Posted by Cash:

I tried this post on another forum and a bunch of people were offended. Don't worry, I won't be posting on this forum anymore, so you don't have to call me a rascist. I tend to think that Obama's call for an open speech on race was empty. People aren't really ready to adress the real problems causing the inequality.

yeah people dont wanna discuss how the problem is that black people are really just good athletes and dancers and there just arent enough dancing jobs available. Get us some dancing jobs!!!

I jest, but seriously, you may not be a racist, I suspect you are a decent human who simply has no idea what he's talking about and I'm not particularly offended by that. Those ideas are racist though, they are biological determinist ideas. Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism on wikipedia and then holler back. You talk about environment and then broadly state that blacks and latinos are this way, as if we all live in the same kind of environment and whites all live in some other different environment. SO essentially, you are making a text book racist argument, but like I said, I'm not going to hold that against you.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 03-25-2008 01:26 AM]

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by Cash:

I haven't read this thread very carefully, but if the point of Obama speech was to talk about race relations, then I am willing to oblige.

I think the black race problems in this country stem from the fact that they were "not willing" participants in this experiment. People generally come to this country for opportunity and they essentially "opt in" to the experiment. Low land prices and opportunity have attracted a number of immigrants who just wanted a chance to suceed and were very willing to work for it. Numerous immigrant groups have come to this country and moved up. You have to ask the question, why hasn't the african american population moved up in the same way? IQ studies show the african american population scoring 20 points lower than the white population. I find it hard to believe that natural selection would make white people smarter than black people. Before you can solve the problem you need to understand it.

I think the problem is mainly based on two things:

1.) Diet-Our current diet is loaded in carbohydrates. However, agriculture is a recent development in the history of mankind. This high level of carbohydrate is not necessarily being tolerated by a lot of minority populations like the african americans and the native american indians. Europeans have been eating higher level of carbs for years, so some natural selection has occurred in these populations. This diet is newer for the african americans. Some do fine with it, and become great althletes. Others can't tolerate it and it is hurting them. It doesn't help that carbs are cheap, which makes it a bigger problem for poorer individuals. The problem gets exacerbated, by mother's passing it on to their children making them more sensitive to carbs and the resulting energy inbalance that occurs. Most fat people aren't fat cause they are lazy. They are lazy because they can't handle the carbs, and this creates an energy imbalance. If you think people weigh 300 pounds(white or black) cause they are just lazy, you are just wrong. In practice, Atkins has given his diet to millions of Americans, however, his recommendations were mostly based on empirical evidence. More recently, Gary Taubes has wrote a book on the subject, which eloquently explains all the scientific studies that exist and how carbs are the real problem in our diet. There is a lot of bad science out there, and we hear new things every day about diet. However, Taubes is a hard science guy, and his analytical reasoning skills are superb. He is giving you the top of the line information.

The problem as far as IQ is partly based on this. If people don't have the energy to read and learn new things they will not test as well and they will not do as well in the academic environment. They are more likely to just sit on the couch and watch tv. A better diet would help bridge the iq gap.

2. Personality distribution. Different environments have preferred certain personalities to be more prevalent among people who come from different areas. IF you are familar with mbti personality analysis(and left brain right brain stuff), the best way to explain it is that the african american population is shifted toward extraverted sensing. They tend to simply be more right brained and more adept at certain tasks. They tend to be better at things like athletics, music, dance, etc, that make use of a different part of the brain then the dominant white majority. However, these are not the academic jobs.

This gets significant when it comes to values and discrimination. Generally speaking more left brained individuals tend to have stronger memories which influence their values. Their values tend to reflect this. They are very concerned about the past, as opposed to the moment. They tend to be more concerned about what people think about them as opposed to thier current desires at the moment. This personality shift is a large part of the reason why white people fear black people. They don't understand why, but they have scene enough to understand a difference.

That all being said, I think this difference will eventually subside. The growing hispanic population is also shifted toward extraverted sensing, and this country is changing at the moment. We are going to be more a people of singing and dancing and less a people of technology. I think this problem will eventually go away, but not because of programs like affirmative action. It will go away because their will be a lot more people who are "like" the black population that have been in the past.

I hope you guys understand when you read this I am talking about distributions and not the individual. Every single individual is different.

That being said, I would like a president with a real plan for the economy. At the moment, this does not exist and this is a real problem considering we are entering a more competitive world.

Your theory falls apart, imo, on 2 major points.
1. It assumes that the IQ test is a legitimate measure of mental aptitude, inteligence. I could go further, and will if need be, but its late, so lets just say, the IQ test isn't what your theory implies it is.
2. Your theory seems to presuppose that we live in a meritcocracy, that is, you seem to believe that people arrive where they are in life based on their efforts alone. I could write long posts to disprove this, but I will simply say this, our president of the last 8 years has the mental capacity of a 5th grader. HOw did he get there? Hard Work? Smarts? Charisma? What?

