![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
"Racial attitudes have changed dramatically in the United States over the past several decades, of course, and overtly racist beliefs are much less prevalent among white Americans of all classes today. But a more subtle form of prejudice, which social scientists sometimes call symbolic racism, is still out there--especially among working-class whites.
"Symbolic racism means believing that African American poverty and other problems are largely the result of lack of ambition and effort, rather than white racism and discrimination. Who holds symbolically racist beliefs? A relatively large portion of white voters in general and white working-class voters in particular, according to the 2004 American National Election Study, the best data available on this topic." (Emphasis added)
Auster's response is uncomfortably close to the truth. This is awful because the guy takes a truism--that some significant portion of the failures of African American individuals can and should be blamed on those individual African Americans, not on white racism--and uses it to bolster his "racial realist" view that we should not be surprised by African American failures but should rather expect them because people of African descent tend be to stupid failures who resort to crime (or, at minimum, government-mandated affirmative action) because their intellectual inadequacy leaves them incapable of competing with, for example, whites of European descent, on a level-playing field. Anyway, here's Auster's response:
"Here's what Abramowitz is saying. If you see the fact that blacks are behind, i.e., disproportionately poor, low-achieving, and prone to disorderly and criminal behavior, and if you reasonably infer that it is something about these low achieving blacks--their behavior, character, beliefs, aspirations, abilities--that is keeping them behind, that means that you think that blacks have a defect or inadequacy relative to other groups, which means that you think that blacks are inferior, which means that you're a racist. Therefore the only way not to be a racist is to think that blacks' poor performance is caused by factors that have nothing to do with blacks--factors that are artificially imposed on blacks by racist whites.
"In other words, if you're white, the only way not to be a racist is to believe that blacks perform poorly because they are victimized by white racism. If you reject the idea that white racism is what keeps blacks down, that proves you're a white racist.
"To call whites racist because they reasonably believe that blacks' chronic problems are a function of blacks' own abilities, qualities, and behaviors, is to say that whites are morally defective for using their reason. Which is the same as saying that whites don't have the moral right to use their reason. Which is, obviously, an infinitely worse form of racism than the racism that Abramowitz falsely attributes to whites."
The color-blindness advocated by Martin Luther King in his "I Have A Dream" Speech (putting aside, for the moment, his other views or the position on color-blindness he may have held at other times and that his followers, such as Jesse Jackson, may have once held or may still hold today) is the only hope this society has of avoiding racial conflict. To go from racial consciousness--either the kind practiced by Auster or the kind practiced by Jeremiah Wright--to full-fledged racism is no great leap. Putting aside (for the moment) my policy disputes with Mr. Obama, I fear that his candidacy will inflame race relations in this country like nothing America has seen since the decade-long nightmare that was the 1960s. This is not to say that Obama should drop out--he has every right to seek the office, and he is well on his way to winning it, or at least the Democratic nomination. It is to say that his near-monolithic support among blacks and leftists--and the tendency of said supporters to dismiss any criticism of Mr. Obama as stemming from racism and therefore illegitimate--will make this election, whether he wins or loses, awful for American race relations. A win will leave the opposition enraged that its legitimate criticisms will be dismissed as "symbolic racism" or some such nonsense, while a loss will give Obama's supporters license to charge this country with racism simply for having failed to elect their preferred candidate. It promises to be an ugly summer and fall...and beyond--there's no end in sight to our misery! And I haven't even talked about the bad policies advocated by Mr. Obama or his rivals! When you factor those in...ugh.
UPDATE: As if on cue, Auster follows up the post I linked to with this gem:
"He was speaking of the regrettable reality that black youth ARE, in fact, dangerous.""Black youth" are individuals and must be judged as such. In failing to do so, Auster shows that racialism/racism may be a distinction without a difference. But I want to make a different point: those who suggest that there is a such a thing as "symbolic racism," which consists of judging African American individuals as individuals and refusing to lay every African American individual's failures at the feet of a racist "system" have set up the dichotomy: deny the evidence or be deemed a racist. I regard this as a false alternative. That said, if those are the only alternatives, Auster and his ilk will feel justified in regarding themselves as brave truth-tellers when they are anything but. While left-liberals have succeeded in rendering the Austers of the world politically and socially marginalized--and said marginalization is definitely a good thing--they have done so at the expense of making frank, reality-based conversation about America's racial divide--the kind Mr. Obama said he wanted to start in his speech in Philadelphia--all but impossible. When it is taboo for a non-left-liberal to state his honest opinions on the subject of race relations--because a left-liberal may call him a racist even if he isn't--don't be surprised when a genuine racist is able to attract an audience for his poisonous nonsense.
