The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Adults These Days
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Providence Journal:

University leaders ask for wide discussion of ‘deeply offensive’ opinions in Brown Daily Herald

By Gregory Smith
Journal Staff Writer

Posted Oct. 12, 2015 at 5:04 PM

A trio of Brown University leaders are urging an informed campus discussion of issues raised by the publication of two racially charged opinion columns in the Brown Daily Herald.

In a letter to the faculty, Provost Richard M. Locke, President Christina Paxson and Executive Vice President Russell Carey said “many members” of the university community found the columns “deeply offensive.”

Locke, Paxson and Carey called for conversations on race, gender, campus culture and climate and related topics guided by academic leaders of an institution “committed to research, education and service.”

Is there a more totalitarian word these days than “conversations?”

In an editor’s note in the Wednesday newspaper, the Herald apologized for having published opinion columns by Brown student M. Dzhali Maier.

The Herald said “The white privilege of cows,” published Oct. 5, relied on the incorrect notion that biological differences exist between races.

Here’s the Editor’s Note that now accompanies the column:

Editors’ Note: This column did not meet The Herald’s standards for writing and clarity, and, more importantly, contained several factual inaccuracies regarding biology and race that cannot be corrected without compromising the argument of the entire column. The column relied on the repeatedly disproven premise that race is a biological category. The Herald regrets the publication of the column. We apologize to our readers for the factual errors and offensive claims made in it and for the shortcomings of our editorial process. In an effort to be transparent about our mistake, we are leaving the column online. We initially made the decision to publish the column, as we generally edit opinions columns for style and clarity alone, giving our columnists great leeway in making their argument as part of our commitment to freedom of expression. We regret that decision and believe it’s clear that this column crossed the line from an opinion we merely disagree with to one that has no place in our paper.The Herald is committed to an accurate and thoughtful opinions section, and we are taking steps to prevent similar issues in the future. Though we continue to strive to promote a venue for the free exchange of ideas, we do not and will not tolerate racism. We invite readers to send responses to [email protected]

I know it sounds nuts, but lots of people really do believe this “Race is not a biological category” talking point. Sure, it’s incredibly stupid, but then you can get in lots of trouble these days for not being incredibly stupid. So a lot of people find it safest just to be stupid, as Orwell noted in the definition of “crimestop” or “protective stupidity.” Back to the Providence Journal:

… In the letter to faculty dated Sunday, signed by Locke, the trio of leaders said any faculty needing support or assistance should contact the office of institutional diversity and inclusion and the office of campus life, among other resources, that have expertise in facilitating the conversations.

 
Hide 152 CommentsLeave a Comment
152 Comments to "Adults These Days"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “This column did not meet The Herald’s standards for writing and clarity, and, more importantly, contained several factual inaccuracies regarding biology and race that cannot be corrected without compromising the argument of the entire column … We regret that decision and believe it’s clear that this column crossed the line from an opinion we merely disagree with to one that has no place in our paper.”

    Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

  2. Also, Orwell – the prophet of today’s insane age – wrote that “in a time of universal deceit, to tell the truth is a revolutionary act”.

    • Replies: @Mark Eugenikos
    Except that there is no record Orwell ever wrote that; it's a myth that keeps getting propagated. Search and you shall find out.
  3. “Deeply offensive” in progspeech translates roughly as “a commonly held opinion I’m hoping isn’t true.”

  4. HBD denialism. Anti-science.

  5. But admission policy will be affected by race.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    But admission policy will be affected by race.
     
    Gold!
    , @Joe Magarac
    In general, there is a strong correlation (among White people) between disbelief in the existence of race and advocacy of policies that make sense only if race is the most important thing in the whole world.

    At least the Blacks don't pretend there's no such thing as race.
  6. I have finally settled on the conclusion that 99% of people are incapable of the minimum requirements for intellectual or even factual conversation, such as divorce of emotion and fact, appreciation of ideas for their own merit regardless the source, appreciation of the difference between ideas and wishes, just plain curiosity, etc etc.

    You were on to something with your esoteric/exoteric series. Maybe everybody but a select group should just be told what to think if we don’t want to inevitably end up with insanity like the above.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I have finally settled on the conclusion that 99% of people are incapable of the minimum requirements for intellectual or even factual conversation, such as divorce of emotion and fact, appreciation of ideas for their own merit regardless the source, appreciation of the difference between ideas and wishes, just plain curiosity, etc etc.
     
    Psychologist Jean Piaget made precisely this argument, though his figure was more optimistic than 99%, it was still a majority. He had three thresholds of mental maturity that the young had to pass through, and most never made it through, or even to, the third.

    There's a short essay on this by Steven Barone in Reason about 35 years ago. It's preserved at unz.org. (Thanks, Ron!)
  7. Give me a break? Are you “free speech champions” so naive as to think a person can say or write ANYTHING without fear of repercussions or getting into trouble? What world are you guys living in?

    Some things said or written under the guise of “free speech” can get a person arrested and put in jail immediately. Use your “free speech” to say or write something racist or bigoted and see how long you keep your job. Write or say something libelous about somebody else, and you’ll be sued so fast it will make your head spin.

    Sorry folks. Free speech may mean that a person can speak or write whatever is on his or her mind. But is not a free pass to escape the consequences of what is said or written

    • Replies: @AnAnon
    "Some things said or written under the guise of “free speech” can get a person arrested and put in jail immediately." - This is not true. Hate speech has been repeatedly found to be protected free speech, and for the very reason that you can't simply decide that speech you don't like shouldn't be protected. Likewise Anonymous speech has also been repeatedly found to be protected free speech. Libel is a crime and is not considered protected free speech.

    You can't have us thrown into the gulags yet, how that must rankle you.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    Give me a break? Are you “free speech champions” so naive as to think a person can say or write ANYTHING without fear of repercussions or getting into trouble? What world are you guys living in?

    We are saying that if someone says something that is factually correct and that would not be controversial among specialists in that field , he should not be excoriated as if he told hateful lies and is alarmingly ignorant. Is that too much to ask of an institute of higher learning?
    , @Robert Abrahamsen
    Then free speech has always existed everywhere. You were perfectly free in medieval Christendom, for example, to deny the divinity of Jesus or to call God myth. You were free to declare Mao an illegitimate ruler in 1950s China. You probably wouldn't care for the repurcusions to your person for having said such things. But you were perfectly free to say them.
    , @William BadWhite
    "Sorry folks. Free speech may mean that a person can speak or write whatever is on his or her mind. But is not a free pass to escape the consequences of what is said or written"

    You're rather obtuse Henry. "Free speech" that carries consequences isn't really free is it?
    , @Unladen Swallow
    That is true when discussing libel and slander and endangering public safety. Discussing facts has not normally been prosecuted under those rules, but thanks to free speech censors like yourself the goalposts have now been moved, and now apparently people have a right not to be offended when someone points out facts to them.

    What you are really saying is that some people should be able to preemptively censor others who point out things that make them depressed and uncomfortable even if they are true. That has not been the conventional restriction on free speech that the courts have followed, so your tortured rationalization for your dream of your Big Brother run utopia falls flat.

    You do not have a right to take other people's free speech rights away because it damages your fragile self-esteem, now go back to Vox or the Nation, no one is buying your nonsense justification for Newspeak here, Buhbye.
    , @Dumbo
    Have you read the original article? The accusations of "racist" and "bigoted" seems to have increased exponentially in inverse proportion to any actual racist content. Also, the author seems to have an Indian name.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Give me a break? Are you “free speech champions” so naive as to think a person can say or write ANYTHING without fear of repercussions or getting into trouble? What world are you guys living in?"

    The notion that "Life isn't fair" is a sentiment often held and expressed by those who do so much to make life unfair.
    , @Jack D
    Henry, as someone here pointed out in another response, the Revolution always eats its young. Once all of the "racists" have lost their jobs (which I infer is something that you may look upon with approval) what makes you think that you too will not one day make a slip of the tongue or have your words twisted and misinterpreted by someone who is browner, dumber and more leftist than you (perhaps you will call someone "niggardly" ) and get swept up in the storm? It's all fun and games until the Eye of Sauron turns its gaze toward you. You may think that you are such a True Believer, an anti-racist down to his very bones, that this could NEVER happen to you. Think again.
    , @Difference Maker
    "Free speech may mean that a person can speak or write whatever is on his or her mind. But is not a free pass to escape the consequences of what is said or written"

    Of course it is. Otherwise what's different about it from unfree speech? Lol!
    , @a Newsreader
    I noticed that this comment from Henry Schumer attacks the commenters for their devotion to free speech, but none of the preceding comments used the term. So I looked at the Providence Journal article and found the same comment posted by someone called Alberta.

    I have been noticing that frequently there are comments here from some non-regular commenter with a snarky tone which don't seem to be responding to the actual content of Steve's post or any of the other comments. Are these all from the same guy copying and pasting the same comment into multiple blogs and newspaper articles with no regard for context?
  8. I don’t know what else to do any more besides shake my head.

  9. Ring Lardner captured the left’s idea of a conversation almost a century ago. A young boy is riding in a car with his dad and the father has gotten lost somewhere in the Bronx (this was before GPS and cell phones – the plots of so many old movies and stories don’t work nowadays). This is the boy’s first person account:

    “Are you lost, daddy?” I asked tenderly. “Shut up,” he explained.

    So “having a conversation” about race means that you sit there and listen quietly while a leftist lectures you that you have committed a grievous thoughtcrime which you must never repeat, that race doesn’t really exist, and no backtalk please. It’s kind of like “having a conversation” with the disciplinarian in your high school when you have been caught smoking in the lavatory.

    The thing that I can’t decide about leftists is whether they are aware of the Orwellian nature of their enterprise and do it anyway because they know they can get away with it, or whether they are truly so oblivious that they don’t realize that their idea of a “conversation” is not really a conversation at all. Either way it doesn’t reflect well on them.

    • Replies: @kihowi
    Isn’t that just girl speak? Have you ever had a woman tell you “we need to talk” and expected it to be a give and take of ideas instead of a forgone conclusion on her side?
    , @AndrewR
    I think a large part of the CultMarx base is honestly too dumb to realize how hypocritical they are.

    By my definition of "bright", the bright ones know they're full of shit. Intelligence, of course, has zero correlation with morality. Leftism is at its core a truly cynical power play, as Mao, Lenin and Alinsky, among others, openly admitted.

    , @Jim Don Bob
    Jack D said "The thing that I can’t decide about leftists is whether they are aware of the Orwellian nature of their enterprise and do it anyway because they know they can get away with it, or whether they are truly so oblivious that they don’t realize that their idea of a “conversation” is not really a conversation at all".

    They have never stopped to consider that their tactics might ever be turned on them. It can't happen to them, because they are on the Right Side of History. Ask Lenin's Bolshevik and Social Democrat enablers how that worked out for them.
  10. @Jack D
    Ring Lardner captured the left's idea of a conversation almost a century ago. A young boy is riding in a car with his dad and the father has gotten lost somewhere in the Bronx (this was before GPS and cell phones - the plots of so many old movies and stories don't work nowadays). This is the boy's first person account:

    "Are you lost, daddy?" I asked tenderly. "Shut up," he explained.

    So "having a conversation" about race means that you sit there and listen quietly while a leftist lectures you that you have committed a grievous thoughtcrime which you must never repeat, that race doesn't really exist, and no backtalk please. It's kind of like "having a conversation" with the disciplinarian in your high school when you have been caught smoking in the lavatory.

    The thing that I can't decide about leftists is whether they are aware of the Orwellian nature of their enterprise and do it anyway because they know they can get away with it, or whether they are truly so oblivious that they don't realize that their idea of a "conversation" is not really a conversation at all. Either way it doesn't reflect well on them.

    Isn’t that just girl speak? Have you ever had a woman tell you “we need to talk” and expected it to be a give and take of ideas instead of a forgone conclusion on her side?

  11. “Though we continue to strive to promote a venue for the free exchange of ideas, we do not and will not tolerate racism.”

    should be changed to:

    “Though we continue to strive to promote a venue for the free exchange of ideas, we find that we, regrettably, are unable to do so because we do not and will not tolerate discussion of racial differences and this irrespective of the impartial evidence that any contributor may offer and/or their qualifications to address a subject about which we, admittedly, know all too little.”

  12. It’s one thing for students at a laughably bad college like Brown University to scribble, “disproven premise that race is a biological category,” but it’s really sad to see a city newspaper print the words: “incorrect notion that biological differences exist.”

  13. As the onion says, College Encourages Lively Exchange Of Idea.

    (From April, but I only found it today.)

  14. Yes, sure….”Race is not a biological category” or substitute gender. Same problem for the loons, different day.

  15. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Is there a more totalitarian word these days than “conversations?””

    Hate it. I remember when I first started hearing people use it, maybe 15 years ago (perhaps a little earlier), and it always struck me it meant that the powers that be wanted to lecture us on some topic, but expected us to be as engaged with what they were saying as we would be if we were having a conversation with them, as equals.

    • Replies: @Olorin
    Anybody else here have to sit through the "Crucial Conversations" workplace propaganda program?

    "Opinions that have no place in our paper" is pretty good, but prolix.

    "Nonviolent Communication" was pretty totalitarian in my experience of it in various settings.

    Here. You may need Brain Bleach after reading.

    https://www.cnvc.org/

    Absolute flippin' cult IME.
  16. The mere existence of this thought piece being published is evidence that HBD beliefs are beginning to spread.

    It starts…

  17. Commenter Albert Wesker weighs in…

  18. @Anonymous
    Also, Orwell - the prophet of today's insane age - wrote that "in a time of universal deceit, to tell the truth is a revolutionary act".

    Except that there is no record Orwell ever wrote that; it’s a myth that keeps getting propagated. Search and you shall find out.

  19. BTW, I love the links that the Editors give for the “repeatedly “”disproven” idea that race exists.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/22/science/do-races-differ-not-really-genes-show.html?pagewanted=all

    This is a cutting edge article from 2000 in that famous scientific publication, the NY Times.

    But, we are given a link to a much more up to date article from that other great scientific journal, Newsweek (are they still in business?)

    http://www.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123

    In this article, the author begs the question by conflating the notion of “race” with “subspecies” and declaring that since there are no human subspecies, so “race” does not exist.

    We know that all dogs, from the chihuahua to the Great Dane, are all just a type of wolf with “minor” genetic differences between breeds (and that all of this variation arose in just the last 40,000 years), and yet we see that these minor genetic differences are enough to create vast differences in appearance, size, behavior, intelligence, etc. As long as we are willing to accept that a Yorkshire Terrier and a St. Bernard are exactly the same thing, then race in humans doesn’t exist either. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

    So it’s all a clever semantic game – you define “race” to mean exactly what you want it to mean and then you can define it into non-existence.

    • Replies: @ic1000
    Here's a link to a map that Razib Khan reposted a couple of weeks back. It shows the astonishing correspondence between the genetics of Europeans and the physical geography of Europe. Of course, similar patterns can be seen on a global scale, looking at the genomes of the major human races.

    Meanwhile, "The Herald said 'The white privilege of cows,' published Oct. 5, relied on the incorrect notion that biological differences exist between races."

    Are our lyin' eyes being misled by the faulty Principal Components Analysis? Perhaps the isolated DNA contains the corruption. Maybe the test tubes themselves are the source of this sinfulness.

    Because the people from whom the blood was taken are identically the same. To each other, and to every other human that has ever lived, or ever will.
  20. Interestingly, the author of this story is Emma Maier (she uses a pseudonym for her first name in the article), identifies as being on the autistic spectrum, and is not backing down (yet):

    “I absolutely do not agree with the decision to remove and/or apologize for the articles, for they were not racist or eugenicist in any way,” she said. “The only violation they executed was to be a dissenting opinion away from Brown’s radical and politically left-wing student groups.”

    “I do not think I need to apologize, either for myself or the Herald, nor will I,” she said. “I committed no transgression, as an opinion writer, and the Herald committed no transgression in deciding my articles were appropriate to print.”

    http://www.630wpro.com/2015/10/10/exclusive-brown-student-who-wrote-racist-columns-speaks-out/

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Give her time. They will tighten the screws until she is begging for forgiveness. She doesn't realize yet what it means to have stepped into an internet shitstorm.
    , @Philip Neal
    Maier's article Brown's Oppressed Minority http://bit.ly/1Nnu5UZ bears close reading. The A-word occurs five times but the writer makes no definite claim to have received a diagnosis of autism. The closest we get is this:

    Perhaps the most stifling of rational debate is when I am told that I “simply do not have the capacity and ability to partake in discussion.” I take this to be the result of someone misinformed about autism.

     

    It is plainly no joke suffering from Maier's syndrome, whatever it may be. Maier is "oppressed. Horribly oppressed." Her life is "often a living hell." "Unfortunately, the loudest voices at Brown seem not to make sense a lot of the time." (That I can believe.) "Being doomed to make the wrong choice repeatedly and get viciously rebuked for it, I haven’t made many friends here." (Neurotypicals oppress neurotypicals and they blame the autist.) Maier has been told "to shut up and stop spreading the plagues of skepticism, reason and logic."

    Several possibilities suggest themselves. Maier may really be a female autist. She (or is it ze?) may be a nerd who genuinely thinks she (ze) is an autist. Or she (ze) may be playing the victim card - the self-pitying tone ("left out of the conversation") is nicely judged - while simultaneously, and very wisely, pocketing a Get Out of Jail Free card for future use.

  21. Why ‘Redskins’ Is a Bad by John McWhorter (Time, 10/12/15)

  22. “Calling for a conversation” means shutting down the conversation.

  23. ‘Is there a more totalitarian word these days than “conversations?”’

    I believe “dialogue” is an even stronger signal that the ‘privileged’ are expected to hold their tongues and listen to the self-obsessed, unending whining of the non-privileged.