TO talk about the black experience in this country and to not even mention several hundred years of brutal racist discrimination as a causal factor in what is happening today, means you dont have a grasp on the black experience. You cant do what was done to a people for so long and then completely discount that when evaluating them now. Do you think what happened to Native Americans several hundred years ago has any bearing on why that community is the way it is today? You do, and it does, its obvious. Same concept.

Some other thoughts:
I dont doubt that diet is a factor as well, but it isnt the causal factor. People have bad diets, because they are poor, uneducated about diet and have poor options available. Diet is a symptom of greater problems and not the problem itself.

ANd I'm familiar with Myer Brigs, I'm an ENTP and own several books about the tests, I think their interesting, but for something like this to be all about personality types, and personal choices is a very unsociological way to look at things imo. People's personalities, and the choices available to them are all based on social forces and their environment.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 03-25-2008 01:22 AM]

Ok, thank you for your intelligent response. I understand my analysis is raw and in the early stages, but, I am still working on it and I want intelligent response so I can work on my theory. I understand that some people might view my theory as rascist, but it was never meant that way.

I am an entp as well. Although such classifications are weak, I think they get at something.

And, I think the meritocracy is related to the personality distribution. I tend to believe people like people like themselves, so whoever is in charge has a huge say over who gets promoted and such. And, at the end of the day, someone has to be in charge. Although that very well might change over time.

I don't underestimate the black experience, but I think a lot of it is personality issue. This wouldn't be the problem it is today, if it wasn't for the personality distribution of african americans toward right brainededness(in this case extraverted sensing). Slavery ended a long time ago, and civil rights increased later. I am not saying I don't have empathy toward the situation, but that is not the problem today. The system would have already corrected for it. There is something deeper goiong on and it is personality.

C'mon Cash, compare the IQ's of chronically poor whites vs wealthy whites and then tell us again how this has all been biologically preordained.

[Edited by - blueseats on 03-25-2008 01:47 AM]

Posted by Cash:
And, blueseats, i would guess the difference is a lot less than the difference that is normally observed between whites and blacks, and that is part of the point I was making about carbs.

If you want to talk about carbs in relationship to obesity and diabetes I think you've got a good case. Some body types do better with them than others. One could argue the brain is a body part and could be affected too, but I think that would be more a function of general nutrition than specific insulin issues.

But with regard to IQ, I'd put the effect of attending good schools, growing up in a household of educated people, and exposure to challenging tasks and learning aids far beyond starchy foods and left brain dominance.

EVANSTON, Ill. -- Contrary to "The Bell Curve" findings, a new study published in the April issue of Child Development by researchers at Columbia and Northwestern Universities suggests that poverty and early learning opportunities -- not race -- account for the gap in IQ scores between blacks and whites.
Adjustments for socioeconomic conditions almost completely eliminate differences in IQ scores between black and white children, according to the study's co-investigators. They include Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Klebanov of Columbia's Teachers College, and Greg Duncan of the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research at Northwestern University.

As in many other studies, the black children in the study had IQ scores a full 15 points lower than their white counterparts. Poverty alone, the researchers found, accounted for 52 percent of that difference, cutting it to 7 points. Controlling for the children's home environment reduced the difference by another 28 percent, to a statistically insignificant 3 points -- in essence, eliminating the gap altogether.

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/5-5-96/povertyiq.html

Research published this month is shedding new light on the old nature/nurture argument. In a dramatic shift from previous findings, this analysis finds that for families at the very bottom of the socio-economic scale, environmental factors have a much greater impact on the variations in children?s IQ (Intelligence Quotient) than genes.

http://www.connectforkids.org/node/516

Posted by Cash:

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by Cash:

I tried this post on another forum and a bunch of people were offended. Don't worry, I won't be posting on this forum anymore, so you don't have to call me a rascist. I tend to think that Obama's call for an open speech on race was empty. People aren't really ready to adress the real problems causing the inequality.

yeah people dont wanna discuss how the problem is that black people are really just good athletes and dancers and there just arent enough dancing jobs available. Get us some dancing jobs!!!