Anonymous
May 10 2008, 23:09:30 UTC 4 years ago
Auster is a disaster
I am an Objectivist and I have been following Auster for a year now since discovering him. Why? Because I fear he his the future of Conservatism. Auster is a Medieval worshiping Christian authoritarian who hates Classical Liberalism; in fact he sees today's left-liberalism as a necessary outgrowth of Classical Liberalism if you can believe it. He hates Darwin and preaches that old saw that Darwin leads to empiricism which destroys morality and absolute truth which must come from a divine source; ie the intrinsic / subjective false alternative. And on top of it all he is a racial determinist (racialist) that bases everything on IQ scores.Your critique of him is awesome; you nailed it right to the bone especially with this:
""Black youth" are individuals and must be judged as such. In failing to do so, Auster shows that racialism/racism may be a distinction without a difference."
And this:
"That said, if those are the only alternatives, Auster and his ilk will feel justified in regarding themselves as brave truth-tellers when they are anything but."
Auster *does* consider his views as the only alternative to Leftist egalitarianism and if you disagree with him then you get called his favorite swear word: "liberal". He takes the welfare state as a given and never argues for the elimination of it. He just says that blacks and women will always vote for welfare programs because of their nature and therefore they have to be deprived of the franchise. Blacks and Hispanics are low IQ people and will always resort to crime according to Auster. He would never even think of questioning the welfare state or the victimless crime laws or public education, etc. He takes collectivism and altruism as a given. But you want the kicker. He actually has read Ayn Rand and even speaks approvingly of her on some occasions (he obviously hates her atheism). His epistemological confusion is simply breath-taking.
"When it is taboo for a non-left-liberal to state his honest opinions on the subject of race relations--because a left-liberal may call him a racist even if he isn't--don't be surprised when a genuine racist is able to attract an audience for his poisonous nonsense."
Brilliant observation and this is what is happening and will continue to happen. I fear we will see more Austers in the future. The cultural Marxists (left-liberals) have so destroyed race relations in this country via their collectivist ideologies coupled with the welfare state that Larry Auster type Christian authoritarians seem as freedom fighters in comparison unless you are grounded in an individualist philosophy. This connects with what you discussed in your review of Goldberg's Fascism book; namely that there is a false alternative being foisted on the culture. On the one hand there is the egalitarian collectivsts (the Marxist/socialist variety) and on the other there is the non-egalitarian variety (the fascist/theocratic) variety (which Auster falls under - the Christian variety). What is needed is to reject both.
So I am really glad you blogged on this because I think Auster is a phenomenon worth following for Objectivists. He is extremely popular with conservatives and his views are and will continue to influence immigration policy. Auster is the biggest opponent of free immigration that the Conservatives have. He is dangerous and the more so because he exposes the Left-liberal insanity but replaces it with insanity of his own.