  24. After reading the article, what is depressing is that it is so mild. The author isn’t saying anything that is even remotely controversial if you have an open mind.

    • Replies: @International Jew

    After reading the article, what is depressing is that it is so mild.
     
    Yeah, it's mostly a summary of Jared Diamond's theory about how the fortuitous availability of nutricious wild grains and easily-domesticated wild animals is what explains why Europeans developed sooner and farther than Aztecs.

    Poor kid must have thought he was writing a solid piece of goodthink. His only mistake was choosing that title. “The white privilege of cows” sounds like he's poking fun at one of the left's holiest memes. He would have avoided all the trouble he got himself into (goodbye Atlantic Monthly internship...) if he'd entitled it "Cows, wheat, and white privilege" (which in fact better summarizes what he has to say.)

    Of course, substantively speaking his article is still a pile of aurox dung.

  25. Thank you Steve, for reminding me that we in fact live in a totalitarian dystopia.

  26. Then their entire system of affirmative action for hiring and admissions is based on a lie.

    Typical proglib doublespeak. Race exists when they want it to for their own ends, but it doesn’t exist at all when you want to enter into a serious empirical discussion about it.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    It's not about logic, it's not about consistency. It's not about serious empirical discussions. It's about using any stick to hit the enemy. This was a very difficult conclusion for me to come to, yet come to it I have.
  27. Also this:

    “Any faculty needing support or assistance should contact the office of institutional diversity and inclusion and the office of campus life, among other resources, that have expertise in facilitating the conversations”

    sounds like straight out of 1984.

  28. I always wonder what goes through peoples heads that truly believe that race does not exist when they watch the 100m sprints finals.

    • Replies: @International Jew

    I always wonder what goes through peoples heads that truly believe that race does not exist when they watch the 100m sprints finals.
     
    They can take it as an opportunity to voice some Occam's-butterknifeish theory for why social circumstances and discrimination explain that lineup at the starting blocks, and thus signal their mental hygiene.
  29. My mom took me to Thom Mcans for new school shoes where she bought me buster browns with round toes. I wanted west side story puerto rican pointy stabby shoes.. I cried so much. Then my mammy said “Don’t get attached to shoes-someone,somewhere will drop a house on ya” I hate the color brown

  30. Can I say “puzzling”? What human characteristics are attributes of biology? Hair color? Eye color? Sex? Or are these all social constructs?

    • Replies: @AnAnon
    "What human characteristics are attributes of biology? Hair color? Eye color? Sex? Or are these all social constructs?" - As others have noted, in order for race to have a biological component, scientists would have to semantically agree with it having a biological component. the fact that race is more biologically heritable than any other trait(and by obscene margins) isn't important to those who want to declare it a social construct.

    "Can I say “puzzling”?" - If they can convince you the naked guy is really wearing a purple robe with gold trimmings their status goes up.
  31. Interesting to note, despite the name, the BDH is a formally independent business with no financial/educational/editorial/liability connection to The Corporation since the early 20th century:

    http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Databases/Encyclopedia/search.php?serial=B0400

    However, its overall tenor has traditionally been closer to an in-house campus pub living off student fees and publishing milksop whiners than to, say, the Dartmouth Review. Current undergrads & grad students do write the articles after all.

    There were some notable fracases with the proto-SJWs of Providence (actually, one upscale neighborhood of Providence that’s located on high ground for hurricane insurance, but I digress). Mainly it was the Pan-Afrikans or Afro-Pan-Jamboree or whatever — I don’t remember them ever getting on the wrong side of the homos. But the paper did take money for & print the slavery reparations ad, for instance. I’m not sure whether they actually still have press runs for the newspaper bins around campus — the better for blacks to raid & destroy — although at this point, since they seem to have fully turned in their nuts and serve no purpose to the student body, may as well become an administrative blog on the brown.edu server, serving at the pleasure of the Assistant Vice Dean of Conversations…

    • Agree: International Jew
  32. OT: Steve, some Ramzan Kadyrov news: UFC champ Fabricio Werdum signs on as ambassador for Chechnya’s Akhmat Fight Club. Mrs. Sailer will have to pick up an “Ahkmat Fight Club” t-shirt for your birthday.

  33. So I read the column, establishing also that “M.Dzhali Maier” is the pseudonym of a young white woman who looks a lot like my sister, and am completely astonished at the reaction to this article.

    The article isn’t even about race in the first, second, or third place. Rather, it’s an argument for environmental happenstance, namely, that European civilization, viewed as derived from the Fertile Crescent, grew out of the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals.

    This is controversial? Absolutely Unreal.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    I find her article a little obscure -- perhaps deliberately -- as to whether she's saying that the differences between Eurasians and Africans are based on biology. The overall reading I get out of it is that she thinks it's a real possibility that these differences are due to biology, but I don't feel very confident in that interpretation; she may be saying something somewhat weaker or stronger.
    , @bomag
    Yeah, I was waiting for the controversy; but it was a good faith effort to broach the subject.
    , @rod1963
    Yes it is unreal.

    We're dealing with college educated people you know, which is now about the same as dealing with addlepatted cultists.

    The column in question reeks of PC/MC and yet it fails the smell test of the PC/MC mandarins. This is clearly a case of people going off into la la land.

    As Sailer wrote:

    Sure, it’s incredibly stupid, but then you can get in lots of trouble these days for not being incredibly stupid. So a lot of people find it safest just to be stupid

    Quite true. It's becoming like Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia. It is best just to keep ones intelligence and opinions to oneself.

    It's not to point yet where we have "hatefacts" and re-education camps or some such nightmarish idiocy, but we're getting closer everyday.
    , @Anon7
    Right, the argument in M. Dzhali Maier's paper is a very short version of Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel" point of view versus the viewpoint in Nicholas Wade's "A Troublesome Inheritance". I'm pretty sure saw both books in there someplace.

    Unfortunately, I got sidetracked into reading some of the other articles available at The Brown University Herald. My brain stopped in today's featured article, which details the efforts of diligent protestors at Brown who succeeded in changing "Columbus Day" to "Fall Weekend Day", which is now seen as inadequately politically correct. They now wish to change "Fall Weekend Day" to "Indigenous People's Day". i have no doubt they will succeed.

    Who knows what they'll accomplish next year.
    , @HHSIII
    She obviously read Guns, Germs and Steel but doesn't buy that it is ALL explained by the grasses and species on the east west Eurasia as opposed to those on the north-south Africa and Americas. Seems like, a la Steve, she thinks you are better off thinking it is closer to 50/50. She is def an HBD'er. And they sussed her out.
  34. If biological race doesn’t exist, that’s news to doctors. We even have different units of measurement for kidney health/filtration rate based on whether the patient is Black or not.

    http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-communication-programs/nkdep/lab-evaluation/gfr/estimating/Pages/estimating.aspx

    The following is the IDMS-traceable MDRD Study equation (for creatinine methods calibrated to an IDMS reference method):

    GFR (mL/min/1.73 m2) = 175 × (Scr)-1.154 × (Age)-0.203 × (0.742 if female) × (1.212 if African American)

    Lest anyone accuse me of cherry picking, this is one of many, many such points in medicine where race/ethnicity enters into medical diagnostics.

  35. Though we continue to strive to promote a venue for the free exchange of ideas, we do not and will not tolerate racism.

    All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

    Were universities always this Orwellian?

  36. @Jack D
    Ring Lardner captured the left's idea of a conversation almost a century ago. A young boy is riding in a car with his dad and the father has gotten lost somewhere in the Bronx (this was before GPS and cell phones - the plots of so many old movies and stories don't work nowadays). This is the boy's first person account:

    "Are you lost, daddy?" I asked tenderly. "Shut up," he explained.

    So "having a conversation" about race means that you sit there and listen quietly while a leftist lectures you that you have committed a grievous thoughtcrime which you must never repeat, that race doesn't really exist, and no backtalk please. It's kind of like "having a conversation" with the disciplinarian in your high school when you have been caught smoking in the lavatory.

    The thing that I can't decide about leftists is whether they are aware of the Orwellian nature of their enterprise and do it anyway because they know they can get away with it, or whether they are truly so oblivious that they don't realize that their idea of a "conversation" is not really a conversation at all. Either way it doesn't reflect well on them.

    I think a large part of the CultMarx base is honestly too dumb to realize how hypocritical they are.

    By my definition of “bright”, the bright ones know they’re full of shit. Intelligence, of course, has zero correlation with morality. Leftism is at its core a truly cynical power play, as Mao, Lenin and Alinsky, among others, openly admitted.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Intelligence, of course, has zero correlation with morality.
     
    While I share your disgust with this situation, what you write above is not true.
  37. @SPMoore8
    So I read the column, establishing also that "M.Dzhali Maier" is the pseudonym of a young white woman who looks a lot like my sister, and am completely astonished at the reaction to this article.

    The article isn't even about race in the first, second, or third place. Rather, it's an argument for environmental happenstance, namely, that European civilization, viewed as derived from the Fertile Crescent, grew out of the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals.

    This is controversial? Absolutely Unreal.

    I find her article a little obscure — perhaps deliberately — as to whether she’s saying that the differences between Eurasians and Africans are based on biology. The overall reading I get out of it is that she thinks it’s a real possibility that these differences are due to biology, but I don’t feel very confident in that interpretation; she may be saying something somewhat weaker or stronger.

    • Agree: ben tillman
  38. How much longer can this bizarre theory “race is just a social construct” survive? It is so patently ridiculous — are these people really that incredibly ignorant or are they cowards? Shocking that the theory survives at a top school in the editorial leaders of the campus paper. It takes literally five minutes of online research to know the theory is garbage.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Well the problem is that race, to a significant extent, is merely a social construct, which makes it easier to pretend it's completely a social construct.

    The best lies have a hint of truth mixed in them.
  39. One can almost see the black female student hyperventilating as she panted ‘feets don’t fail me now’ in her rush to the administration building. There Brown President Christina Paxson probably came close to fainting as she had to confront the possibility of Haven Monahan’s having infiltrated her Ivy League campus.

    Admissions officers and deparment heads would be summoned and new protocols put into place to purge the school of this ideological and racial contamination. Students will be required to inform on each other and hearings held to expel the ‘haters’. Paxson will wrestle with her desire to have the offenders executed and her moral opposition to capital punishment and only her gun free campus policy will keep her from shooting those found guilty of hate speech.

  40. What does the Brown Biology Department think of this?

    In particular, this guy, “David M. Rand Stephen T. Olney Professor of Natural History, Chair of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology”

    https://vivo.brown.edu/display/drand

    Most of his work has been with animals, but here is a paper he coauthored which shows he knows about human genomics:

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/14448794_Rand_D._M.__Kann_L._M._Excess_amino_acid_polymorphism_in_mitochondrial_DNA_contrasts_among_genes_from_Drosophila_mice_and_humans._Mol._Biol._Evol._13_735-748

    Also, this guy “Thomas Roberts Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Vice Chair of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology”

    https://vivo.brown.edu/display/troberts

    studies the biomechanics of human running and might have an opinion on the demographics of Olympic medalists….

    And this guy “Daniel M. Weinreich Associate Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Co-Director of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Graduate Program”

    https://vivo.brown.edu/display/dweinrei

    wrote this paper which looks like an important theoretical buttress for Cochran and Harpending’s work:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16050095

    However the rising star in that department, who specializes in human population genetics, is this lady: “Sohini Ramachandran Assistant Professor of Biology”

    https://vivo.brown.edu/display/sr33

    This year she published this paper, “A comparison of worldwide phonemic and genetic variation in human populations”

    http://www.pnas.org/content/112/5/1265.full.pdf_1

    which is a densely detailed and very solid article (as is typical for PNAS papers) that she was the principal investigator for (her vitae entry for the paper says “SR is the PI of this project, conceived of the study with MR and MWF, designed the research with NC and MWF, prepared and analyzed the linguistic data with NC, and wrote the paper with input from all authors.”).

    I hope she has tenure already! Here is her vitae:

    https://vivo.brown.edu/docs/s/sr33_cv.pdf?dt=074710073

    any iSteve readers at Brown ought to look her up and ask her what she thinks of this controversy and the idea that race has no basis in biology. As an (Asian) Indian woman, she’s immunized against automatic dismissals of her as racist, so she ought to speak up.

    (By the way, the cited paper says “phonemic” and it’s not a typo for “phenomic” which would have been even more interesting….)

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    >As an (Asian) Indian woman, she’s immunized against automatic dismissals of her as racist, so she ought to speak up.

    Razib Khan's very Indian phenotype didn't stop the SJWs from blacklisting him.

    And was the Larry Summers drama at Harvard not enough to convince you that feelz trump realz in academia? The notion that "hurtful" truths must be suppressed at all costs is entirely mainstream on the left.

    , @dcite
    She's not immune. There is no group more gimlet-eyed on the subject than certain Indians. I once read a mind numbingly angry screed by a Dravidian Hindu denouncing the culture imposed on them by "Aryan" Hindus (most other other Indians.) Indians have often been attacked (most often by other Indians) for "racism" when they have broached hbd. I think what they're mostly worried about is any real or perceived racism against themselves.
  41. we generally edit opinions columns for style and clarity alone

    There’s an image of the offending article in question out on the web. If you read it I imagine you too will wonder how truly awful the writing must have been to begin with if the final product was actually subject to editing for style and clarity.

  42. The column is Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel summarized. A leftish cause celebre of the turn of the century, now crimethink.

    • Replies: @Hhsiii
    Except she lets slip she doesn't buy it as a complete explanation. 50/50. It's the stuff about the 80 Ur cows and English-domesticated zebras that nailed her as a heretic.
    , @International Jew
    Ah, you beat me to it. The only thing that got this author in trouble was her title; it sounds like she's making fun if "white privilege" when, as you point out, she seems to be completely on board with the orthodoxy.
  43. Here Here for M. Dzhali and her utterly guileless advocacy of truth.

  44. California is broke but willing to do door to door raw milk raids, because they don’t want people to know that the queen of England drinks raw milk every day but a Nigerian prince couldn’t tolerate it.

  45. Hatred of their own culture seems to be White cultural phenomenon. I’ve yet to meet another culture that doesn’t worship their way of doing things.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Hatred of their own culture seems to be White cultural phenomenon. I’ve yet to meet another culture that doesn’t worship their way of doing things.
     
    East Asians who admire or love all things white?

    More seriously, I think only advanced cultures produce a relatively large number of romantics who glamorizes "exotic" foreign cultures.
  46. anon • Disclaimer says:

    OT:

    In addition to the Saudis behaving badly in Beverly Hills, five Arabs (perhaps all Saudi?) have been arrested in just the past week on sexual assault charges.

    Four Johnson & Wales University students charged in sexual assault

    Gypsy cab driver sexually assaults woman in Austin

    But lets take in a million Syrians! If we get a North African/Middle Eastern demographic on the census form, crime statistic demographic categorization ought to follow suit.

    • Replies: @With the thoughts you'd be thinkin
    Well they would help close the gap between black and white crime rates.
  47. @SPMoore8
    So I read the column, establishing also that "M.Dzhali Maier" is the pseudonym of a young white woman who looks a lot like my sister, and am completely astonished at the reaction to this article.

    The article isn't even about race in the first, second, or third place. Rather, it's an argument for environmental happenstance, namely, that European civilization, viewed as derived from the Fertile Crescent, grew out of the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals.

    This is controversial? Absolutely Unreal.

    Yeah, I was waiting for the controversy; but it was a good faith effort to broach the subject.

  48. Brown University leaders are urging an informed campus discussion of issues raised by the publication of …

    I guess if you were wondering what an “informed campus discussion” entailed, now you know.

  49. @SPMoore8
    So I read the column, establishing also that "M.Dzhali Maier" is the pseudonym of a young white woman who looks a lot like my sister, and am completely astonished at the reaction to this article.

    The article isn't even about race in the first, second, or third place. Rather, it's an argument for environmental happenstance, namely, that European civilization, viewed as derived from the Fertile Crescent, grew out of the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals.

    This is controversial? Absolutely Unreal.

    Yes it is unreal.

    We’re dealing with college educated people you know, which is now about the same as dealing with addlepatted cultists.

    The column in question reeks of PC/MC and yet it fails the smell test of the PC/MC mandarins. This is clearly a case of people going off into la la land.

    As Sailer wrote:

    Sure, it’s incredibly stupid, but then you can get in lots of trouble these days for not being incredibly stupid. So a lot of people find it safest just to be stupid

    Quite true. It’s becoming like Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Russia. It is best just to keep ones intelligence and opinions to oneself.

    It’s not to point yet where we have “hatefacts” and re-education camps or some such nightmarish idiocy, but we’re getting closer everyday.

  50. @SPMoore8
    So I read the column, establishing also that "M.Dzhali Maier" is the pseudonym of a young white woman who looks a lot like my sister, and am completely astonished at the reaction to this article.

    The article isn't even about race in the first, second, or third place. Rather, it's an argument for environmental happenstance, namely, that European civilization, viewed as derived from the Fertile Crescent, grew out of the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals.

    This is controversial? Absolutely Unreal.

    Right, the argument in M. Dzhali Maier’s paper is a very short version of Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel” point of view versus the viewpoint in Nicholas Wade’s “A Troublesome Inheritance”. I’m pretty sure saw both books in there someplace.

    Unfortunately, I got sidetracked into reading some of the other articles available at The Brown University Herald. My brain stopped in today’s featured article, which details the efforts of diligent protestors at Brown who succeeded in changing “Columbus Day” to “Fall Weekend Day”, which is now seen as inadequately politically correct. They now wish to change “Fall Weekend Day” to “Indigenous People’s Day”. i have no doubt they will succeed.

    Who knows what they’ll accomplish next year.

