of racial studies was discovered as flawed and it apologists tended to feed into political radicalisation.
-
I would also argue that you have not, except for the “entrepreneurial argument” offered any “fixes”; so you kinda invited the continuation of the earlier thread.
-
If you follow correct scientific methodology, you will see that pure empirical observation is not “proof” enough to support a theory. Just because me and my friend only see white swans all the time in front of Walmart, does not mean that there are no black swans (look up Karl Popper on that topic). The main point is: simple observation (e.g. incidence of crimes perpetrated by “blacks”) without evidence of a clear correlation (we are all still waiting for that) in many cases leads towards a false perception.
-
Example: It’s a known fact that in countries where the stork population is higher there is normally also a higher birthrate. Now tradition would hint towards believing that there is a correlation between the two: More storks bring more babies. But this is clearly a false correlation, you would say. But so far, except for quoting more and more observation, you have given no proof why you think there is a correlation. From a scientific point of view this is not enough, [/quote]
MAKKUN . . . I’ll respond to the four points above.
- Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your statement . . . but to say that “racial studies are flawed,” is, I’m sorry to say, plainly ridiculous.
“Racial studies” such as general eugenics, biometrical classification or the development of a “master race” through selective breeding, obviously fell into disfavor in the aftermath of Word War II. And I agree that a lot of racist nut-cases abuse racial theories.
But it is wrong to suggest that the study of RACE is flawed or nonexistent. More and more research (such as in medicine) is identifying differences due to race. If anything, “racial explanations” are becoming more popular, not less.
For example, we now know that blacks have a genetic resistance to malaria which cuases high incidence of sickle cell anemia and the increased malignancy of certain cancers.
We’re seeing Social Darwinism making a come-back through things like the Human Genome Project, cloning and the stated intent of many researchers to one day create “designer babies.”
Human engineering will always be with us. And since we’re talking about black people . . . let me remind you that eminent black leaders like W.E.B. Dubois and Marcus Garvey supported eugenics in their day.
-
Please review my first post and you will see that the purpose of this thread was to encourage ideas about fixes. Unfortunately, the thread never moved beyond discussions such as the one I’m having with you. My simple response on a fix would be that we first need to agree on what exactly we’re fixing. In my view, we determine that by some “social triage” . . . such as identifying the causes of black violence and focusing on where it comes from.
-
YOU SAID: “I you follow correct scientific methodology, you will see that pure empirical observation is not “proof” enough to support a theory.”
Sorry? I’m not sure where you got that. You’re basically invalidating the inductive process on which all science stands . . . in other words, you’re saying that making generalizations from individual observation is not a way to reach TRUTH.
The scientific method involves initial observations leading to a general theory and then subsequent experimentation designed to generate more observations that will validate or invalidate the theory.
That’s not to say that the white-swan theory you “proved” won’t later be over-turned by new evidence . . . but it is certainly VALID to say that there are nothing but white swans if all you see are white swans.
You are confusing the scientific method with PROGRESS. Once upon a time, the theory was that the sun revolved around the earth. New evidence then proved that theory wrong . . . but the original theory was perfectly VALID given the observations of the time.
Take a modern day example. I believe that all polar bears are white because I’ve never seen or heard about any other type. So I can make a valid generalization saying “all polar bears are white.” If tomorrow, I see a photo of GREEN polar bears, well, then I have a problem. I have to accept the new evidence and change my generalization . . . or ignore it and become a liberal.
Furthermore, in the case of blacks and crime . . . I am not offering a theory. I am simply making an OBSERVATION that they commit more crime.
I don’t THEORIZE they are . . . the statistics say they are. For example, the statistics all say that the black social group (a 13% minority) commits 50% of all murders. That’s not a THEORY . . . it is simply a statement of the facts.
Now, I am making a DEDUCTION that based on my definition of what constitutes a violent social group (an incidence of crime higher than their percentage of the population) the black social group is more violent. But given my definition and the facts, that deduction is both true and valid.
Would you object to any of the following . . . “black people have a higher rate of poverty” . . . “males are more violent than females” . . . “whites are the largest social group in the US” . . . ?