Bob Sanders
May 11 2008, 00:41:54 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Auster is a disaster
Apart from your suggestion that he is the future of conservatism, I basically agree with you. As far as that suggestion is concerned, he is one possible future for conservatism. But among the current conservative mainstream, he is persona non grata. And that may mean he never gathers the kind of audience necessary to take over conservatism. Of course, time will tell. And, in any case, I believe he is sufficiently popular that exposing and denouncing him is worth the time.Anonymous
May 12 2008, 02:46:18 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Auster is a disaster
Perhaps it is more the unilateral certitude of views from conservatives like Auster than their actual philosophy that some find disturbing. This is as if to say that working under a positive conviction that some precepts of society ought to be-- and need to be-- defended should mean that rational thought has been thrown out the window. I would submit that the development and progress of civilizations has never been dependent on any leading moderate, reasonable class of thinkers. It is rather the contrasts between groups and views that sustains a vigorous culture. A perch in the middle of the road is no place to be for thought or action.4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
May 11 2008, 05:32:59 UTC 4 years ago
Focus on Culture, Not Biology
We need to separate the nonsensical question of biological superiority/inferiority of races from the real issue of cultural beliefs and choices. We cannot conclude, for example, that whites are biologically superior to blacks because white European civilization currently appears to be more powerful than native African civilization. Whites haven't always had the upper hand. And we don't know what the human racial configuration will look like thousands of years from now.But we can and should examine cultural choices in the form of values and beliefs and how they impact the well being of those who subscribe to them. Jeremiah Wright's sermons condemn white culture as racist (although judging by his actions, the multi-millionaire Reverend has done exceptionally better than most whites). All cultures are a mixed bag of good and bad. While cultures celebrate our identity, culture is ultimately governed by choice, not racial biology. There is much in traditional black culture that I admire as a white person -- music, dance, religious passion which produces great speeches, not to mention excellence in sports. Of course, many blacks have excelled in various professional careers by integrating themselves into the mainstream business culture. But those (like Wright) are doing a great disservice when they teach disadvantaged blacks that they are hopelessly oppressed victims who bear no responsibility for their problems. It's true that inner-city blacks face a tougher environment in general than do suburban whites. But it's also true they can choose to act-out their prescribed roles of victimhood, or they can choose to strive to rise above their problems, making themselves and their communities stronger in the process. We must all at times choose bitterness or life.
Just a few hundred years ago, European Jews were in the position that blacks are in today. The Jews chose to take control of their destiny, and look where they are today. Blacks have the same potential as anyone. What matters is choices.
May 11 2008, 05:42:23 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Focus on Culture, Not Biology
Some interesting thoughts from this mysterious stranger--care to identify yourself?Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
May 11 2008, 22:50:40 UTC 4 years ago
Culture Matters Most
In my opinion, culture is what counts most in the end. Even if science were to discover that blacks as a population group do possess a lower average IQ score (and this is what scientists like Charles Murray believe) it would be irrelevant politically. Rights are not based on IQ scores but on the possession of a rational faculty. If the culture were more rational and freer, this fact (lower black IQ scores) would have little impact. It might mean at most that there were statistically less blacks as nuclear scientists and perhaps more blacks as independent businessmen.Think about the barren wasteland that is black and minority culture today. They live in the most socialistic parts of the country, the inner cities. They are educated in leftist, post-modernist indoctrination camps which are the public schools. Said schools butcher their minds from an early age. The popular culture they grow up in consists of gangsta rap and other nihilistic phenomena. They are taught that to embrace European culture is to be an Uncle Tom. What chance do many of them have?
Then a guy like Auster comes along and says that they are basically stupid as a group and have lower "civilizational abilities" than whites. Auster totally discounts culture because he is a racial determinist who believes that race determines culture. He completely rejects the idea of a "self made soul." Your race, your gender, your ethnicity are what define you according to Auster. Defining yourself by using reason is irrelevant to a determinist. Auster is at root an old Southern style racist. He rejects left-liberal egalitarianism to replace it whit what amounts to white Christian non-egalitarianism (authoritarianism).
May 11 2008, 22:53:23 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Culture Matters Most
More interesting thoughts from Bob Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Sanders.May 12 2008, 03:38:46 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Culture Matters Most
"Even if science were to discover that blacks as a population group do possess a lower average IQ score (and this is what scientists like Charles Murray believe) it would be irrelevant politically."Science has discovered just that. We have 80 years of testing data, and the white-black IQ gap has remained virtually unchanged at one standard deviation. Moreover this gap exists in the black racial groups all over the world. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa the gap is closer to two standard deviations. This is not Charles Murray's opinion, it's data. If the gap were culturally based, then why would it remain invariant for 80 years? Do you think the culture has not changed at all in that time span?
It's true that political rights don't depend on IQ, but that's not the issue and is an obvious attempt to misdirect the argument. For example some public school systems are being sued for having failed their black students. The suit is based on the observed academic performance gap. But this gap is explainable by the IQ gap, and the lawsuits are essentially frivolous. There is also a strong correlation between socio-economic status and IQ. You would therefore expect any defined group with a lower average IQ to exhibit a lower average income.