  51. I wonder what the philosopher Locke would think about all this institutional curtailing of thought.

  52. Roissy set the very good working definition of “have a conversation”. It was in the context of your woman demanding that you “two” should “have a conversation”:

    “She talks; you listen.”

  53. I looked for the controversial “race is real” statement, that the uni were obliged to deny, in the piece and it wasn’t there.

    “It seems churlish to even discuss the biology of human difference. We are all different. We are all unique individuals. Our genetic codes, physical features and (to an extent) emotions and behaviors are entities of physics and biology. We evolved differently, with many (ultimately unsuccessful) cousin species. Over time, we spread out into different climates, interbred with each other and with our unique sets of neighbors and evolved light skin, dark skin, flat faces, prognathic jaws, blue eyes, brown eyes, great height, short stature and a host of other physical features. “

    Apparently that’s not true, and rather than believe our lying eyes we should believe the editor of a student newspaper.

    • Replies: @Bad memories

    It seems churlish to even discuss the biology of human difference. We are all different. We are all unique individuals.
     
    I think the point that statement is trying to make is that, because each of us likely carries slightly different alleles on this or that locus, RACE DOES NOT EXIST!

    And even if you keep committing CrimeThought and insist on bringing up the topic of RACE, Lewontin proved his fallacy, so there!
  54. From the article by Maier, this is somewhat offensive:

    Colonialism simply allows those who come from a history of being well-fed enough to let experimentation happen, conquering those who have not had that luck.

    This is factually true, but even I find it offensive or at least insensitive.

    Colonialism generally brought large benefits of advanced civilization to the colonized, yet it was also brutal and ugly overt oppression. The Maier article wasn’t a particularly tactful way of expressing this.

    And “Columbian Exchange Day,” published Oct. 6, said Native Americans should be thankful for colonialism, according to the editor’s note.

    This is offensive and obnoxious. Sure, race and biological differences are real, and the editorial comments are ridiculous, but saying “Native Americans should be thankful for colonialism” is obnoxious.

    The surviving descendants of Native Americans reaped many benefits, but many were killed, and their culture was destroyed. Of course, it wasn’t just white Europeans doing the murdering and oppression, Native American tribes regularly did this to each other. At least the European oppression brought lots of advancements as well. I still wouldn’t suggest that Native Americans be thankful for it.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    To be honest, I didn't find any of it dishonest or insensitive. On the contrary, I feel as though this young woman was bending over backwards to describe the reality of the last 500 years in as mild a way as possible.

    What is that reality? The reality is that the "peoples of Europe" (however one wants to define them), expanded, enriched themselves, and expanded all over the globe. They brought various negatives with them, but they also brought all of the benefits of applied European technology, including the very medium we are communicating in, but also: printing, mechanical power via steam, combustion, and nuclear, electricity, public health, decisive conquest of the problems of disease, famine, and reproduction, a doubling or tripling of longevity, and many other benefits, not the least of which was a moral earnestness towards self-correction that would have seemed completely bizarre to the non-Europeans that were conquered.

    That is the reality. So then the question is why. Various explanations were offered, but the one offered in the article(s), namely, environmental happenstance, is surely the mildest conceivable. The only possible alternative is to claim that the Colonial Project (let's call it that) was a "Bad Thing", which is absurd. One can say, and she does, and so does everyone else, that this particular rose had a thorn, or two, or more, but I don't see how anyone could argue that the present status of the human beings in the Americas is not far better by any possible metric than what it was before the Europeans arrived.

    "This is factually true, but even I find it offensive or at least insensitive."

    If it is factually true, but nevertheless offensive and/or insensitive, what does that mean? That the fact should not be expressed? As for

    "saying “Native Americans should be thankful for colonialism” is obnoxious."

    Except that is not what she said. Read the article, which you can find here:

    https://unthinkablethoughtblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/columbian-exchange-day.jpg

    How could any rational human being not celebrate the "Columbian Exchange"?

    I don't know the status of all members of many groups, but I have known a number of Native Americans, several full-blood, many members of tribes, and they have no problem with the current reality and are usually very patriotic Americans. The fact is, their cultures were not destroyed, their have generally been respected, even venerated, since colonial times; and they appreciate that respect and the honor their warriors have received. And that's enough.
    , @AndrewR
    I wouldn't have said that Amerinds should be "thankful" for colonialism but certainly a good liberal arts education should highlight the good things and the bad things that all ethnic groups have done. Right now it seems to be a very one-sided "dialogue" wherein persons of European descent are inevitably portrayed as the Bad Guys and persons of non-European descent are inevitably portrayed as the Victims.

    To be sure, university is a place where everyone should be frequently exposed to ideas that they find shocking and offensive. One can disagree with this particular girl's beliefs without condoning in any way the pearl-clutching response of the school administration.
    , @Olorin
    Oh, enough already of this harpy-chorus of Brutal and Ugly Overt Oppression!

    1400s and 1500s in the New World. The natives live, what, 25-30 years at most? Constantly raiding one another. High degree of infant and child mortality. Death by things we don't even think about--broken bones, childbirth, a splinter or animal bite. Anemias rampant (especially in maize-consuming areas), with all the bone and organ problems that brings--like fatal diarrhea among children being weaned. Osteoarthritis onset much earlier than we experience and much worse, given the repetitive motions of hand labor. Low diversity of diet. Rampant infectious diseases and parasites.

    This is old, but a good context:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071659/

    The snowflakes who talk about Ugly and Brutal Oppression inside academia are, IME, people who cannot imagine that, at that time, in those places, life simply sucked in every direction. They weren't reconstructor snowflakes going back to their tenured job after the weekend of playing Noble Savage.

    People contested for resources, and the stronger won.

    The same thing happens today, and anybody who doesn't believe or understand this needs to spend some time in Lagos or Mogadishu without being able to retreat back to their ivory towers.

    Today's Indians had ancestors who got through the selection trials long enough to breed; you can say the same for today's whites of founding stock ancestry. I have no interest in living a Middle Ages life. For all the bashing on about evil whites, the Indians and their keepers have no interest in that either. I've never met one who wants to give up the pickup truck, refrigerator, Fry Baby (for the fry bread), satellite dish, cable TV, etc. It's just more the ideology of thanklessness, and the inner fury generated when someone knows they depend for their survival on others whose gifts they will never have.

    IOW, garden variety envy, resentment, entitlement, and thanklessness. This isn't noble, but it surely is savage.

    , @Cloudbuster
    Congratulations! You're a proponent of Crimethink. You believe offensive truths should remain unspoken.
    , @Cloudbuster
    It's not offensive and obnoxious. It's an honest remedy to the anti-colonialist claptrap that's taught as received truth in U.S. primary and secondary schools.

    Most of my kids have been homeschooled all the way through, but the middle boy spent some time in a charter school. I went through the roof when I read the section on world history during the colonial period -- it was unrelenting, one-sided bashing of colonialism. That's what kids are being fed these days. And they need to be shocked and offended by the truth to get them to wake up.
  55. @Jack D
    BTW, I love the links that the Editors give for the "repeatedly ""disproven" idea that race exists.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/22/science/do-races-differ-not-really-genes-show.html?pagewanted=all

    This is a cutting edge article from 2000 in that famous scientific publication, the NY Times.

    But, we are given a link to a much more up to date article from that other great scientific journal, Newsweek (are they still in business?)

    http://www.newsweek.com/there-no-such-thing-race-283123

    In this article, the author begs the question by conflating the notion of "race" with "subspecies" and declaring that since there are no human subspecies, so "race" does not exist.

    We know that all dogs, from the chihuahua to the Great Dane, are all just a type of wolf with "minor" genetic differences between breeds (and that all of this variation arose in just the last 40,000 years), and yet we see that these minor genetic differences are enough to create vast differences in appearance, size, behavior, intelligence, etc. As long as we are willing to accept that a Yorkshire Terrier and a St. Bernard are exactly the same thing, then race in humans doesn't exist either. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

    So it's all a clever semantic game - you define "race" to mean exactly what you want it to mean and then you can define it into non-existence.

    Here’s a link to a map that Razib Khan reposted a couple of weeks back. It shows the astonishing correspondence between the genetics of Europeans and the physical geography of Europe. Of course, similar patterns can be seen on a global scale, looking at the genomes of the major human races.

    Meanwhile, “The Herald said ‘The white privilege of cows,’ published Oct. 5, relied on the incorrect notion that biological differences exist between races.”

    Are our lyin’ eyes being misled by the faulty Principal Components Analysis? Perhaps the isolated DNA contains the corruption. Maybe the test tubes themselves are the source of this sinfulness.

    Because the people from whom the blood was taken are identically the same. To each other, and to every other human that has ever lived, or ever will.

  56. @Anonymous Nephew
    I looked for the controversial "race is real" statement, that the uni were obliged to deny, in the piece and it wasn't there.

    "It seems churlish to even discuss the biology of human difference. We are all different. We are all unique individuals. Our genetic codes, physical features and (to an extent) emotions and behaviors are entities of physics and biology. We evolved differently, with many (ultimately unsuccessful) cousin species. Over time, we spread out into different climates, interbred with each other and with our unique sets of neighbors and evolved light skin, dark skin, flat faces, prognathic jaws, blue eyes, brown eyes, great height, short stature and a host of other physical features. "

    Apparently that's not true, and rather than believe our lying eyes we should believe the editor of a student newspaper.

    It seems churlish to even discuss the biology of human difference. We are all different. We are all unique individuals.

    I think the point that statement is trying to make is that, because each of us likely carries slightly different alleles on this or that locus, RACE DOES NOT EXIST!

    And even if you keep committing CrimeThought and insist on bringing up the topic of RACE, Lewontin proved his fallacy, so there!

  57. AGHHHHHHH!!!

    I stopped by one of my favorite local stores and picked up an application for a sales job today. Teaching has become an absolute joke of a profession. I am paid, not that much, to be responsible for my students’ lack of effort and intelligence.

    Ship sinking fast…Cassandra Syndrome…we’re surrounded by idiots…

  58. My 100% white sister actually believes that the reason there are so many blacks in the NBA is because of racist policies that prevent them from participating in other activities as youth. So they have no other option except to hang out at the playground and get better at sports.

    When I mentioned that there are huge numbers of whites in affluent communities who pay for private coaching, play year-round, get the best nutrition and fitness training etc – and STILL can’t get to the NBA (which obviously pays better than brain surgery, rocket science or just about anything else) she didn’t believe me.

    • Replies: @Jenny
    Yes, but your sister was told these BS ideas by a male of higher status than yourself. And believing what you say lowers her status. Chicks just go along with what is popular and rewarded. High status opinions are rewarded and low status ones are not. She is not interested in the content of any of these discussions. She is just interested in what is in it for her. Now she is not conscious of this, but that is still what is going on.
    , @ben tillman

    My 100% white sister actually believes that the reason there are so many blacks in the NBA is because of racist policies that prevent them from participating in other activities as youth. So they have no other option except to hang out at the playground and get better at sports.
     
    I'm curious to hear what "other option" or options white boys had available to them that they would have preferred over sports. There surely were none when I was a boy.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    My 100% white sister actually believes that the reason there are so many blacks in the NBA is because of racist policies that prevent them from participating in other activities as youth
     
    The dentally challenged in Canada faced similar obstacles, which is why they dominated the NHL until recently.
    , @Curle

    My 100% white sister actually believes that the reason there are so many blacks in the NBA is because of racist policies that prevent them from participating in other activities as youth.
     
    Because black kids have no access to libraries?
  59. http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/brown-university/726930-how-liberal-is-brown.html

    I thought Brown had a reputation for being uberliberal so thought to Google it. Some funny responses.

  60. Brown University is the same campus where the administration caved to student protestors when a Libertarian planned to disparage the term “Rape Culture” during a debate. The administration established “Safe Spaces” where students stressed simply by the thought of an opposing position could seek refuge. The “Safe Spaces” included play doh, coloring books, calming music and videos of puppies. If Putin landed troops near any Ivy League campus they would shit themselves and roll over in a day.

  61. As all the commenters attest, it really does seem absurd. But is that because we’re witnessing the collapse of an ideology? Steve had a post last week titled, “Gradually, then Suddenly,” about how consequential changes seem to hover in a steady state for a while, then become overwhelming. Today, that contemptible “editorial note” certainly appears as nothing less than the expression of a totalitarian instinct; but will it reveal itself down the road as the final grasping at straws of a once regnant, but now dying, ideology?

    I wonder what the the lifespan is for ideas that have run aground on the hostile shore of reality. (Soviet Communism had a run of 70 years.) Certainly, a lot of bad ideas have persisted for long periods in history; if they’re mostly inconsequential to living (like theories of the afterlife or the origins of the universe), they can persist for a very long time. And of course in isolated environments faulty ideas can go on indefinitely. It’s ironic that the university has shown itself to be just such a cloister where outmoded orthodoxies are nourished and can thrive–like the Easter Island of our culture.

  62. Don’t worry Steve, everything will be allright when these “Yacht Rock” fans finally realize their coastal whitopia is threatened. They will mobilize politically with a vengeance. (Hope the link’s not paywalled*).

    * [‘Paywall’ is officially a verb at least according to my ‘check spelling as you go’ thingee!]

  63. @SPMoore8
    So I read the column, establishing also that "M.Dzhali Maier" is the pseudonym of a young white woman who looks a lot like my sister, and am completely astonished at the reaction to this article.

    The article isn't even about race in the first, second, or third place. Rather, it's an argument for environmental happenstance, namely, that European civilization, viewed as derived from the Fertile Crescent, grew out of the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals.

    This is controversial? Absolutely Unreal.

    She obviously read Guns, Germs and Steel but doesn’t buy that it is ALL explained by the grasses and species on the east west Eurasia as opposed to those on the north-south Africa and Americas. Seems like, a la Steve, she thinks you are better off thinking it is closer to 50/50. She is def an HBD’er. And they sussed her out.

  64. This rot goes so far back. In the 80s I heard my anthropology prof. explain to a huge lecture hall that race did not exist. Her argument was refutable by anyone with the slightest intuition. Categories with fuzzy boundaries are just that, categories with fuzzy boundaries. I dropped the class.

    Incidentally, thus was a summer gig for her. He regular job was anthropology prof. at a neighbouring third tier university.

    Then there was a scandal when a psych. prof. teaching Personality was denounced to the student paper for saying that the reason the Irish were different was because they were different. My primary interest was artificial intelligence at the time so I was taking a raft of psych. courses on the side. I signed up for Personality the following semester only to find that the prof. had been replaced by a Freudian seconded from the neighbouring third tier university.

    A Freudian. Can you imagine talking id and ego in the 80s? decades after anyone in North America had made it the topic of a psych. Ph.D. thesis?*

    I didn’t understand office politics so I didn’t know why they had had to go outside a world renown department to get a substitute teacher from another school. It was a required sophomore course that everyone in the department, whether on the science or clinical side, was qualified to teach.

    *Psychoanalysis was in its last gasps in the Psychiatry residency program at the time, and psychoanalytic literary criticism was, and may still be, the bane of English lit. And I once had to read or at least scan a dozen feminist studies papers published in the 80s and 90s. There were several instances of Freudian psychobabble – in a peer reviewed academic journal.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    I, too, started seeing this rot back in university in the 80s. My most memorable incident was a sociology teacher who maintained the absurd position that men and women of equal size and fitness levels are physically equal.

    Naively, I questioned her assertion on common sense grounds, and I could visibly see her clam up and write me off. I didn't bother to continue arguing her. I just wrote"idiot" next to her name in my mental black book and moved on.
  65. @MyNewUserName
    My 100% white sister actually believes that the reason there are so many blacks in the NBA is because of racist policies that prevent them from participating in other activities as youth. So they have no other option except to hang out at the playground and get better at sports.

    When I mentioned that there are huge numbers of whites in affluent communities who pay for private coaching, play year-round, get the best nutrition and fitness training etc - and STILL can't get to the NBA (which obviously pays better than brain surgery, rocket science or just about anything else) she didn't believe me.

    Yes, but your sister was told these BS ideas by a male of higher status than yourself. And believing what you say lowers her status. Chicks just go along with what is popular and rewarded. High status opinions are rewarded and low status ones are not. She is not interested in the content of any of these discussions. She is just interested in what is in it for her. Now she is not conscious of this, but that is still what is going on.

  66. @Tiny Duck
    Give me a break? Are you "free speech champions" so naive as to think a person can say or write ANYTHING without fear of repercussions or getting into trouble? What world are you guys living in?

    Some things said or written under the guise of "free speech" can get a person arrested and put in jail immediately. Use your "free speech" to say or write something racist or bigoted and see how long you keep your job. Write or say something libelous about somebody else, and you'll be sued so fast it will make your head spin.

    Sorry folks. Free speech may mean that a person can speak or write whatever is on his or her mind. But is not a free pass to escape the consequences of what is said or written

    “Some things said or written under the guise of “free speech” can get a person arrested and put in jail immediately.” – This is not true. Hate speech has been repeatedly found to be protected free speech, and for the very reason that you can’t simply decide that speech you don’t like shouldn’t be protected. Likewise Anonymous speech has also been repeatedly found to be protected free speech. Libel is a crime and is not considered protected free speech.

    You can’t have us thrown into the gulags yet, how that must rankle you.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Silber
    "Hate Speech" is nothing more than speech that some other people hate.
  67. @Paul Lynde for the Win
    The column is Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel summarized. A leftish cause celebre of the turn of the century, now crimethink.

    Except she lets slip she doesn’t buy it as a complete explanation. 50/50. It’s the stuff about the 80 Ur cows and English-domesticated zebras that nailed her as a heretic.

  68. “…any faculty needing support or assistance should contact the office of institutional diversity and inclusion and the office of campus life, among other resources, that have expertise in facilitating the conversations.”