I jest, but seriously, you may not be a racist, I suspect you are a decent human who simply has no idea what he's talking about and I'm not particularly offended by that. Those ideas are racist though, they are biological determinist ideas. Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism on wikipedia and then holler back. You talk about environment and then broadly state that blacks and latinos are this way, as if we all live in the same kind of environment and whites all live in some other different environment. SO essentially, you are making a text book racist argument, but like I said, I'm not going to hold that against you.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 03-25-2008 01:26 AM]

they are not biologically dominant so much as I think people are different. Why wouldn't people have developed stronger abilities than others(in certain areas) when living in different environments for a number of years. One environment might require this and another might require that.

yes but as myself and blue havee pointed out, if you believe what you are saying about environment, then poor whites and poor blacks would be more similar than rich whites and poor whites or rich blacks and poor blacks. But since you arent saying that, and you are insisting that in spite of environmental factors, all blacks are more inclined to dance and play sports, then what you are saying is racist. This is very simple and plain, and I dont care to respond to these points, or what you consider to be a new theory, because it isn't new, and you apparently aren't digesting what people like myself and blue are saying in response to it. If you want to believe what you are believing then yes you are believing racist things, even if you aren't malicious and don't hate black people.

Furthermore, all of the available data has made this point for many many decades, yet people like yourself, and others who I will assume have more harmful intentions have clung to these theories and ideas in spite of the evidence. If you cross this threshold with all of your 'original' ideas in tact then my friend, you are definitely a racist and there is no way around it.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 03-25-2008 3:57 PM]

A Little Known American Story!

By: Pamela A. Hairston
It is the story of the Martinsville Seven, the largest mass execution for rape in United States history.

In 1949 in Martinsville, Virginia, seven black men were arrested for the rape of a 32-year-old married white woman. Within 30 hours of this rape, all seven had signed written confessions. Within seven days, all had been tried, convicted and sentenced to death. Two were tried at the same time. The youngest was only 17 years old at the time of his arrest and the oldest was a 37-year-old WWII vet with a wife and five beautiful, young children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Too much of these type of crimes happened that formed how older people think today.

Three times the Supreme Court refused to hear their case. During their appeals, Oliver W. Hill and future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, both NAACP lawyers, helped represent the Seven. Russia and China sent telegrams to the White House in defense of the Seven. Actors Ossie Davis and Paul Robeson rallied Hollywood to their defense, but to no avail. Then-President Harry Truman, an alleged Klansman, refused to grant clemency. For the record, no white man in Virginia had ever been executed for rape of any woman.

Two years later, 1951, eight men were executed in Richmond, Va., seven for the rape of one white woman. On Feb. 2, 1951, four black men were executed every 10 minutes. (They say the chair was too hot to touch) On the following Monday, Feb. 5, the remaining three were executed. Five were mere teenagers. The day before the youngest one died, he said: God knows I didn’t touch that woman and I’ll see ya’ll on the other side. Around the world, they became known as the Martinsville Seven, the largest mass execution in United States history.

The Seven case was the first time in an American court of law that lawyers appealed a death sentence on grounds of systematic discrimination against African Americans. Finally in 1977, over 25 years later, the Supreme Court ruled that rape is not punishable by death. The Martinsville Seven case was instrumental in helping change the rape laws that govern this great nation.

For the record, three of the Seven were Hairstons, relatives of mine, and I was born and raised in Martinsville. The true story of the Seven has yet to be told.

White Americans constantly tell us black Americans to stop whining, to "get over" our history.

Let us know our history before we have to forget it.

Posted by misterearl:


So white folks are mad at Jeremiah Wright because he challenges their views about their country. Pardon me, but something is wrong here, and whatever it is, is not to befound at Trinity United Church of Christ.

Its unfortunate but not surprising that the article underestimates the intelligence of Wright's detractors, whether they be black, white, asian, hispanic etc. And lets be clear that his detractors are not just white. Those folks are mad at Wright, or should be mad at Wright, not because he spoke out against American foreign policy, which has been flawed far before 9/11.

They should be mad at Wright because he claimed, without further clarifying, that the government "purposely infected African American men with syphilis" and that "the government lied about inventing HIV as a means of genocide against people of color."; he distorted the truth for inflammatory rhetorical effect in a manner that, rather than educating his audience of real obstacles, antagonizes them without purpose. By never discussing the aftermath of Tuskeegee, a rather dramatic regulation of scientific research, he constructs a singularly evil image of white government, with which compromise seems far-fetched, and entertains the implication that Tuskeegee type healthcare violations may still be widespread. In other words, he opens old wounds and leaves them open to be "infected" by ideas of stereotyping, irreconcilable difference and revenge.

They should be mad that Wright states unabashedly that he knows "what’s going on in white America, the US of 'KKK' A" because, this time, he deliberately exaggerates the present pervasiveness of racism and white supremacy, this time grouping not just "rich, white people" but seemingly a majority of white Americans with a cult that calls for the elimination of African Americans. Bear in mind that this fabrication has striking similarities to the generalization that black people are, as a whole, violent and misogenistic because of a few high profile rappers; this flavor of argument has almost unanimously and, rightfully so, been rejected by posters here. Needless to say, racism exists and, in many forms, but, by failing on every occasion to mention that not all white share this malice, his efforts strain a discoure with what appears to be the irrational, unyielding and violent "KKK" opposition.