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
May 12 2008, 05:01:52 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Culture Matters Most
At what point is "culture" the product of something like genes? And coversely, after how many generations of a certain culture do certian adaptations to that culture begin to show? Can you name one - ONE - African-majority nation/society/territory that has achieved anything comparable to European or Asian societies?I agree that IQs and raw intelligence do not matter much in individual terms, and that rights are not based on such things anyway but on a common humanity, one, by the way, which Auster as a Chistian very much aknowledges. But these things do matter in the aggregate. If there is enough of anything it will begin to manifest itself across society as a whole. There is contradiction between knowing there are plenty of "self-made souls" and the reality, perhaps sadly, that most people are in fact nothing but there race, ethnicity, gender, nationality - what have you. You speak as if everyone were a philosopher; as if the light of reason shinned into every soul. It does not. I shared your view during my years in college and grad school; the real world cured me of the delusion that the average Joe can transcend anything.
4 years ago
Anonymous
May 12 2008, 04:55:22 UTC 4 years ago
Auster Has Taken Notice
Here: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010He responded exactly as predicted. He called us that dreaded word "liberal." And of course he insulted our intelligence by suggesting that we can't read. He doesn't think you responded to his argument when in fact you did by going to its racist essence. But Auster is not very good with essentialization largely because his basic metaphysical starting point is non-reality (ie God, heaven, etc) and his epistemology is so corrupted with faith and "transcendence." Also, Auster is an intrinsicist and as such his definition of objectivity is ultimately truth by revelation (typical rationalist). He is the kind of Conservative that will speak of "faith in reason." All of this is my way of saying that any reply he posts to this thread should be quite a doozy.
Bob Sanders
May 12 2008, 07:05:09 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Auster Has Taken Notice
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/01I've seen this and will be commenting on it shortly. Thanks for letting me know about it.
Anonymous
May 12 2008, 08:25:46 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Auster Has Taken Notice
He responded exactly as predicted. He called us that dreaded word "liberal." And of course he insulted our intelligence by suggesting that we can't read. He doesn't think you responded to his argument when in fact you did by going to its racist essence.He called you liberal because you are liberal, that is, smug, self-righteous and irrational on questions of race. The term "racist" has all the intellectual content of "yuck." Speaking of a "racist essence" merely adds pretentiousness to the evasion. You can't refute his reasoning or deny his facts, so you label him a heretic in the secure knowledge that your fellow sheep will baa approvingly.
But Auster is not very good with essentialization largely because his basic metaphysical starting point is non-reality (ie God, heaven, etc) and his epistemology is so corrupted with faith and "transcendence." Also, Auster is an intrinsicist and as such his definition of objectivity is ultimately truth by revelation (typical rationalist).
Typical cultist: reassure yourself by repeating the jargon of your cult-leader.
May 12 2008, 09:06:22 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Auster Has Taken Notice
I think this is directed at both Bob Sanders and myself. I'll let Bob respond if he wants to. I'll only note my amusement at being called a liberal given the fact that denouncing (left-)liberals is one of my favorite pastimes.4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
May 12 2008, 05:14:21 UTC 4 years ago
May 12 2008, 07:09:44 UTC 4 years ago
Anonymous
May 12 2008, 10:18:37 UTC 4 years ago
1. It might make it impractical to use IQ tests in hiring, because IQ tests show results that on average differ by race, so they must be discriminatory.
2. It might turn different levels of hiring by race into evidence (that is very difficult and expensive to rebut) of illegal discrimination, so employers institute quota systems.
3. Etc.
Someone might want to oppose such a law. If he did, it would be rational for him to contest its factual basis, the claim that there are no average differences between blacks and whites.