    How does one, upon being ‘contacted’, maintain sincerity and not laugh? “Seriously, Brenda, seriously?” Its a mystery.

  69. @candid_observer
    Interestingly, the author of this story is Emma Maier (she uses a pseudonym for her first name in the article), identifies as being on the autistic spectrum, and is not backing down (yet):

    “I absolutely do not agree with the decision to remove and/or apologize for the articles, for they were not racist or eugenicist in any way,” she said. “The only violation they executed was to be a dissenting opinion away from Brown’s radical and politically left-wing student groups.”

    ...

    “I do not think I need to apologize, either for myself or the Herald, nor will I,” she said. “I committed no transgression, as an opinion writer, and the Herald committed no transgression in deciding my articles were appropriate to print.”

    http://www.630wpro.com/2015/10/10/exclusive-brown-student-who-wrote-racist-columns-speaks-out/

    Give her time. They will tighten the screws until she is begging for forgiveness. She doesn’t realize yet what it means to have stepped into an internet shitstorm.

  70. @Tiny Duck
    Give me a break? Are you "free speech champions" so naive as to think a person can say or write ANYTHING without fear of repercussions or getting into trouble? What world are you guys living in?

    Some things said or written under the guise of "free speech" can get a person arrested and put in jail immediately. Use your "free speech" to say or write something racist or bigoted and see how long you keep your job. Write or say something libelous about somebody else, and you'll be sued so fast it will make your head spin.

    Sorry folks. Free speech may mean that a person can speak or write whatever is on his or her mind. But is not a free pass to escape the consequences of what is said or written

    Give me a break? Are you “free speech champions” so naive as to think a person can say or write ANYTHING without fear of repercussions or getting into trouble? What world are you guys living in?

    We are saying that if someone says something that is factually correct and that would not be controversial among specialists in that field , he should not be excoriated as if he told hateful lies and is alarmingly ignorant. Is that too much to ask of an institute of higher learning?

  71. @Forbes
    Can I say "puzzling"? What human characteristics are attributes of biology? Hair color? Eye color? Sex? Or are these all social constructs?

    “What human characteristics are attributes of biology? Hair color? Eye color? Sex? Or are these all social constructs?” – As others have noted, in order for race to have a biological component, scientists would have to semantically agree with it having a biological component. the fact that race is more biologically heritable than any other trait(and by obscene margins) isn’t important to those who want to declare it a social construct.

    “Can I say “puzzling”?” – If they can convince you the naked guy is really wearing a purple robe with gold trimmings their status goes up.

  72. @anon
    OT:

    In addition to the Saudis behaving badly in Beverly Hills, five Arabs (perhaps all Saudi?) have been arrested in just the past week on sexual assault charges.

    Four Johnson & Wales University students charged in sexual assault

    Gypsy cab driver sexually assaults woman in Austin


    But lets take in a million Syrians! If we get a North African/Middle Eastern demographic on the census form, crime statistic demographic categorization ought to follow suit.

    Well they would help close the gap between black and white crime rates.

  73. @Tiny Duck
    Give me a break? Are you "free speech champions" so naive as to think a person can say or write ANYTHING without fear of repercussions or getting into trouble? What world are you guys living in?

    Some things said or written under the guise of "free speech" can get a person arrested and put in jail immediately. Use your "free speech" to say or write something racist or bigoted and see how long you keep your job. Write or say something libelous about somebody else, and you'll be sued so fast it will make your head spin.

    Sorry folks. Free speech may mean that a person can speak or write whatever is on his or her mind. But is not a free pass to escape the consequences of what is said or written

    Then free speech has always existed everywhere. You were perfectly free in medieval Christendom, for example, to deny the divinity of Jesus or to call God myth. You were free to declare Mao an illegitimate ruler in 1950s China. You probably wouldn’t care for the repurcusions to your person for having said such things. But you were perfectly free to say them.

  74. “No biological differences exist between races”

  75. Both the articles and the paper’s reaction are mind-numbingly dumb. If this is the best a new generation has to offer, we’re doomed.

  76. @Tiny Duck
    Give me a break? Are you "free speech champions" so naive as to think a person can say or write ANYTHING without fear of repercussions or getting into trouble? What world are you guys living in?

    Some things said or written under the guise of "free speech" can get a person arrested and put in jail immediately. Use your "free speech" to say or write something racist or bigoted and see how long you keep your job. Write or say something libelous about somebody else, and you'll be sued so fast it will make your head spin.

    Sorry folks. Free speech may mean that a person can speak or write whatever is on his or her mind. But is not a free pass to escape the consequences of what is said or written

    “Sorry folks. Free speech may mean that a person can speak or write whatever is on his or her mind. But is not a free pass to escape the consequences of what is said or written”

    You’re rather obtuse Henry. “Free speech” that carries consequences isn’t really free is it?

  77. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Off topic, but economist John Cochrane praises Alex Tabarrok’s essay on Open Borders with this piece of solid reasoning:

    “In the Soviet era, there were walls and guards with guns, and we deplored that people were not allowed to cross the border. Is it that different that the guards with guns are on the other side of the walls?”

    http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2015/10/open-borders.html

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    Yes. It's that different. What an idiotic statement.

    It's the difference between being locked into your house against your will and being able to lock your house to keep unwanted intruders out.

  78. @Massimo Heitor
    From the article by Maier, this is somewhat offensive:

    Colonialism simply allows those who come from a history of being well-fed enough to let experimentation happen, conquering those who have not had that luck.
     
    This is factually true, but even I find it offensive or at least insensitive.

    Colonialism generally brought large benefits of advanced civilization to the colonized, yet it was also brutal and ugly overt oppression. The Maier article wasn't a particularly tactful way of expressing this.

    And “Columbian Exchange Day,” published Oct. 6, said Native Americans should be thankful for colonialism, according to the editor’s note.
     
    This is offensive and obnoxious. Sure, race and biological differences are real, and the editorial comments are ridiculous, but saying "Native Americans should be thankful for colonialism" is obnoxious.

    The surviving descendants of Native Americans reaped many benefits, but many were killed, and their culture was destroyed. Of course, it wasn't just white Europeans doing the murdering and oppression, Native American tribes regularly did this to each other. At least the European oppression brought lots of advancements as well. I still wouldn't suggest that Native Americans be thankful for it.

    To be honest, I didn’t find any of it dishonest or insensitive. On the contrary, I feel as though this young woman was bending over backwards to describe the reality of the last 500 years in as mild a way as possible.

    What is that reality? The reality is that the “peoples of Europe” (however one wants to define them), expanded, enriched themselves, and expanded all over the globe. They brought various negatives with them, but they also brought all of the benefits of applied European technology, including the very medium we are communicating in, but also: printing, mechanical power via steam, combustion, and nuclear, electricity, public health, decisive conquest of the problems of disease, famine, and reproduction, a doubling or tripling of longevity, and many other benefits, not the least of which was a moral earnestness towards self-correction that would have seemed completely bizarre to the non-Europeans that were conquered.

    That is the reality. So then the question is why. Various explanations were offered, but the one offered in the article(s), namely, environmental happenstance, is surely the mildest conceivable. The only possible alternative is to claim that the Colonial Project (let’s call it that) was a “Bad Thing”, which is absurd. One can say, and she does, and so does everyone else, that this particular rose had a thorn, or two, or more, but I don’t see how anyone could argue that the present status of the human beings in the Americas is not far better by any possible metric than what it was before the Europeans arrived.

    “This is factually true, but even I find it offensive or at least insensitive.”

    If it is factually true, but nevertheless offensive and/or insensitive, what does that mean? That the fact should not be expressed? As for

    “saying “Native Americans should be thankful for colonialism” is obnoxious.”

    Except that is not what she said. Read the article, which you can find here:

    How could any rational human being not celebrate the “Columbian Exchange”?

    I don’t know the status of all members of many groups, but I have known a number of Native Americans, several full-blood, many members of tribes, and they have no problem with the current reality and are usually very patriotic Americans. The fact is, their cultures were not destroyed, their have generally been respected, even venerated, since colonial times; and they appreciate that respect and the honor their warriors have received. And that’s enough.

    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    I have known a number of Native Americans, several full-blood, many members of tribes, and they have no problem with the current reality and are usually very patriotic Americans. The fact is, their cultures were not destroyed, their have generally been respected, even venerated, since colonial times;
     
    Many native tribes were treated pretty well by whites in the last ~seventy years and are happy with the way things are and their members appreciate the modern US. But at the same time, the Wounded Knee Massacre was still bad. I'm not Indian but I sympathize with the Lakota Indians that were killed.

    What is that reality? The reality is that the “peoples of Europe” (however one wants to define them), expanded, enriched themselves, and expanded all over the globe. They brought various negatives with them, but they also brought all of the benefits of applied European technology.
     
    I agree. European civilizations have a lot to be proud of. And even murderous oppressive conquests by Europeans often brought major benefits to the masses of the conquered nations. I still don't celebrate the murderous conquests.
  79. @Anon
    But admission policy will be affected by race.

    But admission policy will be affected by race.

    Gold!

  80. There’s a better than 90% chance she did not write the column title.

    I didn’t read her article as endorsing Guns Germs and Steel so much as a suggestion that Europeans have a genetic disposition to domesticate animals. Which is probably true, nobody likes pets like whites. Steve may be interested in that the idea of rabbits bred to be pets rather than food was a pretty recent development, about 150 years ago in Belgium and England.

    • Replies: @Romanian
    Recent trends suggest this facility with domestication has diminished over time.
  81. @Lot
    There's a better than 90% chance she did not write the column title.

    I didn't read her article as endorsing Guns Germs and Steel so much as a suggestion that Europeans have a genetic disposition to domesticate animals. Which is probably true, nobody likes pets like whites. Steve may be interested in that the idea of rabbits bred to be pets rather than food was a pretty recent development, about 150 years ago in Belgium and England.

    Recent trends suggest this facility with domestication has diminished over time.

  82. @andy
    After reading the article, what is depressing is that it is so mild. The author isn't saying anything that is even remotely controversial if you have an open mind.

    After reading the article, what is depressing is that it is so mild.

    Yeah, it’s mostly a summary of Jared Diamond’s theory about how the fortuitous availability of nutricious wild grains and easily-domesticated wild animals is what explains why Europeans developed sooner and farther than Aztecs.

    Poor kid must have thought he was writing a solid piece of goodthink. His only mistake was choosing that title. “The white privilege of cows” sounds like he’s poking fun at one of the left’s holiest memes. He would have avoided all the trouble he got himself into (goodbye Atlantic Monthly internship…) if he’d entitled it “Cows, wheat, and white privilege” (which in fact better summarizes what he has to say.)

    Of course, substantively speaking his article is still a pile of aurox dung.

    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    Yeah, it’s mostly a summary of Jared Diamond’s theory about how the fortuitous availability of nutricious wild grains and easily-domesticated wild animals is what explains why Europeans developed sooner and farther than Aztecs.
     
    One wonders why the Africans did not domesticate Zebras ... but Native Americans domesticated maize, although that might have been sheer dumb luck that CO2 levels were so low at the time that it selected for the phenotype we see these days.
  83. @AndrewR
    I think a large part of the CultMarx base is honestly too dumb to realize how hypocritical they are.

    By my definition of "bright", the bright ones know they're full of shit. Intelligence, of course, has zero correlation with morality. Leftism is at its core a truly cynical power play, as Mao, Lenin and Alinsky, among others, openly admitted.

    Intelligence, of course, has zero correlation with morality.

    While I share your disgust with this situation, what you write above is not true.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    How so? Dumb, evil people are no more or less common than bright, evil people, and the same is true with good people.
  84. @Mike1
    Hatred of their own culture seems to be White cultural phenomenon. I've yet to meet another culture that doesn't worship their way of doing things.

    Hatred of their own culture seems to be White cultural phenomenon. I’ve yet to meet another culture that doesn’t worship their way of doing things.

    East Asians who admire or love all things white?

    More seriously, I think only advanced cultures produce a relatively large number of romantics who glamorizes “exotic” foreign cultures.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    That's an interesting, incestuous, situation. Japanese pop culture almost obsessively fetishizes western culture, and in turn there's a whole sub-culture of western youths that fetishize the western-fetishizing Japanese pop culture. It's very strange.
  85. The second article, “Columbian Exchange Day” was taken offline:

    http://www.browndailyherald.com/2015/10/05/maier-17-columbian-exchange-day/

    but the online text can be read here:

    https://trove.com/a/Maier-’17-Columbian-Exchange-Day.vEnei

    or on this scan of the printed newspaper:

    • Replies: @Thin-Skinned Masta-Beta
    Down the memory hole.

    At least there is a bookmark that shows the scar of where the injurious ideas once were.
    Eventually they'll get it right in that they'll erase all evidence that there ever was a dissident thought or thinker who conceived the crimethink.
  86. @Paul Lynde for the Win
    The column is Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel summarized. A leftish cause celebre of the turn of the century, now crimethink.

    Ah, you beat me to it. The only thing that got this author in trouble was her title; it sounds like she’s making fun if “white privilege” when, as you point out, she seems to be completely on board with the orthodoxy.

  87. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @International Jew

    After reading the article, what is depressing is that it is so mild.
     
    Yeah, it's mostly a summary of Jared Diamond's theory about how the fortuitous availability of nutricious wild grains and easily-domesticated wild animals is what explains why Europeans developed sooner and farther than Aztecs.

    Poor kid must have thought he was writing a solid piece of goodthink. His only mistake was choosing that title. “The white privilege of cows” sounds like he's poking fun at one of the left's holiest memes. He would have avoided all the trouble he got himself into (goodbye Atlantic Monthly internship...) if he'd entitled it "Cows, wheat, and white privilege" (which in fact better summarizes what he has to say.)

    Of course, substantively speaking his article is still a pile of aurox dung.

    Yeah, it’s mostly a summary of Jared Diamond’s theory about how the fortuitous availability of nutricious wild grains and easily-domesticated wild animals is what explains why Europeans developed sooner and farther than Aztecs.

    One wonders why the Africans did not domesticate Zebras … but Native Americans domesticated maize, although that might have been sheer dumb luck that CO2 levels were so low at the time that it selected for the phenotype we see these days.

    • Replies: @International Jew

    One wonders why the Africans did not domesticate Zebras
     
    Diamond covers that. He says they can't be domesticated -- too aggressive.
  88. @neutral
    I always wonder what goes through peoples heads that truly believe that race does not exist when they watch the 100m sprints finals.

    I always wonder what goes through peoples heads that truly believe that race does not exist when they watch the 100m sprints finals.

    They can take it as an opportunity to voice some Occam’s-butterknifeish theory for why social circumstances and discrimination explain that lineup at the starting blocks, and thus signal their mental hygiene.

  89. @Jack D
    Ring Lardner captured the left's idea of a conversation almost a century ago. A young boy is riding in a car with his dad and the father has gotten lost somewhere in the Bronx (this was before GPS and cell phones - the plots of so many old movies and stories don't work nowadays). This is the boy's first person account:

    "Are you lost, daddy?" I asked tenderly. "Shut up," he explained.

    So "having a conversation" about race means that you sit there and listen quietly while a leftist lectures you that you have committed a grievous thoughtcrime which you must never repeat, that race doesn't really exist, and no backtalk please. It's kind of like "having a conversation" with the disciplinarian in your high school when you have been caught smoking in the lavatory.

    The thing that I can't decide about leftists is whether they are aware of the Orwellian nature of their enterprise and do it anyway because they know they can get away with it, or whether they are truly so oblivious that they don't realize that their idea of a "conversation" is not really a conversation at all. Either way it doesn't reflect well on them.

    Jack D said “The thing that I can’t decide about leftists is whether they are aware of the Orwellian nature of their enterprise and do it anyway because they know they can get away with it, or whether they are truly so oblivious that they don’t realize that their idea of a “conversation” is not really a conversation at all”.

    They have never stopped to consider that their tactics might ever be turned on them. It can’t happen to them, because they are on the Right Side of History. Ask Lenin’s Bolshevik and Social Democrat enablers how that worked out for them.

  90. Daily Show ratings down 33% in Trevor Noah’s premier week compared to same week last year:

    http://deadline.com/2015/10/trevor-noas-first-week-daily-show-ratings-1201571171/

    It is actually worse than the headline number, since Noah managed to have an older and more female audience than Stewart, while advertisers place a premium on younger and male viewers because they are harder to reach with advertising.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Noah managed to have an older and more female audience than Stewart

    Adventuresses?
  91. @SPMoore8
    To be honest, I didn't find any of it dishonest or insensitive. On the contrary, I feel as though this young woman was bending over backwards to describe the reality of the last 500 years in as mild a way as possible.

    What is that reality? The reality is that the "peoples of Europe" (however one wants to define them), expanded, enriched themselves, and expanded all over the globe. They brought various negatives with them, but they also brought all of the benefits of applied European technology, including the very medium we are communicating in, but also: printing, mechanical power via steam, combustion, and nuclear, electricity, public health, decisive conquest of the problems of disease, famine, and reproduction, a doubling or tripling of longevity, and many other benefits, not the least of which was a moral earnestness towards self-correction that would have seemed completely bizarre to the non-Europeans that were conquered.

    That is the reality. So then the question is why. Various explanations were offered, but the one offered in the article(s), namely, environmental happenstance, is surely the mildest conceivable. The only possible alternative is to claim that the Colonial Project (let's call it that) was a "Bad Thing", which is absurd. One can say, and she does, and so does everyone else, that this particular rose had a thorn, or two, or more, but I don't see how anyone could argue that the present status of the human beings in the Americas is not far better by any possible metric than what it was before the Europeans arrived.

    "This is factually true, but even I find it offensive or at least insensitive."