Yet, Theloniusmonk makes the tenuous argument that Wright is merely "pointing out oppression." Unfortunately, Wright's motivation is not so academic as real oppression does not need to be "pointed out" or fabricated. Wright's sermons instead point out a giant, false, white target and a dangerous call to action: "black men turning against black men, you both are fighting the wrong enemy, you both are the targets of an oppressive society that views both of you as a dangerous threat." Wright continues "I'm so glad that I've got a God who who knows what its like to be a poor black man living in a country and a culture run by rich white people; he taught me, Jesus did, how to love my enemies... he taught me how to love the hell out of my enemies." Before this little treat is explained away, lets take notice that if simply "black men," but not "fighting," are the wrong enemy then, without further explanation, the white men of his oppressive society are. Again, Wright does not delineate the appropriate way to "fight" against this unspecified oppression but his tongue-in-cheek "love my enemies" punchline indicates an irredeemable chasm with white government and "culture," defined by an inextinguishable hatred. Moreover, Wright's religious metaphor strongly suggests a makeshift solution of avoidance until a reversal of the positions of power, a "redemption" of sorts. In other words, Wright has superimposed the dichotomy between black and white people with the struggle between a "poor black man" and the KKK, reason and blind hate, Jesus and the Romans and good and evil. Of course, Wright is speaking to uplift his audience but, in his recklessness, he leaves them with an antagonistic moral superiority: a racist belief fixed in religious identification.

Folks, Clinton and Obama supporters alike, should be mad that Wright's opinion of black dissenters of his ideologies are just as crude and hateful as his opinions on "white america." As you might expect, Jeremiah Wright strongly condemns those that criticize Barack Obama as "not being black enough." In his discourse about black republicans at one of his sermons, however, he says with disgust that they are "Uncle Tom's," "sell outs" and "negros who just do not get it." So, it’s neither the alienating and humiliating aspect of the "black enough" comments nor the simplistic, divisive and racist concept of a singular proper black mindset that Wright is speaking out against. To Wright, being a democrat is equivalent with African American loyalty and engaging in any separate dialogue is worthy of the "Uncle Tom" label: a betrayal of African Americanness itself. Similarly, Wright thinks that blacks not supporting Obama is akin to "Jesus hav[ing] his own people siding with the enemy." It’s unnerving that Wright is also willing to shut out well-meaning black Americans from the discourse to perpetuate this recurring notion of an incurable racial split. Wright shows a refusal to accommodate even minimal compromise and, hence, sermon after sermon, reinforces his monopoly of thought on African Americans, from impressionable children to senior citizens rooted in his line of thinking, who may otherwise have had a more realistic and optimistic racial outlook.

The excuse of church hyperbole is not in the least mitigating just as Imus's comedy excuse falls flat. It should be clear that Wright is more influential to his listeners than Imus is to his casual early morning listeners looking for gossip and a good laugh. Just as Imus’s “nappy headed hos” comment required only slight inference to surmise underlying racist bias, Wright’s religious and historical comments are quite straight forward; moreover, while Imus apologized, Wright intractably stands by his racism. The bottom line remains I slammed Imus before and Wright deserves an even greater indictment. I expect a similar, consistent standard from others.

The speech of Rev Wright that codeunknown is ready to harp on and call racist, black folk had to endure without batting an eye for many decades . We as african americans will just call rev wright excerpt a make-up call.

^^^^The fact that you guys agree with him just shows me how much the races are FAR apart and out of touch wit the other when it comes to perception and the "WHY". I would have never thought dudes would agree like that. Interesting

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

^^^^The fact that you guys agree with him just shows me how much the races are FAR apart and out of touch wit the other when it comes to perception and the "WHY". I would have never thought dudes would agree like that. Interesting

Saying it's brilliantly written isn't quite the same as agreeing with it. I happen to think he did a great job of making his case.

How upset a person finds themselves by the situation is probably where most of us diverge, and that has not been measured or compared.

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

^^^^The fact that you guys agree with him just shows me how much the races are FAR apart and out of touch wit the other when it comes to perception and the "WHY". I would have never thought dudes would agree like that. Interesting

Saying it's brilliantly written isn't quite the same as agreeing with it. I happen to think he did a great job of making his case.

How upset a person finds themselves by the situation is probably where most of us diverge, and that has not been measured or compared.

I think he made his arguments elegantly, but i disagree flatly with major parts of what he's saying. I'll be back in 20 minutes.

Excellent. I know to expect no less of a performance from you.

[Edited by - blueseats on 03-26-2008 10:02 PM]