4 years ago
Anonymous
May 12 2008, 11:32:23 UTC 4 years ago
individuals vs groups
Individuals should be judged as individuals, groups as groups. It happens that the violent crime rate among black American youth is around 16-20 times the rate among east-Asian youth, and this is important knowledge for an individual in eg deciding whether to walk through the black neighbourhood or the Chinese neighbourhood. It also has important social policy implications, just as do other group differences in eg propensity to marry, disease rates, educational attainment etc. It's not rational to ignore group differences.4 years ago
Anonymous
May 12 2008, 11:40:13 UTC 4 years ago
differences
"What's significant about it? I'd really like to know a single rational endeavor in which this data would be useful."IQ differences are significant for social policy in eg evaluating what educational attainment targets are reasonable, they're important for employers in knowing what they can reasonably expect from their workforce, in health and safety - with a high IQ more complex or risky activity may be carried out safely. They correlate with crime rates, and propensity for alcoholism, family breakdown, and other negatives, which can be affected for better or worse by social policy. For instance, with a higher median IQ more of the population will show propensity for deferred gratification and long term planning, eg they will be more inclined to long term saving; and will respond more strongly to incentives to eg get a pension, get health insurance. The higher the median IQ the better the group can cope with complex form-filling. Conversely, if you wish to target benefits at a group with a lower median IQ, if you make the forms to claim those benefits complex you will get low take up. If tax forms are complicated, more will not be able to fill them in correctly.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
Anonymous
May 12 2008, 12:34:02 UTC 4 years ago
I.Q.
Culture and I.Q. are both significant, but how much weight we give to both will always be debated and also depends on the question.Mexicans have a lower out of wedlock birth rate than Americans, even white Americans. The last data I saw, it was at around 12%. Mexicans in the U.S., however, have an out of wedlock birthrate between whites and blacks in the high 40's. The more acculturated to American society they become, the higher it goes up. For example, Spanish only speakers have lower rates than bilinguals who have better rates than English only Mexican speakers.
Culture matters, but in any given culture I.Q. will rear its head as I.Q. has some correlation with behavior: a dumber person has a harder time resisting temptation for instant gratification and is less able to predict the consequences of their actions.
Another example, visit the CIA World Fact website to see the following with your own eyes. In Africa, a continent which has the lowest I.Q. on average. What is the best protection against AIDS? Living in a majority Muslim country with their ultra-conservative culture. Second best is a Christian country, the less outside world influence the better (foreign governments stick their noses more in Christian countries trying to make their culture more liberal), followed by countries with pre-colonial religions.
So, when it comes to matters of personal and sexual behavior, culture is paramount and when you look within a particular society, the best behaved people will have higher I.Q.'s and less likely to be in prison, have an STD, die young, etc.
I'll let someone else argue about GDP and job skills, but sadly, culture has less effect here, but it does have some.
Emily B.
4 years ago
Anonymous
May 12 2008, 17:12:21 UTC 4 years ago
I take no personal pleasure in these facts. Like any rational individual I would like to see all peoples flourish. But I trust my eyes, and one only need look around at IQ & race, and see the results in asian nations, black nations & white nations.....it speaks for itself.
There has been some research that has shown that early childhood intervention with nutritional supplements can help raise IQ in places like Africa. Extensive early education has shown mixed results, but it's worth a try.
IQ is not everything, but without admitting that it is an important component to base a technological civilization on is wishful thinking.
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
May 12 2008, 17:14:24 UTC 4 years ago
Significant
"What's significant about it? I'd really like to know a single rational endeavor in which this data would be useful."The US military uses IQ testing extensively. Applicants below a threshold are rejected. The AFOQT (heavily g loaded) test is used to qualify recruits for various jobs like pilot training programs.
Academic tests such as the LSAT, MCAT, GRE are heavily g loaded and are used to qualify applicants for graduate school. Circa 1992, 1,100 whites scored at or higher than 170 on the LSAT, while only 3 blacks did likewise. Law schools have much lower cutoffs for black applicants or there would be virtually no black students in the top 20 law schools. But black law students have significantly lower grades, as a group and a much lower bar exam pass rate. The LSAT score is high correlated with IQ or more precisely the g factor. Companies used IQ testing too in hiring until the US Supreme Court exposed them to litigation risk. See Griggs v. Duke Power.
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
May 12 2008, 18:39:40 UTC 4 years ago
If it is not significant, it will be easy to prove
Lets assume that IQ is not significant.Average IQ for US is 100. Since it is not significant we should have many, many examples of highly successful people who have IQ below 100.
Successful athletes and performers are excluded as they success depends on their intellect very minimally.
There are several thousand math, science, medicine, business, professors in top universities. Remove professors who got there because of Affirmative Action. Among remaining professors we should have a few hundred who have IQ below 100.
Please name a few.
Any Harvard math/physics/astronomy prof whose IQ below 100?
MIT? Caltech?
It is easy to find tall profs, short profs, blond, bold, fat, skinny.