    If it is factually true, but nevertheless offensive and/or insensitive, what does that mean? That the fact should not be expressed? As for

    "saying “Native Americans should be thankful for colonialism” is obnoxious."

    Except that is not what she said. Read the article, which you can find here:

    https://unthinkablethoughtblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/columbian-exchange-day.jpg

    How could any rational human being not celebrate the "Columbian Exchange"?

    I don't know the status of all members of many groups, but I have known a number of Native Americans, several full-blood, many members of tribes, and they have no problem with the current reality and are usually very patriotic Americans. The fact is, their cultures were not destroyed, their have generally been respected, even venerated, since colonial times; and they appreciate that respect and the honor their warriors have received. And that's enough.

    I have known a number of Native Americans, several full-blood, many members of tribes, and they have no problem with the current reality and are usually very patriotic Americans. The fact is, their cultures were not destroyed, their have generally been respected, even venerated, since colonial times;

    Many native tribes were treated pretty well by whites in the last ~seventy years and are happy with the way things are and their members appreciate the modern US. But at the same time, the Wounded Knee Massacre was still bad. I’m not Indian but I sympathize with the Lakota Indians that were killed.

    What is that reality? The reality is that the “peoples of Europe” (however one wants to define them), expanded, enriched themselves, and expanded all over the globe. They brought various negatives with them, but they also brought all of the benefits of applied European technology.

    I agree. European civilizations have a lot to be proud of. And even murderous oppressive conquests by Europeans often brought major benefits to the masses of the conquered nations. I still don’t celebrate the murderous conquests.

  92. @candid_observer
    Interestingly, the author of this story is Emma Maier (she uses a pseudonym for her first name in the article), identifies as being on the autistic spectrum, and is not backing down (yet):

    “I absolutely do not agree with the decision to remove and/or apologize for the articles, for they were not racist or eugenicist in any way,” she said. “The only violation they executed was to be a dissenting opinion away from Brown’s radical and politically left-wing student groups.”

    ...

    “I do not think I need to apologize, either for myself or the Herald, nor will I,” she said. “I committed no transgression, as an opinion writer, and the Herald committed no transgression in deciding my articles were appropriate to print.”

    http://www.630wpro.com/2015/10/10/exclusive-brown-student-who-wrote-racist-columns-speaks-out/

    Maier’s article Brown’s Oppressed Minority http://bit.ly/1Nnu5UZ bears close reading. The A-word occurs five times but the writer makes no definite claim to have received a diagnosis of autism. The closest we get is this:

    Perhaps the most stifling of rational debate is when I am told that I “simply do not have the capacity and ability to partake in discussion.” I take this to be the result of someone misinformed about autism.

    It is plainly no joke suffering from Maier’s syndrome, whatever it may be. Maier is “oppressed. Horribly oppressed.” Her life is “often a living hell.” “Unfortunately, the loudest voices at Brown seem not to make sense a lot of the time.” (That I can believe.) “Being doomed to make the wrong choice repeatedly and get viciously rebuked for it, I haven’t made many friends here.” (Neurotypicals oppress neurotypicals and they blame the autist.) Maier has been told “to shut up and stop spreading the plagues of skepticism, reason and logic.”

    Several possibilities suggest themselves. Maier may really be a female autist. She (or is it ze?) may be a nerd who genuinely thinks she (ze) is an autist. Or she (ze) may be playing the victim card – the self-pitying tone (“left out of the conversation”) is nicely judged – while simultaneously, and very wisely, pocketing a Get Out of Jail Free card for future use.

  93. @Tiny Duck
    Give me a break? Are you "free speech champions" so naive as to think a person can say or write ANYTHING without fear of repercussions or getting into trouble? What world are you guys living in?

    Some things said or written under the guise of "free speech" can get a person arrested and put in jail immediately. Use your "free speech" to say or write something racist or bigoted and see how long you keep your job. Write or say something libelous about somebody else, and you'll be sued so fast it will make your head spin.

    Sorry folks. Free speech may mean that a person can speak or write whatever is on his or her mind. But is not a free pass to escape the consequences of what is said or written

    That is true when discussing libel and slander and endangering public safety. Discussing facts has not normally been prosecuted under those rules, but thanks to free speech censors like yourself the goalposts have now been moved, and now apparently people have a right not to be offended when someone points out facts to them.

    What you are really saying is that some people should be able to preemptively censor others who point out things that make them depressed and uncomfortable even if they are true. That has not been the conventional restriction on free speech that the courts have followed, so your tortured rationalization for your dream of your Big Brother run utopia falls flat.

    You do not have a right to take other people’s free speech rights away because it damages your fragile self-esteem, now go back to Vox or the Nation, no one is buying your nonsense justification for Newspeak here, Buhbye.

  94. If “race” is fiction, then why all the fuss over Rachel Doleazel? Or reparations, affirmative action… why have separate admissions standards for minorities, separate clubs, organizations, hell even a separate yoga club in Seattle, and if the government doesn’t believe in it, why is it on the census?

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "If “race” is fiction, then why all the fuss over Rachel Doleazel? Or reparations, affirmative action… why have separate admissions standards for minorities, separate clubs, organizations, hell even a separate yoga club in Seattle, and if the government doesn’t believe in it, why is it on the census?"

    And more to the point, if race isn't real, how do we white people know whom to oppress? Do we ask people? "Excuse me, Sir, are you black? If you are, I would very much like to oppress you today."
    , @rod1963
    Shuush I tell you, you must not back sass accepted wisdom of the establishment!!!

    Do not question, it is forbidden to question as you do!!!!

    You must understand that there are two standards/views on this. For whites "race" is supposed to be a fiction, it cannot exist per the grand narrative. For all others "race" is a reality and accepted fact that cannot be denied and is promoted at all times to ensure "diversity" and dominance over whites.

    Contradictory? Indeed. But it is for our own good. You see whites have been targeted for extinction by our ruling elites save for a few hold outs in Eastern Europe/Russia. It is imperative we convince them there are no racial differences in order to wreck their societies and strip them of means defense in the face of their impending doom. Heaven forbid they grow a back bone and resist the elites.

    Really it's the only rationale I can come up with that explains this schizophrenic view the Western elites have imposed on us at the point of the policeman's gun.

    Here's the thing the dual view you speak of is supported by the richest men in the world from Gates to Zuckerberg and old money families like the Kochs.

    This is how we get a budding Muslim bombmaker teenager becoming the toast of Silicon Valley and our finest education establishments, while blowing off talented white boys like they were garbage.

    The point is, none of this is accidental but part of something a bunch of powerful people cooked up.

    Look if people like Gates, Ellison, Zuckerberg and some other tech titans got together and told the government to stop this shit, it would stop over night. They don't, they play along with it for some reason. The same reason they promote open borders and replacing American workers with foreigners on a nationwide scale. This isn't about greed, these men are so rich as to defy imagination. Something else is at play for them to declare on their own country and peoples.
  95. @Tiny Duck
    Give me a break? Are you "free speech champions" so naive as to think a person can say or write ANYTHING without fear of repercussions or getting into trouble? What world are you guys living in?

    Some things said or written under the guise of "free speech" can get a person arrested and put in jail immediately. Use your "free speech" to say or write something racist or bigoted and see how long you keep your job. Write or say something libelous about somebody else, and you'll be sued so fast it will make your head spin.

    Sorry folks. Free speech may mean that a person can speak or write whatever is on his or her mind. But is not a free pass to escape the consequences of what is said or written

    Have you read the original article? The accusations of “racist” and “bigoted” seems to have increased exponentially in inverse proportion to any actual racist content. Also, the author seems to have an Indian name.

  96. @Lot
    Daily Show ratings down 33% in Trevor Noah's premier week compared to same week last year:



    http://deadline.com/2015/10/trevor-noas-first-week-daily-show-ratings-1201571171/

    It is actually worse than the headline number, since Noah managed to have an older and more female audience than Stewart, while advertisers place a premium on younger and male viewers because they are harder to reach with advertising.

    Noah managed to have an older and more female audience than Stewart

    Adventuresses?

  97. Miss Maier is apparently taking refuge in her “autism spectrum diagnosis” for her gaffe of accidentally speaking the truth. Is this a 21st century plea of insanity to avoid the usual penalty of social death? If she were “neurotypical” aka mentally normal, surely the SJW lynching would have a greater finality.

  98. @European-American
    The second article, "Columbian Exchange Day" was taken offline:

    http://www.browndailyherald.com/2015/10/05/maier-17-columbian-exchange-day/

    but the online text can be read here:

    https://trove.com/a/Maier-’17-Columbian-Exchange-Day.vEnei

    or on this scan of the printed newspaper:

    http://i.imgur.com/mhZiT6q.jpg

    Down the memory hole.

    At least there is a bookmark that shows the scar of where the injurious ideas once were.
    Eventually they’ll get it right in that they’ll erase all evidence that there ever was a dissident thought or thinker who conceived the crimethink.

  99. @Tiny Duck
    Give me a break? Are you "free speech champions" so naive as to think a person can say or write ANYTHING without fear of repercussions or getting into trouble? What world are you guys living in?

    Some things said or written under the guise of "free speech" can get a person arrested and put in jail immediately. Use your "free speech" to say or write something racist or bigoted and see how long you keep your job. Write or say something libelous about somebody else, and you'll be sued so fast it will make your head spin.

    Sorry folks. Free speech may mean that a person can speak or write whatever is on his or her mind. But is not a free pass to escape the consequences of what is said or written

    “Give me a break? Are you “free speech champions” so naive as to think a person can say or write ANYTHING without fear of repercussions or getting into trouble? What world are you guys living in?”

    The notion that “Life isn’t fair” is a sentiment often held and expressed by those who do so much to make life unfair.

  100. @Doorway
    If "race" is fiction, then why all the fuss over Rachel Doleazel? Or reparations, affirmative action... why have separate admissions standards for minorities, separate clubs, organizations, hell even a separate yoga club in Seattle, and if the government doesn't believe in it, why is it on the census?

    “If “race” is fiction, then why all the fuss over Rachel Doleazel? Or reparations, affirmative action… why have separate admissions standards for minorities, separate clubs, organizations, hell even a separate yoga club in Seattle, and if the government doesn’t believe in it, why is it on the census?”

    And more to the point, if race isn’t real, how do we white people know whom to oppress? Do we ask people? “Excuse me, Sir, are you black? If you are, I would very much like to oppress you today.”

  101. @Twinkie

    Intelligence, of course, has zero correlation with morality.
     
    While I share your disgust with this situation, what you write above is not true.

    How so? Dumb, evil people are no more or less common than bright, evil people, and the same is true with good people.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    How so? Dumb, evil people are no more or less common than bright, evil people, and the same is true with good people.
     
    This tells me that you do not understand the concept of correlations.

    IQ correlates significantly with lower criminality. Now, lack of criminality is not exactly morality, but is an adequate proxy for the latter in this case.
  102. @Tiny Duck
    Give me a break? Are you "free speech champions" so naive as to think a person can say or write ANYTHING without fear of repercussions or getting into trouble? What world are you guys living in?

    Some things said or written under the guise of "free speech" can get a person arrested and put in jail immediately. Use your "free speech" to say or write something racist or bigoted and see how long you keep your job. Write or say something libelous about somebody else, and you'll be sued so fast it will make your head spin.

    Sorry folks. Free speech may mean that a person can speak or write whatever is on his or her mind. But is not a free pass to escape the consequences of what is said or written

    Henry, as someone here pointed out in another response, the Revolution always eats its young. Once all of the “racists” have lost their jobs (which I infer is something that you may look upon with approval) what makes you think that you too will not one day make a slip of the tongue or have your words twisted and misinterpreted by someone who is browner, dumber and more leftist than you (perhaps you will call someone “niggardly” ) and get swept up in the storm? It’s all fun and games until the Eye of Sauron turns its gaze toward you. You may think that you are such a True Believer, an anti-racist down to his very bones, that this could NEVER happen to you. Think again.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Henry, as someone here pointed out in another response, the Revolution always eats its young
     
    But, as Karen Carpenter warned us, it's sure taking its time this time.
  103. @grapesoda
    Then their entire system of affirmative action for hiring and admissions is based on a lie.

    Typical proglib doublespeak. Race exists when they want it to for their own ends, but it doesn't exist at all when you want to enter into a serious empirical discussion about it.

    It’s not about logic, it’s not about consistency. It’s not about serious empirical discussions. It’s about using any stick to hit the enemy. This was a very difficult conclusion for me to come to, yet come to it I have.

  104. @Doorway
    If "race" is fiction, then why all the fuss over Rachel Doleazel? Or reparations, affirmative action... why have separate admissions standards for minorities, separate clubs, organizations, hell even a separate yoga club in Seattle, and if the government doesn't believe in it, why is it on the census?

    Shuush I tell you, you must not back sass accepted wisdom of the establishment!!!

    Do not question, it is forbidden to question as you do!!!!

    You must understand that there are two standards/views on this. For whites “race” is supposed to be a fiction, it cannot exist per the grand narrative. For all others “race” is a reality and accepted fact that cannot be denied and is promoted at all times to ensure “diversity” and dominance over whites.

    Contradictory? Indeed. But it is for our own good. You see whites have been targeted for extinction by our ruling elites save for a few hold outs in Eastern Europe/Russia. It is imperative we convince them there are no racial differences in order to wreck their societies and strip them of means defense in the face of their impending doom. Heaven forbid they grow a back bone and resist the elites.

    Really it’s the only rationale I can come up with that explains this schizophrenic view the Western elites have imposed on us at the point of the policeman’s gun.

    Here’s the thing the dual view you speak of is supported by the richest men in the world from Gates to Zuckerberg and old money families like the Kochs.

    This is how we get a budding Muslim bombmaker teenager becoming the toast of Silicon Valley and our finest education establishments, while blowing off talented white boys like they were garbage.

    The point is, none of this is accidental but part of something a bunch of powerful people cooked up.

    Look if people like Gates, Ellison, Zuckerberg and some other tech titans got together and told the government to stop this shit, it would stop over night. They don’t, they play along with it for some reason. The same reason they promote open borders and replacing American workers with foreigners on a nationwide scale. This isn’t about greed, these men are so rich as to defy imagination. Something else is at play for them to declare on their own country and peoples.

  105. @Tiny Duck
    Give me a break? Are you "free speech champions" so naive as to think a person can say or write ANYTHING without fear of repercussions or getting into trouble? What world are you guys living in?

    Some things said or written under the guise of "free speech" can get a person arrested and put in jail immediately. Use your "free speech" to say or write something racist or bigoted and see how long you keep your job. Write or say something libelous about somebody else, and you'll be sued so fast it will make your head spin.

    Sorry folks. Free speech may mean that a person can speak or write whatever is on his or her mind. But is not a free pass to escape the consequences of what is said or written

    “Free speech may mean that a person can speak or write whatever is on his or her mind. But is not a free pass to escape the consequences of what is said or written”

    Of course it is. Otherwise what’s different about it from unfree speech? Lol!

  106. @Peter Johnson
    How much longer can this bizarre theory "race is just a social construct" survive? It is so patently ridiculous -- are these people really that incredibly ignorant or are they cowards? Shocking that the theory survives at a top school in the editorial leaders of the campus paper. It takes literally five minutes of online research to know the theory is garbage.

    Well the problem is that race, to a significant extent, is merely a social construct, which makes it easier to pretend it’s completely a social construct.

    The best lies have a hint of truth mixed in them.

  107. @Polymath
    What does the Brown Biology Department think of this?

    In particular, this guy, "David M. Rand Stephen T. Olney Professor of Natural History, Chair of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology"

    https://vivo.brown.edu/display/drand

    Most of his work has been with animals, but here is a paper he coauthored which shows he knows about human genomics:

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/14448794_Rand_D._M.__Kann_L._M._Excess_amino_acid_polymorphism_in_mitochondrial_DNA_contrasts_among_genes_from_Drosophila_mice_and_humans._Mol._Biol._Evol._13_735-748

    Also, this guy "Thomas Roberts Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Vice Chair of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology"

    https://vivo.brown.edu/display/troberts

    studies the biomechanics of human running and might have an opinion on the demographics of Olympic medalists....

    And this guy "Daniel M. Weinreich Associate Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Co-Director of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Graduate Program"

    https://vivo.brown.edu/display/dweinrei

    wrote this paper which looks like an important theoretical buttress for Cochran and Harpending's work:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16050095

    However the rising star in that department, who specializes in human population genetics, is this lady: "Sohini Ramachandran Assistant Professor of Biology"

    https://vivo.brown.edu/display/sr33

    This year she published this paper, "A comparison of worldwide phonemic and genetic variation in human populations"

    http://www.pnas.org/content/112/5/1265.full.pdf_1

    which is a densely detailed and very solid article (as is typical for PNAS papers) that she was the principal investigator for (her vitae entry for the paper says "SR is the PI of this project, conceived of the study with MR and MWF, designed the research with NC and MWF, prepared and analyzed the linguistic data with NC, and wrote the paper with input from all authors.").

    I hope she has tenure already! Here is her vitae:

    https://vivo.brown.edu/docs/s/sr33_cv.pdf?dt=074710073

    any iSteve readers at Brown ought to look her up and ask her what she thinks of this controversy and the idea that race has no basis in biology. As an (Asian) Indian woman, she's immunized against automatic dismissals of her as racist, so she ought to speak up.

    (By the way, the cited paper says "phonemic" and it's not a typo for "phenomic" which would have been even more interesting....)

    >As an (Asian) Indian woman, she’s immunized against automatic dismissals of her as racist, so she ought to speak up.

    Razib Khan’s very Indian phenotype didn’t stop the SJWs from blacklisting him.