Those OBSERVATIONS are no different than saying “the black social group is more violent.”
The question of CORRELATION keeps coming up. Have you looked at the data? Are you tellng me that if you looked at say, 10 years worth of criminal statistics, you would not see a high correlation between race and murders?
In fact, I would challenge you to do this . . . show me a stronger correlation in any other area more positive than BLACK RACE + MURDER. They’re hard to find.
- In this paragraph you say that I have given no proof why there is a correlation . . . you mean the correlation you didn’t think existed in the previous paragraph? So, perhaps subconciously, you DO agree there is a correlation between the black race + murder . . . ?
Seriously, I am not attempting to engage in a scientific analysis of cause and effect. I don’t know why the group is more violent. I am simply saying that the violence in New Orleans was predictable because the black social group was an overwhelming majority in the city and the black social group is more violent. That is a PREDICTION or EXTRAPOLATION based on existing data patterns. It is like saying that since has rained every Saturday for the past 10 years . . . it will PROBABLY rain this Saturday.
YOU SAY: “But so far, except for quoting more and more observation, you have given no proof why you think there is a correlation. From a scientific point of view this is not enough.”
OK. I agree. But again, I’m not trying to theorize about the causes of black violence. I don’t know why there is a correlation.
In fact, I want people to discuss it and engage in research to figure out the WHY. That was the purpose of my thread.
Finally, please let me address your stork example.
Once again your example doesn’t work. My observation that blacks commit more murders is based on a statistic that examines the race of CONVICTED murderers.
If you observed that the storks were DELIVERING the babies to the houses . . . would you not be able to say that storks were responsible?
[quote]Bastard Guy wrote:
any of you guys (and gals, gojira 
can find resources to back your statements. racism, sexism, and similarly associated social hot potatoes are WAAAY too complex of issues to expect reaching a consensus in a T-Nation forum. apparently, a reasonable discussion is almost out of hand too. the sensitivity … you either view the other side as racist red-necks or liberal douchebags. as for me, an equal opportunist, i hate all of you f*ckers equally. i do, however, hold a special place for RJ ;|
Bastard[/quote]
hey, before i add what i have to say, i’ll show props for people at least posting and saying what they feel… even if somebody is spewing some stupid shit, there’s always someone else that’lll learn from it…
anyhow…i’m a police officer in a town of about 65,000 people. we have had a shooting by a black male at least 2-3 times per week this year, and at least 15 black males shot (with several killed, as well as one bystander). we have had no white shooting, no aisian shooting, and no hispanic shootings. blacks comprise about 10% of our city’s population…
the black population is more violent in the town where i live and work. that is a fact, not racist. i know many ordinary black people that are leaving due to the violence, but aren’t sure where to go, because they’ve said “it’s like this everywhere.”
are all balck people violent? no. are all black people criminals? no. however, there are some serious social issues within the black community that need to be addressed by the black community…one thing being the prospect of easy money by hustling, instead of getting an education.
i joined the Army to afford college, and i had many close freinds of other races, which i value greatly. there are options out there, but the community itself neeeds to address them, or they will not survive. the rest of the country can’t force people to make the right moral decision…me…well i’ll keep putting the criminals away, regardless of thier race.
one more point i’d like to add, if it hasn’t been mentioned.
i don’t think that the black population is prone to violence…there does seem to be a glorification of violence in much of the black entertainment, however (“gangsta” rap, early 90’s films-"menace to Society). some say that those people are just telling a story of thier life, but unfortuntaley a lot of kids think it’s cool, and grow up in that lifestyle. kinda like a Muslim-extremist (notice i said extremist) lifestyle that advocates violence against all non-Muslims…
i think it’s a learned behavior, one that paretning SHOULD correct…
ironically enough, due to the meth epedemic in the white population, i thik that the white population is gonna take over a lot of the violent crime statistics in the near future…
CYCOBUSHMASTER . . .
Well said. There was an Air Force cop the other day on here saying almost the same thing about his experiences.
I know several of the cops in this town and my attorney is on the City Council and is always knee deep in police and policing issues.
No argument from them on this subject: Black people in this town commit most of the crime.