Why it is not easy to find stupid ones (defined as having low IQ)?
Any business tycoon has IQ below 100?
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
May 13 2008, 00:04:14 UTC 4 years ago
you're denying the undeniable...
...and you ought to think about why. The Anonymous posts at 10:18, 11:32, and 11:40 (not mine) are right on the mark. It appears to me you're letting your fear of racial conflict hypertrophy and thereby pervert your individualism into a refusal to recognize the obvious.The general point, which the Anonymous examples are specific cases of, is that in the absence of complete information about an individual or group of individuals--which is always the case--statistical or quasi-statistical information about the larger group of individuals is highly relevant to actions one might take.
Moreover, understanding groups is part of understanding reality. With your self-blinding attitude, you might as well refuse to consider the pressure of a gas and restrict your attention only to the behavior of individual molecules.
4 years ago
Anonymous
January 27 2009, 00:07:31 UTC 3 years ago
Replying to your comments about me
I just came upon this thread. I'm not going to address the main issues of race between us, but I do want to correct some untrue statements that have been made about me, including your quotation of me that you have mischievously taken out of context.You quote me:
"He was speaking of the regrettable reality that black youth ARE, in fact, dangerous,"
and you proceed to damn me as a person who doesn't judge people as individuals but only by race.
But here is what I actually said:
"Siri Carpenter thinks that Jesse Jackson in his famous remark was admitting to the operation of a prejudice within himself about black youth that his conscious mind virtuously rejected but that, to his mortification, was still operating anyway, making him think ugly thoughts against his will. She has it completely wrong. Jackson was not speaking of some supposed regrettable prejudicial belief of his that black youth are dangerous. He was speaking of the regrettable reality that black youth ARE, in fact, dangerous. Furthermore, not once in the article does Carpenter mention the extremely high rates of violent crime by black males that stoked Jackson's fear. And this article appears in the 'Scientific' American. Carpenter is probably under 35 and a product of schools that have literally destroyed the ability of intelligent young people to think and reason.."
So, first, I was not expressing my views, but explaining Jesse Jackson's views, which you left out.
Second, I said, "regrettably," which you left out. Putting that word back in markedly changes the tone of the quote.
Third, I could have used qualifying language, such as "black youth are vastly more likely to be dangerous than white youth." But this is blogging; it's not practically possible to put sufficient qualifiers into literally every single phrase one writes. Further I did have qualifying language in the very next sentence, where I referred to "the extremely high rates of violent crime by black males that stoked Jackson's fear." To speak of high rates of crime indicates that we are speaking of high rates of crime, not saying that all black youth are violent criminals.
For the record I do not believe and have never said that all individual black young males are dangerous. Every time I discuss black violence I state that a segment of the black population is dangerous, and that liberal society suppresses this fact and refuses to let people talk plainly about it. So this is not about judging individuals. It's about facing the actual danger that a significant segment of black youth in present, and that society, whites in particular, need to be aware of so as to conduct themselves more carefully in public places where it's not possible to subject each individual to an examination of his mind, character and intentions. In reality, people must go by generalities at times. This commonsensical truth would only be denied by a Randian ideologue who in the name of reason refuses to deal with reality.
You write:
"'Black youth' are individuals and must be judged as such. In failing to do so, Auster shows that racialism/racism may be a distinction without a difference."
Then The New Republic is a racist magazine, because it has published articles about the need and justification for what it calls "rational discrimination" in certain situations when dealing with blacks, because, regretably, the rate of violence among blacks is extremely high. For example, TNR once ran a cover article saying that a jewelry store owner had every right to be more cautious about opening his door to a young black man. That's not about judging the black man, whom one doesn't know. It's about exercising rational caution in the face of the reality of extremely high black violence.
I wonder if Rational passion is able to rise above his ideology to understand this rational point.
Lawrence Auster
January 27 2009, 03:44:56 UTC 3 years ago
Re: Replying to your comments about me
I will comment in a separate new post on the main blog. If Mr. Auster or others want to reply, they can comment on the new post, which will be dated January 26th (or 27th), 2009 (depending on what time I finish writing it). Any would-be participants in the discussion are encouraged to comment on the new post. Any comments left on this entry--which are highly unlikely to be seen this long after the original post was made--will be deleted.