    And was the Larry Summers drama at Harvard not enough to convince you that feelz trump realz in academia? The notion that “hurtful” truths must be suppressed at all costs is entirely mainstream on the left.

  108. @Massimo Heitor
    From the article by Maier, this is somewhat offensive:

    Colonialism simply allows those who come from a history of being well-fed enough to let experimentation happen, conquering those who have not had that luck.
     
    This is factually true, but even I find it offensive or at least insensitive.

    Colonialism generally brought large benefits of advanced civilization to the colonized, yet it was also brutal and ugly overt oppression. The Maier article wasn't a particularly tactful way of expressing this.

    And “Columbian Exchange Day,” published Oct. 6, said Native Americans should be thankful for colonialism, according to the editor’s note.
     
    This is offensive and obnoxious. Sure, race and biological differences are real, and the editorial comments are ridiculous, but saying "Native Americans should be thankful for colonialism" is obnoxious.

    The surviving descendants of Native Americans reaped many benefits, but many were killed, and their culture was destroyed. Of course, it wasn't just white Europeans doing the murdering and oppression, Native American tribes regularly did this to each other. At least the European oppression brought lots of advancements as well. I still wouldn't suggest that Native Americans be thankful for it.

    I wouldn’t have said that Amerinds should be “thankful” for colonialism but certainly a good liberal arts education should highlight the good things and the bad things that all ethnic groups have done. Right now it seems to be a very one-sided “dialogue” wherein persons of European descent are inevitably portrayed as the Bad Guys and persons of non-European descent are inevitably portrayed as the Victims.

    To be sure, university is a place where everyone should be frequently exposed to ideas that they find shocking and offensive. One can disagree with this particular girl’s beliefs without condoning in any way the pearl-clutching response of the school administration.

  109. @AndrewR
    How so? Dumb, evil people are no more or less common than bright, evil people, and the same is true with good people.

    How so? Dumb, evil people are no more or less common than bright, evil people, and the same is true with good people.

    This tells me that you do not understand the concept of correlations.

    IQ correlates significantly with lower criminality. Now, lack of criminality is not exactly morality, but is an adequate proxy for the latter in this case.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Ignorant and patronizing. That's a bad combo, bro.

    I understand correlations very well. I just operate under a different definition of morality than you. And clearly your definition of "criminality" is absurd. You conflate convictions with crimes. It's almost self-evident that smarter people make better criminals. Plus not all immoral acts are unlawful.

    Seriously if you're going to talk trash at least have your logical ducks in a row.

  110. @Twinkie

    How so? Dumb, evil people are no more or less common than bright, evil people, and the same is true with good people.
     
    This tells me that you do not understand the concept of correlations.

    IQ correlates significantly with lower criminality. Now, lack of criminality is not exactly morality, but is an adequate proxy for the latter in this case.

    Ignorant and patronizing. That’s a bad combo, bro.

    I understand correlations very well. I just operate under a different definition of morality than you. And clearly your definition of “criminality” is absurd. You conflate convictions with crimes. It’s almost self-evident that smarter people make better criminals. Plus not all immoral acts are unlawful.

    Seriously if you’re going to talk trash at least have your logical ducks in a row.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Ignorant and patronizing. That’s a bad combo, bro.
     
    Why is it that low IQ people always think they are such geniuses? I am not your "bro," kid. Grow up and read some books on statistics.

    I understand correlations very well.
     
    If you did, you wouldn't have written something as definitively idiotic and wrong as "Intelligence, of course, has zero correlation with morality." If you were even mildly intelligent, you'd have at least argued that intelligence correlates poorly with morality, not "zero correlations."

    I just operate under a different definition of morality than you.
     
    While morality and lack of criminality are not exactly the same (for one thing, what is immoral may not incur as much legal sanction as what is criminal), there is enough zone of convergence between the two that one can use the latter (which is easier to measure) as a proxy for the former in social science.

    You conflate convictions with crimes.
     
    Are you stupid? Conviction rates provide an excellent measurement into criminality. That it does not perfectly capture the total criminality of a given population does not negate its high utility in measuring criminality. Unless, of course, you are one of these morons who thinks that whites have lower crime rates than blacks, because they simply get away with crimes more easily.

    It’s almost self-evident that smarter people make better criminals.
     
    Of course smarter people probably make better criminals. But smarter people are - on average - far less likely to engage in criminal acts than stupid people in the first place. That has been demonstrated time and again in research. Most criminals are low IQ people who have poor judgments, short time horizon, and high impulsivity. The kind of mad genius villains you see on TV are cartoon characters, not real people. Although there are highly intelligent criminals, they are a tiny fraction in the overall criminal population that is overwhelmingly comprised of stupid people.

    Seriously if you’re going to talk trash at least have your logical ducks in a row.
     
    You might benefit from reading a real book once in a while and perhaps taking a remedial course in basic logic.
  111. @AndrewR
    Ignorant and patronizing. That's a bad combo, bro.

    I understand correlations very well. I just operate under a different definition of morality than you. And clearly your definition of "criminality" is absurd. You conflate convictions with crimes. It's almost self-evident that smarter people make better criminals. Plus not all immoral acts are unlawful.

    Seriously if you're going to talk trash at least have your logical ducks in a row.

    Ignorant and patronizing. That’s a bad combo, bro.

    Why is it that low IQ people always think they are such geniuses? I am not your “bro,” kid. Grow up and read some books on statistics.

    I understand correlations very well.

    If you did, you wouldn’t have written something as definitively idiotic and wrong as “Intelligence, of course, has zero correlation with morality.” If you were even mildly intelligent, you’d have at least argued that intelligence correlates poorly with morality, not “zero correlations.”

    I just operate under a different definition of morality than you.

    While morality and lack of criminality are not exactly the same (for one thing, what is immoral may not incur as much legal sanction as what is criminal), there is enough zone of convergence between the two that one can use the latter (which is easier to measure) as a proxy for the former in social science.

    You conflate convictions with crimes.

    Are you stupid? Conviction rates provide an excellent measurement into criminality. That it does not perfectly capture the total criminality of a given population does not negate its high utility in measuring criminality. Unless, of course, you are one of these morons who thinks that whites have lower crime rates than blacks, because they simply get away with crimes more easily.

    It’s almost self-evident that smarter people make better criminals.

    Of course smarter people probably make better criminals. But smarter people are – on average – far less likely to engage in criminal acts than stupid people in the first place. That has been demonstrated time and again in research. Most criminals are low IQ people who have poor judgments, short time horizon, and high impulsivity. The kind of mad genius villains you see on TV are cartoon characters, not real people. Although there are highly intelligent criminals, they are a tiny fraction in the overall criminal population that is overwhelmingly comprised of stupid people.

    Seriously if you’re going to talk trash at least have your logical ducks in a row.

    You might benefit from reading a real book once in a while and perhaps taking a remedial course in basic logic.

    • Replies: @rvg
    You are insanely stupid if you believe that lack of obvious criminality and morality are connected, or that those two are connected to IQ, what was Mahammad Atta's criminal record before September 11?
  112. @MyNewUserName
    My 100% white sister actually believes that the reason there are so many blacks in the NBA is because of racist policies that prevent them from participating in other activities as youth. So they have no other option except to hang out at the playground and get better at sports.

    When I mentioned that there are huge numbers of whites in affluent communities who pay for private coaching, play year-round, get the best nutrition and fitness training etc - and STILL can't get to the NBA (which obviously pays better than brain surgery, rocket science or just about anything else) she didn't believe me.

    My 100% white sister actually believes that the reason there are so many blacks in the NBA is because of racist policies that prevent them from participating in other activities as youth. So they have no other option except to hang out at the playground and get better at sports.

    I’m curious to hear what “other option” or options white boys had available to them that they would have preferred over sports. There surely were none when I was a boy.

  113. @Anonymous
    "Is there a more totalitarian word these days than “conversations?”"

    Hate it. I remember when I first started hearing people use it, maybe 15 years ago (perhaps a little earlier), and it always struck me it meant that the powers that be wanted to lecture us on some topic, but expected us to be as engaged with what they were saying as we would be if we were having a conversation with them, as equals.

    Anybody else here have to sit through the “Crucial Conversations” workplace propaganda program?

    “Opinions that have no place in our paper” is pretty good, but prolix.

    “Nonviolent Communication” was pretty totalitarian in my experience of it in various settings.

    Here. You may need Brain Bleach after reading.

    https://www.cnvc.org/

    Absolute flippin’ cult IME.

  114. These are the first generation to complete the federalized No Child Left Behind curriculum, and they’re dramatically receptive to anti-European views. Their very ethos derives from knee-jerking against white structures and accomplishment. How has the teaching of history and literature been bastardized, I wonder.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Silber
    Say what one will of the misdeeds of the White race, they're the great benefactors to the rest of humanity, now as in the past. Their achievements, in most every field of endeavor, dwarf those of the other races, and likely always will. Whereas all the races are answerable for crimes against humanity, however modest their contributions to the general advance of civilization.
  115. @kihowi
    I have finally settled on the conclusion that 99% of people are incapable of the minimum requirements for intellectual or even factual conversation, such as divorce of emotion and fact, appreciation of ideas for their own merit regardless the source, appreciation of the difference between ideas and wishes, just plain curiosity, etc etc.

    You were on to something with your esoteric/exoteric series. Maybe everybody but a select group should just be told what to think if we don't want to inevitably end up with insanity like the above.

    I have finally settled on the conclusion that 99% of people are incapable of the minimum requirements for intellectual or even factual conversation, such as divorce of emotion and fact, appreciation of ideas for their own merit regardless the source, appreciation of the difference between ideas and wishes, just plain curiosity, etc etc.

    Psychologist Jean Piaget made precisely this argument, though his figure was more optimistic than 99%, it was still a majority. He had three thresholds of mental maturity that the young had to pass through, and most never made it through, or even to, the third.

    There’s a short essay on this by Steven Barone in Reason about 35 years ago. It’s preserved at unz.org. (Thanks, Ron!)

  116. @MyNewUserName
    My 100% white sister actually believes that the reason there are so many blacks in the NBA is because of racist policies that prevent them from participating in other activities as youth. So they have no other option except to hang out at the playground and get better at sports.

    When I mentioned that there are huge numbers of whites in affluent communities who pay for private coaching, play year-round, get the best nutrition and fitness training etc - and STILL can't get to the NBA (which obviously pays better than brain surgery, rocket science or just about anything else) she didn't believe me.

    My 100% white sister actually believes that the reason there are so many blacks in the NBA is because of racist policies that prevent them from participating in other activities as youth

    The dentally challenged in Canada faced similar obstacles, which is why they dominated the NHL until recently.

  117. @Massimo Heitor
    From the article by Maier, this is somewhat offensive:

    Colonialism simply allows those who come from a history of being well-fed enough to let experimentation happen, conquering those who have not had that luck.
     
    This is factually true, but even I find it offensive or at least insensitive.

    Colonialism generally brought large benefits of advanced civilization to the colonized, yet it was also brutal and ugly overt oppression. The Maier article wasn't a particularly tactful way of expressing this.

    And “Columbian Exchange Day,” published Oct. 6, said Native Americans should be thankful for colonialism, according to the editor’s note.
     
    This is offensive and obnoxious. Sure, race and biological differences are real, and the editorial comments are ridiculous, but saying "Native Americans should be thankful for colonialism" is obnoxious.

    The surviving descendants of Native Americans reaped many benefits, but many were killed, and their culture was destroyed. Of course, it wasn't just white Europeans doing the murdering and oppression, Native American tribes regularly did this to each other. At least the European oppression brought lots of advancements as well. I still wouldn't suggest that Native Americans be thankful for it.

    Oh, enough already of this harpy-chorus of Brutal and Ugly Overt Oppression!

    1400s and 1500s in the New World. The natives live, what, 25-30 years at most? Constantly raiding one another. High degree of infant and child mortality. Death by things we don’t even think about–broken bones, childbirth, a splinter or animal bite. Anemias rampant (especially in maize-consuming areas), with all the bone and organ problems that brings–like fatal diarrhea among children being weaned. Osteoarthritis onset much earlier than we experience and much worse, given the repetitive motions of hand labor. Low diversity of diet. Rampant infectious diseases and parasites.

    This is old, but a good context:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071659/

    The snowflakes who talk about Ugly and Brutal Oppression inside academia are, IME, people who cannot imagine that, at that time, in those places, life simply sucked in every direction. They weren’t reconstructor snowflakes going back to their tenured job after the weekend of playing Noble Savage.

    People contested for resources, and the stronger won.

    The same thing happens today, and anybody who doesn’t believe or understand this needs to spend some time in Lagos or Mogadishu without being able to retreat back to their ivory towers.

    Today’s Indians had ancestors who got through the selection trials long enough to breed; you can say the same for today’s whites of founding stock ancestry. I have no interest in living a Middle Ages life. For all the bashing on about evil whites, the Indians and their keepers have no interest in that either. I’ve never met one who wants to give up the pickup truck, refrigerator, Fry Baby (for the fry bread), satellite dish, cable TV, etc. It’s just more the ideology of thanklessness, and the inner fury generated when someone knows they depend for their survival on others whose gifts they will never have.

    IOW, garden variety envy, resentment, entitlement, and thanklessness. This isn’t noble, but it surely is savage.

    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    Oh, enough already of this harpy-chorus of Brutal and Ugly Overt Oppression!
     
    I'm a Steve Sailer super fan, I think I generally agree with your perspective. Of course, European whites are singled out for their historic crimes, and the horrors committed by other groups or the horrors experienced to lack of basic medicine have no modern political value so are ignored.

    I still think these views can be expressed eloquently and articulately with respect or they can be expressed in a ranting, sloppy, or offensive manner. I consider your comment more reasonable and less offensive than the Maier article.

    I challenge one technical fact that you said:

    1400s and 1500s in the New World. The natives live, what, 25-30 years at most?
     

    From http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/29/science/don-t-blame-columbus-for-all-the-indians-ills.html?pagewanted=all:

    Even so, in the simplest hunter-gatherer societies, few people survived past age 50. In the healthiest cultures in the 1,000 years before Columbus, a life span of no more than 35 years might be usual.
     
  118. @Jack D
    Henry, as someone here pointed out in another response, the Revolution always eats its young. Once all of the "racists" have lost their jobs (which I infer is something that you may look upon with approval) what makes you think that you too will not one day make a slip of the tongue or have your words twisted and misinterpreted by someone who is browner, dumber and more leftist than you (perhaps you will call someone "niggardly" ) and get swept up in the storm? It's all fun and games until the Eye of Sauron turns its gaze toward you. You may think that you are such a True Believer, an anti-racist down to his very bones, that this could NEVER happen to you. Think again.

    Henry, as someone here pointed out in another response, the Revolution always eats its young

    But, as Karen Carpenter warned us, it’s sure taking its time this time.

  119. @AnAnon
    "Some things said or written under the guise of “free speech” can get a person arrested and put in jail immediately." - This is not true. Hate speech has been repeatedly found to be protected free speech, and for the very reason that you can't simply decide that speech you don't like shouldn't be protected. Likewise Anonymous speech has also been repeatedly found to be protected free speech. Libel is a crime and is not considered protected free speech.

    You can't have us thrown into the gulags yet, how that must rankle you.

    “Hate Speech” is nothing more than speech that some other people hate.

  120. @Twinkie

    Ignorant and patronizing. That’s a bad combo, bro.
     
    Why is it that low IQ people always think they are such geniuses? I am not your "bro," kid. Grow up and read some books on statistics.

    I understand correlations very well.
     
    If you did, you wouldn't have written something as definitively idiotic and wrong as "Intelligence, of course, has zero correlation with morality." If you were even mildly intelligent, you'd have at least argued that intelligence correlates poorly with morality, not "zero correlations."

    I just operate under a different definition of morality than you.
     
    While morality and lack of criminality are not exactly the same (for one thing, what is immoral may not incur as much legal sanction as what is criminal), there is enough zone of convergence between the two that one can use the latter (which is easier to measure) as a proxy for the former in social science.

    You conflate convictions with crimes.
     
    Are you stupid? Conviction rates provide an excellent measurement into criminality. That it does not perfectly capture the total criminality of a given population does not negate its high utility in measuring criminality. Unless, of course, you are one of these morons who thinks that whites have lower crime rates than blacks, because they simply get away with crimes more easily.

    It’s almost self-evident that smarter people make better criminals.
     
    Of course smarter people probably make better criminals. But smarter people are - on average - far less likely to engage in criminal acts than stupid people in the first place. That has been demonstrated time and again in research. Most criminals are low IQ people who have poor judgments, short time horizon, and high impulsivity. The kind of mad genius villains you see on TV are cartoon characters, not real people. Although there are highly intelligent criminals, they are a tiny fraction in the overall criminal population that is overwhelmingly comprised of stupid people.

    Seriously if you’re going to talk trash at least have your logical ducks in a row.
     
    You might benefit from reading a real book once in a while and perhaps taking a remedial course in basic logic.

    You are insanely stupid if you believe that lack of obvious criminality and morality are connected, or that those two are connected to IQ, what was Mahammad Atta’s criminal record before September 11?

    • Replies: @right
    bnrtnn and AndrewR, time to stop digging. IQ is indeed positively correlated with morality. If you prefer to use something beside criminality, like Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning (which in turn predict behaviors such as cheating and criminality) you will find a sizable correlation.
    , @Twinkie

    You are insanely stupid if you believe that lack of obvious criminality and morality are connected, or that those two are connected to IQ, what was Mahammad Atta’s criminal record before September 11?
     
    This is just a parade of imbeciles.

    There are many individual blacks (or whites, for that matter) who have not been convicted of crimes. So does that mean race does not correlate with criminality?

    Are you even a high school graduate? You seem completely unaware of the basic concepts of statistics.
  121. @Antonymous
    These are the first generation to complete the federalized No Child Left Behind curriculum, and they’re dramatically receptive to anti-European views. Their very ethos derives from knee-jerking against white structures and accomplishment. How has the teaching of history and literature been bastardized, I wonder.

    Say what one will of the misdeeds of the White race, they’re the great benefactors to the rest of humanity, now as in the past. Their achievements, in most every field of endeavor, dwarf those of the other races, and likely always will. Whereas all the races are answerable for crimes against humanity, however modest their contributions to the general advance of civilization.

  122. @rvg
    You are insanely stupid if you believe that lack of obvious criminality and morality are connected, or that those two are connected to IQ, what was Mahammad Atta's criminal record before September 11?

    bnrtnn and AndrewR, time to stop digging. IQ is indeed positively correlated with morality. If you prefer to use something beside criminality, like Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning (which in turn predict behaviors such as cheating and criminality) you will find a sizable correlation.

    • Replies: @res

    If you prefer to use something beside criminality, like Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning (which in turn predict behaviors such as cheating and criminality) you will find a sizable correlation.
     
    Thanks. Can you recommend a paper discussing this? I found https://books.google.com/books?id=5H7Dg_cnJgIC&pg=PT434 which references Kohlberg's Moral stages : a current formulation and a response to critics, but I don't have access to that and would like to check their derivation of the IQ/morality correlation (and see what values they got for that and other correlates).
    , @Twinkie

    bnrtnn and AndrewR, time to stop digging. IQ is indeed positively correlated with morality.
     
    I can't tell if they are intellectually-challenged (low IQ) or just ignorant (haven't learned basic logic). Probably both.

    I think perhaps Mr. Sailer should have an expanded FAQ that provides a basic primer on IQ-related topics, so that even cretins can acquaint themselves such information and don't go around calling adults "insanely stupid."
    , @Twinkie

    bnrtnn and AndrewR, time to stop digging. IQ is indeed positively correlated with morality.
     
    I can't tell if they are intellectually-challenged (low IQ) or just ignorant (haven't learned basic logic). Probably both.

    I think perhaps Mr. Sailer should have an expanded FAQ that provides a basic primer on IQ-related topics, so that even cretins can acquaint themselves with such information and don't go around calling adults "insanely stupid."
  123. @MyNewUserName
    My 100% white sister actually believes that the reason there are so many blacks in the NBA is because of racist policies that prevent them from participating in other activities as youth. So they have no other option except to hang out at the playground and get better at sports.

    When I mentioned that there are huge numbers of whites in affluent communities who pay for private coaching, play year-round, get the best nutrition and fitness training etc - and STILL can't get to the NBA (which obviously pays better than brain surgery, rocket science or just about anything else) she didn't believe me.

    My 100% white sister actually believes that the reason there are so many blacks in the NBA is because of racist policies that prevent them from participating in other activities as youth.

    Because black kids have no access to libraries?

  124. ARchiving the Crimethink before it goes further down the memory hole:

    Maier ’17: Columbian Exchange Day

    Now that the weather has caught up to the calendar, I’m fully committed to another fall in Rhode Island. There’s a chill in the air, offset by the hot, steamy anxiety of the first good week of deadlines. I’ve got several papers and a few exams due this week alone. By the time Friday rolls around, I’m sure I’ll be praying for sweet death. Thank God for Columbus Day weekend. In my opinion, Columbus Day is the first holiday of the holiday weekend: a dry run of Thanksgiving, plus good booze and minus the gluttony.

    But since I’ve been at Brown, I’ve found my favorite holiday to be an extremely contentious point of controversy. The student group Native Americans at Brown has planned a demonstration Monday on the Main Green aimed at convincing the administration to change the name of the holiday from “Fall Weekend” to “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.” I’ll offer, right now, a good reason why this is an act of egregious revisionism. All Native Americans should celebrate Columbus Day, even if they have reservations about honoring Christopher Columbus himself.

    I’ve always thought Columbus Day was a celebration of the massive economic, political and cultural phenomenon known as the Columbian Exchange. What is this, you ask? The Columbian Exchange was the massive introduction of Old World organisms, culture and technology into the New World, as well as the game-changing introduction of New World plants and animals into the fields, gardens, minds and architectures of Old World Europe.

    These introductions, which still very much continue today, began with Christopher Columbus and his epic voyage to what he thought was India. Just what is the extent of the Columbian Exchange? Take just about any possible aspect of your daily life, here at Brown and otherwise, and it is probably the result of the Columbian Exchange.

    Let’s start with food. Every livestock animal, with the exception of the llama, is the result of the Columbian Exchange. Columbus himself brought pigs, horses and other animals onboard his ship. Cows, pigs, sheep and goats form the backbone of many an economy today. Horses, introduced by the Spanish on the voyages following Columbus, rewrote the story of the plains Indians of the Dakotas and Great Plains. Chicken, the most popular meat today, originated as the red jungle fowl of India and Southeast Asia. Just about every plant imaginable (from almonds to cabbage, carrots to coffee, wine grapes to ginger) is Old World in origin. Wheat, soybeans and even marijuana are Old World.

    This wasn’t just a one-way deal. Without the Columbian Exchange, there would be no Hungarian paprika, French vanilla, Italian tomato sauce or Belgian chocolate. New World plants, such as the potato (native to South America) revolutionized the diets of the Irish, the British and the Russians. Corn, now the king of American crops, found widespread success due to science and technology that originated in Old World Europe (where do you think the combine harvester came from?).

    From my conversations with Native Americans, those who protest Columbus Day often reconsider their positions when they take the Columbian Exchange into account. European technology, in the modern day, enables airplanes to access remote communities of First Peoples, providing them with medicine. Plains Indians (Navajo, Lakota, Pima and Sioux, to name a few) developed a whole culture around the horse, and wild herds still run free. The fact that a student at Brown (or any other school) can email a British university, arrange to study there, fly across the pond and thrive in England is a testament to the Columbian Exchange.

    Who discovered America? It is unpopular to say Columbus did. The Norse vikings? The ancient Chinese? The Siberians, who later became the Native Americans? The debate still rages on. The first foot on New World soil most certainly didn’t belong to Columbus. Regardless of whose feet they were, the important thing to note is that, in every proposed case except that of Columbus, the third foot on New World soil was not a hoof.

    Columbus, in firmly establishing himself in the New World and beckoning followers, ushered in the world as we know it today. Would every Columbian Exchange item have crossed the oceans without Columbus? Probably, but on a different timeline, and in different circumstances. History would have been wildly and unspeakably different.

    Much of the controversy surrounding Columbus Day has to do with Native American genocide and government appropriation of Native American lands. It is factually inaccurate, as well as wrongheaded, to deny the horrific truth of the crimes perpetrated by the American government. Should Native Americans get their lands back? Of course they should. But wishing to revert to a past circumstance, before Columbus, has hundreds of caveats (in the form of fruits, vegetables, animals and medicines), and wishing for a brighter future requires reconciliation with a modern world glimmering from stem to stern with Old World trimmings, atop foundations established by Columbus.

    Rather, keep Columbus Day. Celebrate the Columbian Exchange, not the man. It is the right of every person to interpret a holiday any way she chooses, but sitting down in the Sharpe Refectory and plotting an “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” demonstration over an egg and bacon breakfast is hypocrisy at its finest.

    M. Dzhali Maier ’17 is concentrating in science and society.

    • Agree: SPMoore8
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Jared Diamond and Charles C. Mann are now officially Bad Influences.
    , @International Jew
    Wow, that warranted the nuclear response!? Even after she tossed in this:

    Should Native Americans get their lands back? Of course they should.
     
    Sheesh. I wouldn't last halfway into freshman week, before I was expelled from any college today.

    And thank you for helping to preserve this artifact!

  125. @Discordiax
    ARchiving the Crimethink before it goes further down the memory hole:

    Maier ’17: Columbian Exchange Day

    Now that the weather has caught up to the calendar, I’m fully committed to another fall in Rhode Island. There’s a chill in the air, offset by the hot, steamy anxiety of the first good week of deadlines. I’ve got several papers and a few exams due this week alone. By the time Friday rolls around, I’m sure I’ll be praying for sweet death. Thank God for Columbus Day weekend. In my opinion, Columbus Day is the first holiday of the holiday weekend: a dry run of Thanksgiving, plus good booze and minus the gluttony.

    But since I’ve been at Brown, I’ve found my favorite holiday to be an extremely contentious point of controversy. The student group Native Americans at Brown has planned a demonstration Monday on the Main Green aimed at convincing the administration to change the name of the holiday from “Fall Weekend” to “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.” I’ll offer, right now, a good reason why this is an act of egregious revisionism. All Native Americans should celebrate Columbus Day, even if they have reservations about honoring Christopher Columbus himself.

    I’ve always thought Columbus Day was a celebration of the massive economic, political and cultural phenomenon known as the Columbian Exchange. What is this, you ask? The Columbian Exchange was the massive introduction of Old World organisms, culture and technology into the New World, as well as the game-changing introduction of New World plants and animals into the fields, gardens, minds and architectures of Old World Europe.

    These introductions, which still very much continue today, began with Christopher Columbus and his epic voyage to what he thought was India. Just what is the extent of the Columbian Exchange? Take just about any possible aspect of your daily life, here at Brown and otherwise, and it is probably the result of the Columbian Exchange.

    Let’s start with food. Every livestock animal, with the exception of the llama, is the result of the Columbian Exchange. Columbus himself brought pigs, horses and other animals onboard his ship. Cows, pigs, sheep and goats form the backbone of many an economy today. Horses, introduced by the Spanish on the voyages following Columbus, rewrote the story of the plains Indians of the Dakotas and Great Plains. Chicken, the most popular meat today, originated as the red jungle fowl of India and Southeast Asia. Just about every plant imaginable (from almonds to cabbage, carrots to coffee, wine grapes to ginger) is Old World in origin. Wheat, soybeans and even marijuana are Old World.

    This wasn’t just a one-way deal. Without the Columbian Exchange, there would be no Hungarian paprika, French vanilla, Italian tomato sauce or Belgian chocolate. New World plants, such as the potato (native to South America) revolutionized the diets of the Irish, the British and the Russians. Corn, now the king of American crops, found widespread success due to science and technology that originated in Old World Europe (where do you think the combine harvester came from?).

    From my conversations with Native Americans, those who protest Columbus Day often reconsider their positions when they take the Columbian Exchange into account. European technology, in the modern day, enables airplanes to access remote communities of First Peoples, providing them with medicine. Plains Indians (Navajo, Lakota, Pima and Sioux, to name a few) developed a whole culture around the horse, and wild herds still run free. The fact that a student at Brown (or any other school) can email a British university, arrange to study there, fly across the pond and thrive in England is a testament to the Columbian Exchange.

    Who discovered America? It is unpopular to say Columbus did. The Norse vikings? The ancient Chinese? The Siberians, who later became the Native Americans? The debate still rages on. The first foot on New World soil most certainly didn’t belong to Columbus. Regardless of whose feet they were, the important thing to note is that, in every proposed case except that of Columbus, the third foot on New World soil was not a hoof.

    Columbus, in firmly establishing himself in the New World and beckoning followers, ushered in the world as we know it today. Would every Columbian Exchange item have crossed the oceans without Columbus? Probably, but on a different timeline, and in different circumstances. History would have been wildly and unspeakably different.

    Much of the controversy surrounding Columbus Day has to do with Native American genocide and government appropriation of Native American lands. It is factually inaccurate, as well as wrongheaded, to deny the horrific truth of the crimes perpetrated by the American government. Should Native Americans get their lands back? Of course they should. But wishing to revert to a past circumstance, before Columbus, has hundreds of caveats (in the form of fruits, vegetables, animals and medicines), and wishing for a brighter future requires reconciliation with a modern world glimmering from stem to stern with Old World trimmings, atop foundations established by Columbus.

    Rather, keep Columbus Day. Celebrate the Columbian Exchange, not the man. It is the right of every person to interpret a holiday any way she chooses, but sitting down in the Sharpe Refectory and plotting an “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” demonstration over an egg and bacon breakfast is hypocrisy at its finest.

    M. Dzhali Maier ’17 is concentrating in science and society.

    Jared Diamond and Charles C. Mann are now officially Bad Influences.

  126. @Anon
    But admission policy will be affected by race.

    In general, there is a strong correlation (among White people) between disbelief in the existence of race and advocacy of policies that make sense only if race is the most important thing in the whole world.

    At least the Blacks don’t pretend there’s no such thing as race.

  127. @right
    bnrtnn and AndrewR, time to stop digging. IQ is indeed positively correlated with morality. If you prefer to use something beside criminality, like Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning (which in turn predict behaviors such as cheating and criminality) you will find a sizable correlation.

    If you prefer to use something beside criminality, like Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning (which in turn predict behaviors such as cheating and criminality) you will find a sizable correlation.

    Thanks. Can you recommend a paper discussing this? I found https://books.google.com/books?id=5H7Dg_cnJgIC&pg=PT434 which references Kohlberg’s Moral stages : a current formulation and a response to critics, but I don’t have access to that and would like to check their derivation of the IQ/morality correlation (and see what values they got for that and other correlates).

  128. That’s not a bad essay, is it ?

  129. @Olorin
    Oh, enough already of this harpy-chorus of Brutal and Ugly Overt Oppression!

    1400s and 1500s in the New World. The natives live, what, 25-30 years at most? Constantly raiding one another. High degree of infant and child mortality. Death by things we don't even think about--broken bones, childbirth, a splinter or animal bite. Anemias rampant (especially in maize-consuming areas), with all the bone and organ problems that brings--like fatal diarrhea among children being weaned. Osteoarthritis onset much earlier than we experience and much worse, given the repetitive motions of hand labor. Low diversity of diet. Rampant infectious diseases and parasites.

    This is old, but a good context:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071659/

    The snowflakes who talk about Ugly and Brutal Oppression inside academia are, IME, people who cannot imagine that, at that time, in those places, life simply sucked in every direction. They weren't reconstructor snowflakes going back to their tenured job after the weekend of playing Noble Savage.

    People contested for resources, and the stronger won.

    The same thing happens today, and anybody who doesn't believe or understand this needs to spend some time in Lagos or Mogadishu without being able to retreat back to their ivory towers.

    Today's Indians had ancestors who got through the selection trials long enough to breed; you can say the same for today's whites of founding stock ancestry. I have no interest in living a Middle Ages life. For all the bashing on about evil whites, the Indians and their keepers have no interest in that either. I've never met one who wants to give up the pickup truck, refrigerator, Fry Baby (for the fry bread), satellite dish, cable TV, etc. It's just more the ideology of thanklessness, and the inner fury generated when someone knows they depend for their survival on others whose gifts they will never have.

    IOW, garden variety envy, resentment, entitlement, and thanklessness. This isn't noble, but it surely is savage.

    Oh, enough already of this harpy-chorus of Brutal and Ugly Overt Oppression!

    I’m a Steve Sailer super fan, I think I generally agree with your perspective. Of course, European whites are singled out for their historic crimes, and the horrors committed by other groups or the horrors experienced to lack of basic medicine have no modern political value so are ignored.

    I still think these views can be expressed eloquently and articulately with respect or they can be expressed in a ranting, sloppy, or offensive manner. I consider your comment more reasonable and less offensive than the Maier article.

    I challenge one technical fact that you said:

    1400s and 1500s in the New World. The natives live, what, 25-30 years at most?

    From http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/29/science/don-t-blame-columbus-for-all-the-indians-ills.html?pagewanted=all:

    Even so, in the simplest hunter-gatherer societies, few people survived past age 50. In the healthiest cultures in the 1,000 years before Columbus, a life span of no more than 35 years might be usual.

  130. Only human race is not a biological category. There is great value in the Editor’s note, inasmuch it recognises that the standard to which biological concepts must bow is a social construction.

    Race: a social destruction of a biological concept

  131. @Massimo Heitor
    From the article by Maier, this is somewhat offensive:

    Colonialism simply allows those who come from a history of being well-fed enough to let experimentation happen, conquering those who have not had that luck.
     
    This is factually true, but even I find it offensive or at least insensitive.

    Colonialism generally brought large benefits of advanced civilization to the colonized, yet it was also brutal and ugly overt oppression. The Maier article wasn't a particularly tactful way of expressing this.

    And “Columbian Exchange Day,” published Oct. 6, said Native Americans should be thankful for colonialism, according to the editor’s note.
     
    This is offensive and obnoxious. Sure, race and biological differences are real, and the editorial comments are ridiculous, but saying "Native Americans should be thankful for colonialism" is obnoxious.

    The surviving descendants of Native Americans reaped many benefits, but many were killed, and their culture was destroyed. Of course, it wasn't just white Europeans doing the murdering and oppression, Native American tribes regularly did this to each other. At least the European oppression brought lots of advancements as well. I still wouldn't suggest that Native Americans be thankful for it.

    Congratulations! You’re a proponent of Crimethink. You believe offensive truths should remain unspoken.

    • Replies: @Massimo Heitor

    Congratulations! You’re a proponent of Crimethink. You believe offensive truths should remain unspoken.
     
    I really think you are misreading me. I absolutely advocate speaking important truths, but that doesn't excuse obnoxiousness. The quoted article, "Columbian Exchange Day" is not obnoxious and it does condemn the treatment and near genocide of Amerindians. It's also not brilliant, but that's a separate issue.
  132. @Massimo Heitor
    From the article by Maier, this is somewhat offensive:

    Colonialism simply allows those who come from a history of being well-fed enough to let experimentation happen, conquering those who have not had that luck.
     
    This is factually true, but even I find it offensive or at least insensitive.

    Colonialism generally brought large benefits of advanced civilization to the colonized, yet it was also brutal and ugly overt oppression. The Maier article wasn't a particularly tactful way of expressing this.

    And “Columbian Exchange Day,” published Oct. 6, said Native Americans should be thankful for colonialism, according to the editor’s note.
     
    This is offensive and obnoxious. Sure, race and biological differences are real, and the editorial comments are ridiculous, but saying "Native Americans should be thankful for colonialism" is obnoxious.

    The surviving descendants of Native Americans reaped many benefits, but many were killed, and their culture was destroyed. Of course, it wasn't just white Europeans doing the murdering and oppression, Native American tribes regularly did this to each other. At least the European oppression brought lots of advancements as well. I still wouldn't suggest that Native Americans be thankful for it.

    It’s not offensive and obnoxious. It’s an honest remedy to the anti-colonialist claptrap that’s taught as received truth in U.S. primary and secondary schools.

    Most of my kids have been homeschooled all the way through, but the middle boy spent some time in a charter school. I went through the roof when I read the section on world history during the colonial period — it was unrelenting, one-sided bashing of colonialism. That’s what kids are being fed these days. And they need to be shocked and offended by the truth to get them to wake up.

  133. @Seminumerical
    This rot goes so far back. In the 80s I heard my anthropology prof. explain to a huge lecture hall that race did not exist. Her argument was refutable by anyone with the slightest intuition. Categories with fuzzy boundaries are just that, categories with fuzzy boundaries. I dropped the class.

    Incidentally, thus was a summer gig for her. He regular job was anthropology prof. at a neighbouring third tier university.

    Then there was a scandal when a psych. prof. teaching Personality was denounced to the student paper for saying that the reason the Irish were different was because they were different. My primary interest was artificial intelligence at the time so I was taking a raft of psych. courses on the side. I signed up for Personality the following semester only to find that the prof. had been replaced by a Freudian seconded from the neighbouring third tier university.

    A Freudian. Can you imagine talking id and ego in the 80s? decades after anyone in North America had made it the topic of a psych. Ph.D. thesis?*

    I didn't understand office politics so I didn't know why they had had to go outside a world renown department to get a substitute teacher from another school. It was a required sophomore course that everyone in the department, whether on the science or clinical side, was qualified to teach.

    *Psychoanalysis was in its last gasps in the Psychiatry residency program at the time, and psychoanalytic literary criticism was, and may still be, the bane of English lit. And I once had to read or at least scan a dozen feminist studies papers published in the 80s and 90s. There were several instances of Freudian psychobabble - in a peer reviewed academic journal.

    I, too, started seeing this rot back in university in the 80s. My most memorable incident was a sociology teacher who maintained the absurd position that men and women of equal size and fitness levels are physically equal.

    Naively, I questioned her assertion on common sense grounds, and I could visibly see her clam up and write me off. I didn’t bother to continue arguing her. I just wrote”idiot” next to her name in my mental black book and moved on.

  134. @Anonymous
    Off topic, but economist John Cochrane praises Alex Tabarrok's essay on Open Borders with this piece of solid reasoning:

    "In the Soviet era, there were walls and guards with guns, and we deplored that people were not allowed to cross the border. Is it that different that the guards with guns are on the other side of the walls?"

    http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2015/10/open-borders.html

    Yes. It’s that different. What an idiotic statement.

    It’s the difference between being locked into your house against your will and being able to lock your house to keep unwanted intruders out.

  135. @Twinkie

    Hatred of their own culture seems to be White cultural phenomenon. I’ve yet to meet another culture that doesn’t worship their way of doing things.
     
    East Asians who admire or love all things white?

    More seriously, I think only advanced cultures produce a relatively large number of romantics who glamorizes "exotic" foreign cultures.

    That’s an interesting, incestuous, situation. Japanese pop culture almost obsessively fetishizes western culture, and in turn there’s a whole sub-culture of western youths that fetishize the western-fetishizing Japanese pop culture. It’s very strange.

  136. @Cloudbuster
    Congratulations! You're a proponent of Crimethink. You believe offensive truths should remain unspoken.

    Congratulations! You’re a proponent of Crimethink. You believe offensive truths should remain unspoken.

    I really think you are misreading me. I absolutely advocate speaking important truths, but that doesn’t excuse obnoxiousness. The quoted article, “Columbian Exchange Day” is not obnoxious and it does condemn the treatment and near genocide of Amerindians. It’s also not brilliant, but that’s a separate issue.

  137. @rvg
    You are insanely stupid if you believe that lack of obvious criminality and morality are connected, or that those two are connected to IQ, what was Mahammad Atta's criminal record before September 11?

    You are insanely stupid if you believe that lack of obvious criminality and morality are connected, or that those two are connected to IQ, what was Mahammad Atta’s criminal record before September 11?

    This is just a parade of imbeciles.

    There are many individual blacks (or whites, for that matter) who have not been convicted of crimes. So does that mean race does not correlate with criminality?

    Are you even a high school graduate? You seem completely unaware of the basic concepts of statistics.

  138. @right
    bnrtnn and AndrewR, time to stop digging. IQ is indeed positively correlated with morality. If you prefer to use something beside criminality, like Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning (which in turn predict behaviors such as cheating and criminality) you will find a sizable correlation.

    bnrtnn and AndrewR, time to stop digging. IQ is indeed positively correlated with morality.

    I can’t tell if they are intellectually-challenged (low IQ) or just ignorant (haven’t learned basic logic). Probably both.

    I think perhaps Mr. Sailer should have an expanded FAQ that provides a basic primer on IQ-related topics, so that even cretins can acquaint themselves such information and don’t go around calling adults “insanely stupid.”

  139. @right
    bnrtnn and AndrewR, time to stop digging. IQ is indeed positively correlated with morality. If you prefer to use something beside criminality, like Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning (which in turn predict behaviors such as cheating and criminality) you will find a sizable correlation.

    bnrtnn and AndrewR, time to stop digging. IQ is indeed positively correlated with morality.

    I can’t tell if they are intellectually-challenged (low IQ) or just ignorant (haven’t learned basic logic). Probably both.

    I think perhaps Mr. Sailer should have an expanded FAQ that provides a basic primer on IQ-related topics, so that even cretins can acquaint themselves with such information and don’t go around calling adults “insanely stupid.”

  140. @Discordiax
    ARchiving the Crimethink before it goes further down the memory hole:

    Maier ’17: Columbian Exchange Day

    Now that the weather has caught up to the calendar, I’m fully committed to another fall in Rhode Island. There’s a chill in the air, offset by the hot, steamy anxiety of the first good week of deadlines. I’ve got several papers and a few exams due this week alone. By the time Friday rolls around, I’m sure I’ll be praying for sweet death. Thank God for Columbus Day weekend. In my opinion, Columbus Day is the first holiday of the holiday weekend: a dry run of Thanksgiving, plus good booze and minus the gluttony.

    But since I’ve been at Brown, I’ve found my favorite holiday to be an extremely contentious point of controversy. The student group Native Americans at Brown has planned a demonstration Monday on the Main Green aimed at convincing the administration to change the name of the holiday from “Fall Weekend” to “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.” I’ll offer, right now, a good reason why this is an act of egregious revisionism. All Native Americans should celebrate Columbus Day, even if they have reservations about honoring Christopher Columbus himself.

    I’ve always thought Columbus Day was a celebration of the massive economic, political and cultural phenomenon known as the Columbian Exchange. What is this, you ask? The Columbian Exchange was the massive introduction of Old World organisms, culture and technology into the New World, as well as the game-changing introduction of New World plants and animals into the fields, gardens, minds and architectures of Old World Europe.

    These introductions, which still very much continue today, began with Christopher Columbus and his epic voyage to what he thought was India. Just what is the extent of the Columbian Exchange? Take just about any possible aspect of your daily life, here at Brown and otherwise, and it is probably the result of the Columbian Exchange.

    Let’s start with food. Every livestock animal, with the exception of the llama, is the result of the Columbian Exchange. Columbus himself brought pigs, horses and other animals onboard his ship. Cows, pigs, sheep and goats form the backbone of many an economy today. Horses, introduced by the Spanish on the voyages following Columbus, rewrote the story of the plains Indians of the Dakotas and Great Plains. Chicken, the most popular meat today, originated as the red jungle fowl of India and Southeast Asia. Just about every plant imaginable (from almonds to cabbage, carrots to coffee, wine grapes to ginger) is Old World in origin. Wheat, soybeans and even marijuana are Old World.

    This wasn’t just a one-way deal. Without the Columbian Exchange, there would be no Hungarian paprika, French vanilla, Italian tomato sauce or Belgian chocolate. New World plants, such as the potato (native to South America) revolutionized the diets of the Irish, the British and the Russians. Corn, now the king of American crops, found widespread success due to science and technology that originated in Old World Europe (where do you think the combine harvester came from?).

    From my conversations with Native Americans, those who protest Columbus Day often reconsider their positions when they take the Columbian Exchange into account. European technology, in the modern day, enables airplanes to access remote communities of First Peoples, providing them with medicine. Plains Indians (Navajo, Lakota, Pima and Sioux, to name a few) developed a whole culture around the horse, and wild herds still run free. The fact that a student at Brown (or any other school) can email a British university, arrange to study there, fly across the pond and thrive in England is a testament to the Columbian Exchange.

    Who discovered America? It is unpopular to say Columbus did. The Norse vikings? The ancient Chinese? The Siberians, who later became the Native Americans? The debate still rages on. The first foot on New World soil most certainly didn’t belong to Columbus. Regardless of whose feet they were, the important thing to note is that, in every proposed case except that of Columbus, the third foot on New World soil was not a hoof.

    Columbus, in firmly establishing himself in the New World and beckoning followers, ushered in the world as we know it today. Would every Columbian Exchange item have crossed the oceans without Columbus? Probably, but on a different timeline, and in different circumstances. History would have been wildly and unspeakably different.

    Much of the controversy surrounding Columbus Day has to do with Native American genocide and government appropriation of Native American lands. It is factually inaccurate, as well as wrongheaded, to deny the horrific truth of the crimes perpetrated by the American government. Should Native Americans get their lands back? Of course they should. But wishing to revert to a past circumstance, before Columbus, has hundreds of caveats (in the form of fruits, vegetables, animals and medicines), and wishing for a brighter future requires reconciliation with a modern world glimmering from stem to stern with Old World trimmings, atop foundations established by Columbus.

    Rather, keep Columbus Day. Celebrate the Columbian Exchange, not the man. It is the right of every person to interpret a holiday any way she chooses, but sitting down in the Sharpe Refectory and plotting an “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” demonstration over an egg and bacon breakfast is hypocrisy at its finest.

    M. Dzhali Maier ’17 is concentrating in science and society.

    Wow, that warranted the nuclear response!? Even after she tossed in this:

    Should Native Americans get their lands back? Of course they should.

    Sheesh. I wouldn’t last halfway into freshman week, before I was expelled from any college today.

    And thank you for helping to preserve this artifact!

  141. @Tiny Duck
    Give me a break? Are you "free speech champions" so naive as to think a person can say or write ANYTHING without fear of repercussions or getting into trouble? What world are you guys living in?

    Some things said or written under the guise of "free speech" can get a person arrested and put in jail immediately. Use your "free speech" to say or write something racist or bigoted and see how long you keep your job. Write or say something libelous about somebody else, and you'll be sued so fast it will make your head spin.

    Sorry folks. Free speech may mean that a person can speak or write whatever is on his or her mind. But is not a free pass to escape the consequences of what is said or written

    I noticed that this comment from Henry Schumer attacks the commenters for their devotion to free speech, but none of the preceding comments used the term. So I looked at the Providence Journal article and found the same comment posted by someone called Alberta.

    I have been noticing that frequently there are comments here from some non-regular commenter with a snarky tone which don’t seem to be responding to the actual content of Steve’s post or any of the other comments. Are these all from the same guy copying and pasting the same comment into multiple blogs and newspaper articles with no regard for context?

  142. Dr Dre and Chris Brown get attacked over their use of fists yet Lou Reed and John Lennon were very good at intergender sparring but nobody mentions them.

    #CisGenderBisexualWhiteMalePrivilege

  143. @Polymath
    What does the Brown Biology Department think of this?

    In particular, this guy, "David M. Rand Stephen T. Olney Professor of Natural History, Chair of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology"

    https://vivo.brown.edu/display/drand

    Most of his work has been with animals, but here is a paper he coauthored which shows he knows about human genomics:

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/14448794_Rand_D._M.__Kann_L._M._Excess_amino_acid_polymorphism_in_mitochondrial_DNA_contrasts_among_genes_from_Drosophila_mice_and_humans._Mol._Biol._Evol._13_735-748

    Also, this guy "Thomas Roberts Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Vice Chair of the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology"

    https://vivo.brown.edu/display/troberts

    studies the biomechanics of human running and might have an opinion on the demographics of Olympic medalists....

    And this guy "Daniel M. Weinreich Associate Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Co-Director of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Graduate Program"

    https://vivo.brown.edu/display/dweinrei

    wrote this paper which looks like an important theoretical buttress for Cochran and Harpending's work:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16050095

    However the rising star in that department, who specializes in human population genetics, is this lady: "Sohini Ramachandran Assistant Professor of Biology"

    https://vivo.brown.edu/display/sr33

    This year she published this paper, "A comparison of worldwide phonemic and genetic variation in human populations"

    http://www.pnas.org/content/112/5/1265.full.pdf_1

    which is a densely detailed and very solid article (as is typical for PNAS papers) that she was the principal investigator for (her vitae entry for the paper says "SR is the PI of this project, conceived of the study with MR and MWF, designed the research with NC and MWF, prepared and analyzed the linguistic data with NC, and wrote the paper with input from all authors.").

    I hope she has tenure already! Here is her vitae:

    https://vivo.brown.edu/docs/s/sr33_cv.pdf?dt=074710073

    any iSteve readers at Brown ought to look her up and ask her what she thinks of this controversy and the idea that race has no basis in biology. As an (Asian) Indian woman, she's immunized against automatic dismissals of her as racist, so she ought to speak up.

    (By the way, the cited paper says "phonemic" and it's not a typo for "phenomic" which would have been even more interesting....)

    She’s not immune. There is no group more gimlet-eyed on the subject than certain Indians. I once read a mind numbingly angry screed by a Dravidian Hindu denouncing the culture imposed on them by “Aryan” Hindus (most other other Indians.) Indians have often been attacked (most often by other Indians) for “racism” when they have broached hbd. I think what they’re mostly worried about is any real or perceived racism against themselves.

  144. @The most deplorable one

    Yeah, it’s mostly a summary of Jared Diamond’s theory about how the fortuitous availability of nutricious wild grains and easily-domesticated wild animals is what explains why Europeans developed sooner and farther than Aztecs.
     
    One wonders why the Africans did not domesticate Zebras ... but Native Americans domesticated maize, although that might have been sheer dumb luck that CO2 levels were so low at the time that it selected for the phenotype we see these days.

    One wonders why the Africans did not domesticate Zebras

    Diamond covers that. He says they can’t be domesticated — too aggressive.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    Thats why wolves were never domesticated, too aggressive.

    Behold, the white devil uses his animal magnetism to enchant the zebra and make it do his will:

    Zack the Zebra Jumping
    Charlie the Zebra competing in driving
    Riding Newman the Zebra
    Driving Charlie the Zebra
  145. @International Jew

    One wonders why the Africans did not domesticate Zebras
     
    Diamond covers that. He says they can't be domesticated -- too aggressive.

    Thats why wolves were never domesticated, too aggressive.

    Behold, the white devil uses his animal magnetism to enchant the zebra and make it do his will:

    Zack the Zebra Jumping
    Charlie the Zebra competing in driving
    Riding Newman the Zebra
    Driving Charlie the Zebra

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Ostrich farming was started in South Africa about 1860. It's pretty common in California, although I haven't noticed that anybody has figured out how to make money off ostriches, but they are a pretty common sight on the more boutique farms.
    , @International Jew
    Impressive videos! (One of them led me to a clip of a guy riding a giraffe, which is more impressive yet.)

    OK, it's not like horses are easily tamed and zebras are impossible. It's a matter of percentages, and the degree of difficulty. Like Indian elephants (deadly dangerous but marginally trainable and still deadly) vs African elephants (deadly at all times). Note that European colonists chose to import horses, rather than ride the plentiful local zebras. There must have been a reason for that.

    BTW, I think Jared Diamond is full of it on the most important issues. But on zebras vs horses he seems plausible.
  146. @Hippopotamusdrome
    Thats why wolves were never domesticated, too aggressive.

    Behold, the white devil uses his animal magnetism to enchant the zebra and make it do his will:

    Zack the Zebra Jumping
    Charlie the Zebra competing in driving
    Riding Newman the Zebra
    Driving Charlie the Zebra

    Ostrich farming was started in South Africa about 1860. It’s pretty common in California, although I haven’t noticed that anybody has figured out how to make money off ostriches, but they are a pretty common sight on the more boutique farms.

  147. @Hippopotamusdrome
    Thats why wolves were never domesticated, too aggressive.

    Behold, the white devil uses his animal magnetism to enchant the zebra and make it do his will:

    Zack the Zebra Jumping
    Charlie the Zebra competing in driving
    Riding Newman the Zebra
    Driving Charlie the Zebra

    Impressive videos! (One of them led me to a clip of a guy riding a giraffe, which is more impressive yet.)

    OK, it’s not like horses are easily tamed and zebras are impossible. It’s a matter of percentages, and the degree of difficulty. Like Indian elephants (deadly dangerous but marginally trainable and still deadly) vs African elephants (deadly at all times). Note that European colonists chose to import horses, rather than ride the plentiful local zebras. There must have been a reason for that.

    BTW, I think Jared Diamond is full of it on the most important issues. But on zebras vs horses he seems plausible.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS