RSS
Commenter Buzz Mohawk notes:
To me the pseudo-science of systemic racism resembles a tautology, one that hangs together with the pseudo-legal concept of disparate impact, thus:
Where (you think) there is disparate impact, there is systemic racism. Where (you think) there is systemic racism, there is disparate impact.
All of this is made possible by the tabula rasa postulate, which states that all humans are equivalent blank slates.
In other words, all differences in human outcomes can be explained by racism.
Couple this with the fact that schools are now teaching two additional postulates, 1) All white people are racists, and 2) Nobody else is, and then you arrive at the corollary: Everything is white people’s fault.
Thus the conclusion: All failures of everyone else to achieve as much as white people are disparate impacts caused by systemic racism.
It’s all one big circle jerk.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Closely related, from the author of The Hive Mind:
https://twitter.com/GarettJones/status/787468447236194304
But life is going to get a lot more crowded, unpleasant, unaffordable, dangerous and plagued by crime and terrorism for the great masses of people who aren't sitting in the driver's seat of this new globalized version of western society.Replies: @Dave Pinsen
What I love about all of those anti-racist whites is their own obliviousness to the fact that they assume that whites are the “just right” race. The accomplishments of all other groups are measured against whites.
The achievement gap is always black-white or Hispanic-white or Native American-white. It’s never black-Hispanic or Hispanic-Asian.
Why is not testing as well or earning as much as whites “bad” anyway. Why are we the benchmark? Nobody seems to wring their hands about whites (or blacks or Hispanics) getting outscored or out-earned by Asians.
Even anti-white whites can’t help but navel gaze.
Speak for yourself.
James O’Keefe claims he has a huge release set for Monday.
U.S. vote authorities warned to be alert to Russian hacks faking fraud – officials
“To the untrained eye, it may appear as if the election is rigged. That’s just what Putin wants you to think!”
Buzz really nailed it. This is IMO without doubt his best ever post.
Burn it down. All of it.
I think Rightist of all stripes should embrace Systematic Racism. Everyone knows about Rightist “theories” concerning an International Jewish Conspiracy that controls the world and is up to no good. Further, like Systemic Racism and other conspiracies, we know it is empirically unfalisiable. For example, if you bring up scientific evidence that Blacks are underrepresented in police shootings, that doesn’t count because European science is racially biased, or in the alternative, the product of Zionist manipulations.
However, before the Anti-Semitic conspiracy “theory” got going, this stuff all started in Counter Revolutionary politics in France, when the world conspiracy was headed at that time by the Free Masons.
Now last I checked, the Masons are primarily composed of White Protestant Males. And you know who is behind Systemic Racism don’t you? Is it a coincidence?
Yes, not only does Systemic Racism exist, but it is clearly part of the Master Plan developed by the Bavarian Illuminati for world domination. It is clearly the Illuminati, harnessing the occult power of White Supremacy, which is behind the racially disproportionate crime rates in places such as South Africa or urban Chicago. It is the Illuminati that is causing biased racist empirical studies to be published showing Blacks are underrepresented in police shootings.
Besides which, what is wrong with using a Moonbat conspiracy theory to tar a successful ethnic group for all the problems in the world, even if we know it is BS, if it can increase political power for our own ethnic activists? What could possibly go wrong?
If racism is the cause of black failure and if racism is congenital in white people we are left with a real problem. White people are inherently evil- a violation of the ‘tabula rasa postulate’.
We know white liberals and even black people do not believe in the white racism theory otherwise they would not have to impose sanctions on those who reject it. Black people know they aren’t as good as others. Liberals know this too. This is why blacks clamor to get into ‘historically white’ academies and why white liberals admit them. Neil Degrasse Tyson maybe presented on TV as a brilliant astrophysicist but everyone knows ( except for most of the TV audience) that he couldn’t get a job on a Mars rover team from Cornell or Cal Tech except, perhaps, as a public relations supernumerary!
I think many leftists just like violence, and they are dreaming of undoing this special type of racism that whites are infested with using their very own camps.
Of course none of them would admit. It's the solution of their dreams.
Of course he is NOT a brilliant astro-physicist, although one should not underestimate the intellect needed to turn abstract science into understandable and entertaining TV.
On the other hand, you must admit that NDT is a VERY gifted PR BS artist. He could easily be the head of the Mars Rover PR team, not a "supernumerary."
The liberals who create this crap are white but they are good whites.
And once Trump wins, not a few of the good whites threaten to move to Canada -a white country -rather than Mexico or Haiti and not because of race but because of cooler weather.
Nearly the entirety of Cultural Marxism was created and installed by whitey but I am supposed to be a white identist to save America.
OK, got it.
https://twitter.com/GarettJones/status/787468447236194304Replies: @415 reasons
They’re not just going to roll up the skyscrapers and get rid of all the global elite financial/corporate/educational/governmental institutions that are so much stronger in the United States and Europe than anywhere else.
But life is going to get a lot more crowded, unpleasant, unaffordable, dangerous and plagued by crime and terrorism for the great masses of people who aren’t sitting in the driver’s seat of this new globalized version of western society.
https://twitter.com/EconEconomics/status/789580185318395908Replies: @Lurker
Hope he does’t run out of toilet paper.
Somewhere around 1990 we stopped believing that affirmative action and inequality were temporary. Around 2000 “invisible knapsack” passed “affirmative action.”
http://bit.ly/2eQaD9l
I also think it's better to change the start date to near when the terms started to be used (say 1950 here). Although the plots look less dramatic, they are more informative when spread out.Replies: @Clyde
(1) The term (as currently understood) was coined in the late 1960s. None of the Ngram database's usages before the late 1960s are related at all to race; from context, all the earlier usages I find clearly carry a more literal meaning (i.e., "do something [unspecified] proactively").
(2) The term appears to have peaked in 1996.
(3) It may have declined substantially in the 2000s. (With the caveat that Ngram often gives screwy post-2000 results, which may be why it defaults to end at year 2000.)
(4) Relative frequencies of the phrase "affirmative action" in Ngram's American English corpus (on an arbitrary scale in which peak year 1996=100):
3 -- 1940s to 1966
7 -- 1970
14 -- Early 1970s
45 -- Late 1970s (1978 is the peak year till the 1990s, at 52)
50 -- All 1980s (steady)
60 -- Early 1990s
90 -- Late 1990s
100 -- 1996 (peak year)
66 -- Early 2000s
28 -- 2008 (final year of the Ngram database)
Decisive Moments:
(a) 1975 is the turning point year, in which the phrase doubles in the Ngram database, from 22 to 42 in the weighted usage (1996=100), the largest year-on-year increase. The early 1970s also sees the birth of the capitalized version of the phrase, with a doubling of capitalized usage, from 1973 to 1974, and another doubling from 1974 to 1975.
(b) The other key turning point is the mid 1990s, in which a doubling of the term's frequency occurs, which lasts from 1995 (the year of the upturn), peaking in 1996, and staying near the peak through 2001.
Link to Ngram of this data.Replies: @Hail, @res
The original sin then was Griggs v. Duke Power – the foundation of disparate impact.
Chief Justice Burger wrote the majority opinion.[5]
“
The Court of Appeals’ opinion, and the partial dissent, agreed that, on the record in the present case, “whites register far better on the Company’s alternative requirements [aptitude tests]” than Negroes.[6] 420 F.2d 1225, 1239 n. 6. This consequence would appear to be directly traceable to race. Basic intelligence must have the means of articulation to manifest itself fairly in a testing process. Because they are Negroes, petitioners have long received inferior education in segregated schools, and this Court expressly recognized these differences in Gaston County v. United States, 395 U.S. 285 (1969). There, because of the inferior education received by Negroes in North Carolina, this Court barred the institution of a literacy test for voter registration on the ground that the test would abridge the right to vote indirectly on account of race. Congress did not intend by Title VII, however, to guarantee a job to every person regardless of qualifications. In short, the Act does not command that any person be hired simply because he was formerly the subject of discrimination, or because he is a member of a minority group. Discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed. What is required by Congress is the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment when the barriers operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.
Congress has now provided that tests or criteria for employment or promotion may not provide equality of opportunity merely in the sense of the fabled offer of milk to the stork and the fox. On the contrary, Congress has now required that the posture and condition of the job seeker be taken into account. It has — to resort again to the fable — provided that the vessel in which the milk is proffered be one all seekers can use. The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited.”
Now, 45 years later, we are still waiting for the Negroes to get edumacated.
"Greenberg said he wasn’t driven by his religion to fight for civil rights but more by his upbringing in the socialist Zionist movement of Jews who had immigrated from Eastern Europe."
“We were social activists,” he said. “Back then we’d call them socialists; now you’d call them liberals.”
From: https://jewishelpaso.org/jta/1264912
Curiously, and not surprisingly, there was nothing about socialism in the NY Times and WaPo obituaries.
Toss in corporate gamesmanship of affirmative action that favors White women, and the past half-century may be counted as among the most destructive of personal liberty and family relations, and probably a lot more.
This pretty much sums up why I have stopped arguing with liberals. Their whole worldview is built upon pseudoscientific axioms, which are then used to construct new pseudoscientific axioms, which eventually results in their topsy-turvy understanding of reality. They then expect the rest of us to treat this madness as “scientific” and rational because the whole thing is (as best I can tell) internally consistent. It has the form of scientific rationalism, though not the content.
Even real, working scientists, who ought to know better, get sucked into this because, at first glance, it all appears nice and logical to their scientifically-trained minds. What they usually fail to grasp is that the underlying axioms used to construct this nonsense are all shamanic gibberish.
Anyway, the result is that honest argument is impossible. How can I have a calm, neutral policy discussion with someone who sees “systemic racism” or “implicit bias” as fundamental features of reality? It’s like having an academic debate about economics with someone who takes it as axiomatic that fairies exist and they have the power to spin wool into gold. Even a dry appraisal of the facts is likely to devolve into a shouting match, so why even bother?
Of course, a liberal could point out that I have my own irrational blindnesses. And that’s a fair point. But the larger point is that we increasingly have no neutral grounds upon which all or even most of us can discuss things. Which is yet another reason that I see a national breakup as inevitable…
I agree that this is an elegant summation. Bravo.
I would only add that one needs to specify the mechanism by which this “systemic racism” exerts its all-powerful and all-pervasive influence. I have hypothesized evil Racist eye-lasers which the White man uses to keep down the Black man. https://benkurtzblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/19/the-rabid-right-is-too-polite/
Relatedly, I’ve had good sport taking down the journeyman Goodthinkers over at The Atlantic’s CityLab sister website when they make extra-stupid disparate impact arguments. I urge others to join me, as the writers there have some pretentions to rationality, and react a bit when you hoist them by their own petards. http://www.citylab.com/crime/2016/10/racial-disparities-in-police-stingray-surveillance-mapped/502715/
Over the decades since, say, the 70s, the left’s War on Reality and all its works has inexorably ratcheted up. The idea of policing and punishing all “hate speech”, and expanding its definition as it has been, is quite new. The increasing lack of respect in the media for truth or balance or fairness is a further symptom. The hysterical, panicked fear that unwelcome scientific possibilities induce in “respectable” people in academe and elsewhere only worsens.
I see this degradation as having two causes.
First, the problem of inequality between groups just isn’t going away in fact, and has long since come to a stable status quo. Since all measures to date have failed to improve this, true believers — essentially everyone in our elite class — double down, and demand even more radical policies to bring about the equality they know must be around some corner.
Second, it takes time for a culture to move in extreme directions — it can only be over many, many years that such a basic feature of our culture as its respect for truth and the methods of truth can be overthrown, and replaced with an attitude that some ideas are not allowed to be expressed or perhaps even thought. Perhaps only new generations, propagandized from infancy in the new attitude, will embrace it without reservation, and old, non-compliant, generations must die.
It’s hard to predict how far down this self-destructive path we might go.
But there’s soon going to be a rendezvous with destiny. It’s pretty clear that in the natural progression of the science of the human genome, it will become overwhelmingly evident quite soon that not all groups are equal.
How will this result be integrated into our culture — a culture only more hostile toward such truths than ever before?
Of course, massive resistance will rise up against the result. Scientific hacks will locate one distracting reason after another to dispute it. Non scientific hacks will launch smear attacks on those who present these results, and those who declare themselves persuaded of their scientific merit.
We will in fact finally have the fight over evolution that Darwin had feared he would experience when he published his results, but never really did. The elites of his time had already been prepared for, and quite comfortable with, the idea of evolution (Robert Chambers’s ”Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation,” had well adjusted them to that possibility).
But the elites of today, in their effectively religious, dogmatic belief in the equality of all groups, couldn’t be more vehemently opposed to this obvious consequence of evolution.
It will be fight pitting the hard core of rationality against dogma and emotion rationalized with the full power of human cunning.
The only thing we can know in advance is that it’s going to be brutal.
It'll take 20 plus years for the lunatic left to accept.Replies: @Rob McX, @ben tillman, @Unladen Swallow
To be really sophisticated you should invoke Hegel, who said that opposites, e.g. the ego and the other or the north and south poles of a magnet, are really the same. Thus anti-racism is the same as racism only upside down.
I think that people who write here don't see all foreigners/people of colour as being the same.
The white antiracists that I know take the opinions of an early 20th century English working class male and invert them 180. Someone with a poor education and limited contact with foreigners who lives in somewhere like Yorkshire might divide the world into them and us. The antiracists still think that way. They do not see that we are one group among many. Some of these other groups are our pals, others we should be suspicious of.
The anti racist starts with a point worth making, zhe (or whatever they are called now) then takes it to unjustified extremes.
I believe in systemic racism.
All organisms are bio-systems, and evolution created different races with key racial differences.
So, the real ‘systemic racism’ is ‘organic racism’.
Blame nature and evolution.
The idea that the white race is Satan is far to ridiculous to deserve consideration. As is blaming everything on “boomers” or Jews or Islam. Like a dog foaming at the mouth, people who spout such nonsense bear watching. The race responsible for all unnecessary suffering is the human race. Haters should move up to misanthropy.
“1) All white people are racists, and 2) Nobody else is, and then you arrive at the corollary: Everything is white people’s fault.”
White People are the body-shield-hostage of the Tribe.
If White People are not put out in front as target, the bullet will hit the Tribe with the most power and privilege.
Notice White Privilege! Don’t notice the guy holding White Privilege as hostage to hide his own privilege.
Interesting plot. One thing though, you used “affirmation action” rather than “affirmative action”. “affirmative action” dwarfs (>10x) all of the other terms you used.
I also think it’s better to change the start date to near when the terms started to be used (say 1950 here). Although the plots look less dramatic, they are more informative when spread out.
Well done Buzz! Now moving on to cultural appropriation “issues”, how are we going to stop blacks and Hispanics from buying and using billions of gallons of hair lightening agents and dyes that make Beyonce come out blond or at least blondish? And her imitators like Ciara.
And how about all those harsh hair straightening agents and relaxers ….how come non-white women are so shamelessly appropriating from the white women?
The answer is that despite all the anti-white racism (aka envy), the white woman is seen as being on the top of the beauty pyramid. Additionally confirmed by NE Asian woman dying their hair lighter.
Where did we all go wrong? How about this?
120 years ago, there was an argument for coming down heavily on the ‘culture’ side of Culture Vs Nature regarding race. Blacks in the US looked a lot more like whites in the US than tribal African blacks. Plus, you had the parallel argument that ‘all men are created equal’ …. one vote vs 3/5 of a vote. And no one ever really experimented with taking black sharecroppers and giving the kids a pair of shoes and send them to school.
However, if you postulate the dominance of culture over nature, how was black cultural deviance permitted? In the intervening period, there was an extensive period of assimilation or acculturation of European Immigrant groups. It had its successes and failures, but there was certainty regarding the goal, which was assimilation. Immigrants were also frequently employed as servants, which was a significant occupation.
We then had the worst of all worlds. Post WW 2, legal segregation ended over the next two decades. We implemented a welfare state. And finally, the breakdown of shared and enforced social norms.
I will skip to the current state of dismal failure. Specifically Rap/Hip Hop Culture. Epitomized by ‘Trap’ music. That is, drugs, violence and crime. As well as over the top misogyny. The inconsistency is the axiomatic primacy of culture over nature, while at the same time supporting the emergence of a new black culture that is obviously toxic. By support, I mean traditional welfare AFDC and housing projects as well as entertainment industry and white consumers of it.
How is this not obvious? I suppose that somehow culture is bifurcated into a ‘culture of poverty’ and ‘all other black culture’. With the problems stemming from the former, while the later is a priori legitimate — with any judgments being ethnocentric or bigoted. Plus, any and all deviant black culture is due to the narrative of the legacy of slavery and racism.
How could anyone expect an employer to hire someone who models their behavior on Young Jeezy? There have been a lot of awful subcultures — the Hells Angles or Zoot Suiters and on and on. Or the Mullet. The best way enforce stylistic norms is ridicule. The real problem with Trap music culture is that every single racist stereotype — violence, crime, drugs, misogyny — is glorified. Not only are we not suppose to notice — we aren’t supposed to notice what is aggressively waved in our faces daily. Trap is racist — and it should be shunned like the Confederate flag.
Just modify the disgusting Trap music culture. Or. If culture is immutable, then why even bother trying to argue the influence of biology.
The advances in genetics through DNA analysis will strip away the bullshit in the next few years.
It’ll take 20 plus years for the lunatic left to accept.
Breaking news: affirmative-action-beneficiary and ideological leftist Michael Steele, the guy once permitted by the braintrust of the Stupid Party to ascend to rank of party chairman, just announced he won’t vote for DJT. Imagine my shock. I’ll give you one guess as to who he’s blaming for Trump’s rise…
Bingo – the Evil Racist Whites… of his own party!! Trump’s supposedly “captured that racist underbelly, that frustration, that angry underbelly of American life.” Gee, thanks, Mike! Where should I send my white-racism reparations check? Straight to the P.O. Box of the Trayvon Martin Foundation? Sounds great! Anything you want, just please don’t call me racist!
Top cucks Bush and Cheney (led by national treasure Karl Rove) personally lobbied and begged this man to run for Senate, and then greased the skids for his disturbingly unqualified ascent into the chairmanship. Republican Party, please commit ritual seppuku immediately
Maybe we are closer to a resolution than it appears. Per Kuhn, science is a social construct. However, competing paradigms (narratives or constructs) are still scientific. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions
No one ever seriously argued that history was a science. At least since science split off from philosophy. However, the social sciences wanted to and had a lot of success aligning themselves with the prestigious and economically powerful natural sciences. And there has always been an informal hierarchy of social sciences — from least to most scientific.
The pseudo-science of systemic racism is based on social psychology. Which is now under major attack. Studies can’t be replicated. P-hacking is being called out.
Fortunately, there are careers to be made trashing established social psychology. Thats the way academia works.
It’s junk science. Can it be de legitimized? I think so.
OT: Speaking of “conspiracies,” this is an incredible video of the Clinton campaign feeding questions to “reporters,” including (((Andrea Mitchell))) of NBC. (((Mitchell))) is of course married to (((Alan Greenspan))), who was appointed by Bill Clinton to head the Federal Reserve and thereby have de facto control over Wall Street and over government borrowing.
NBC is the network that hired Chelsea Clinton for a $600,000 no-show job… and the network that Debate #1 “moderator” Lester Holt works for.
These people are so inbred they should have three eyes.
Video is just unreal.
http://www.infowars.com/clinton-press-secretary-caught-on-camera-planting-softball-question-with-reporter/
No, it didnt… That’s when it passed “affirmation action.”
Here is the graph you meant to make:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=affirmative+action%2Csystemic+racism%2Cinvisible+knapsack%2Cwhite+privilege&year_start=1950&year_end=2016&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Caffirmative%20action%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Csystemic%20racism%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cinvisible%20knapsack%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cwhite%20privilege%3B%2Cc0
South Africa has started the African dictators’ lives matter movement.
South Africa pulls out of ‘unfair’ war crimes court after claiming that the tribunal unfairly targets Africans
South Africa became second nation to tell the United Nations it will pull out
Said ICC focused on Africa despite ‘evidence of violations by others’
The ICC was set up in July 2002 to prosecute genocide
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3861410/South-Africa-pulls-unfair-war-crimes-court-claiming-tribunal-unfairly-targets-Africans.html#ixzz4Nm2Q18kL
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
And this is why you right wingers will keep on losing – every element of this reasoning is based on a straw man. Nobody outside of powerless academics believes any of what you imagine.
You imply there has been any place and time on earth where there were not any number of taboo subjects. I am quite certain this has never been the case and probably cannot be in our current evolutionary form. What is considered taboo changes from time to time and place to place, and so do the punishments for breaking the taboo. But taboos are one of the most undeniably universal aspects of all human societies, even if some of us as individuals have relatively open minds.
These comments don’t really add up, and are mired in a sort of denialism that avoids directly confronting the errors of leftist thinking.
Obviously things like slavery, redlining, segregation, the GI bill etc are systemically racist, and have an lingering effect after their end. How much effect is debatable. Just because disparate impact can’t be directly proven doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
The real discussion should be whether or not systemic racism and disparately impactful policies are socially justified. If a society actively favors its majority in pursuit of unity, harmony, and nationalism, then that unequal treatment is both useful and desirable. The debate should be about to what degree, not whether or not it exists.
Example 1: In the US, voting schedules and voter ID requirements disproportionately depress minority turnout. This is disparate impact. But so what? Those affected should accommodate the policies, not the other way around.
Example 2: In Japan, the government surreptitiously favors ethnic Japanese citizens over non-Japanese citizens (like many Chinese), when it comes to buying real estate. This is done in order to deny foreign/minority ownership of assets within their nation, which could accumulate too much power outside the Japanese ethnic group. I have no problem with this systemic racism, and want exactly the same thing done in China, for Chinese people.
But there will be no discussing the merits of allowing disparate impact in White majority countries, because without a vibrant religious outlet too many whites cheerfully aim their violent social competitiveness and xenophobic empathy in self destructive directions that make this sort of discussion impossible.Replies: @Opinionator
OT; On recent DDOS attack:
First they came after Steve Sailer, and I did not say anything…
Disparate impact, as it is used by our legal system now, is morally indefensible, but something like it is a logical necessity if anti-discrimination laws are to be enforced. The problem is that if anti-discrimination laws were enforced strictly, it would be too easy to sidestep the spirit of the law.
If we want to have laws that prohibit discrimination against groups, there needs to be some sort of allowance for human judgement in determining whether the measure (traffic tickets, school suspensions, police shootings, what have you) is really unlawful discrimination, or whether it is just an artifact of real group differences. This sort of thinking, of course, is impossible for our SJW race-obsessed ruling class, who utterly reject the existence of real group differences. That, and if the laws were fairly enforced, those ugly statistics would keep showing up, which couldn’t be tolerated.
The alternative, total elimination of anti-discrimination laws, is nearly unthinkable without a big cultural shift.
There was once a leader in Hong Kong who prohibited the collection of economic statistics. Prohibiting race-based statistics might be the only way out of this race mess.
There has been much written about this. Here is an example: http://qz.com/283120/dont-believe-anyone-in-france-who-says-they-dont-see-race/
Not unlike Freud’s theory of psychological resistance, if you deny there is racism, this is further proof that racism exists
OT: links.
http://freebeacon.com/columns/crisis-conservative-intellectual/
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441319/donald-trump-alt-right-internet-abuse-never-trump-movement
sigh…
…paging Haven Monahan?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/21/uw-madison-frat-boy-accused-of-serial-rape.html
Jewish organizations in the 1950s shot down the Census Bureau’s plan to collect data by religion/ethnicity.
Buzz Mohawk, unit472 and candid_observer, you’re all technically correct, but you’re giving the Left too much credit. They don’t really care if they make sense and they couldn’t reason their way to sense even if they did care. This combination of moral and intellectual defect is what makes them Leftist in the first place.
To the extent there is a larger agenda, it is what Theodore Dalrymple described in his acute summation of communist propaganda: forcing you to accept the obviously absurd is the point, because it shows who has the power.
Or per Orwell,
Per Dalrymple,
They want your soul.
Chief Justice Burger wrote the majority opinion.[5]
“
The Court of Appeals' opinion, and the partial dissent, agreed that, on the record in the present case, "whites register far better on the Company's alternative requirements [aptitude tests]" than Negroes.[6] 420 F.2d 1225, 1239 n. 6. This consequence would appear to be directly traceable to race. Basic intelligence must have the means of articulation to manifest itself fairly in a testing process. Because they are Negroes, petitioners have long received inferior education in segregated schools, and this Court expressly recognized these differences in Gaston County v. United States, 395 U.S. 285 (1969). There, because of the inferior education received by Negroes in North Carolina, this Court barred the institution of a literacy test for voter registration on the ground that the test would abridge the right to vote indirectly on account of race. Congress did not intend by Title VII, however, to guarantee a job to every person regardless of qualifications. In short, the Act does not command that any person be hired simply because he was formerly the subject of discrimination, or because he is a member of a minority group. Discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed. What is required by Congress is the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment when the barriers operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.
Congress has now provided that tests or criteria for employment or promotion may not provide equality of opportunity merely in the sense of the fabled offer of milk to the stork and the fox. On the contrary, Congress has now required that the posture and condition of the job seeker be taken into account. It has -- to resort again to the fable -- provided that the vessel in which the milk is proffered be one all seekers can use. The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited."
Now, 45 years later, we are still waiting for the Negroes to get edumacated.Replies: @Anonymous, @JackOH
Funny you mention Griggs v. Duke Power- Jack Greenberg, the NAACP attorney and future Columbia Law School Dean, who argued that case (and many other civil rights cases) before the Supreme Court just died last week. I found an obituary on the Jewish Federation of Greater El Paso’s website with some choice quotes:
“Greenberg said he wasn’t driven by his religion to fight for civil rights but more by his upbringing in the socialist Zionist movement of Jews who had immigrated from Eastern Europe.”
“We were social activists,” he said. “Back then we’d call them socialists; now you’d call them liberals.”
From: https://jewishelpaso.org/jta/1264912
Curiously, and not surprisingly, there was nothing about socialism in the NY Times and WaPo obituaries.
I love conspiracy theories.
Didn’t Ron Unz write about them recently?
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/
So the Steve Sailer worldview is that blacks and white naturally differ in terms of intelligence and/or temperament. The Genius T. Coates worldview is that blacks and white races are naturally identical in terms of intelligence and temperament.
The Sailer worldview is easily falsifiable. In order to disprove you, Steve, it would be super easy, just give a school district or State or country where the achievement gap has been closed. If such a thing existed it would completely disprove you Steve, of course no such example exists. Not in Haiti, not in the US, not in Canada, not in the UK, not in Western Europe, not in Africa. There are places where the gap has been narrowed a little bit, but not much. If someone was able to do such a thing they would instantly become famous/rich, and we would have heard of him/her. So far no one has been able to substantially close the achievement gap anywhere at any time.
The TNC worldview is not easily falsifiable. What piece of social-scientific evidence could come out that could disprove TNC? If his view is that there are evil sinister forces lurking in the minds of white people that causes black people to be oppressed, how can you disprove this? If you believe that the reason D’Marquise doesn’t do well in school is because his great-grandfather lived in a red-lined neighborhood and the oppression mysteriously tricked down the generations to hurt him, how can you disprove this? So much of the TNC worldview operates on mystical forces, that are impossible to disprove.
This is what the TNC worldview has in common with conspiracy theories. One of the features of a conspiracy theory is that it can’t be disproved. For instance it is impossible to say that aliens didn’t visit Roswell, or bigfoot doesn’t wander the woods of the pacific northwest. Likewise it’s impossible to say that implicit bias doesn’t oppress blacks or redlining 80 years ago really doesn’t explain behavior today. The reason I subscribe to the Sailer worldview is that if it were wrong, it would have been disproved already. Since it isn’t I think it’s safe to say that you are right.
“The Sailer worldview is easily falsifiable. In order to disprove you, Steve, it would be super easy, just give a school district or State or country where the achievement gap has been closed.”
After 40 years of looking, I recently found a public school where blacks outscore whites:
https://www.unz.com/isteve/ive-found-a-school-where-blacks-outscore-whites/
Archive from April (The black percentage is 4): https://web.archive.org/web/20160408061836/http://www.greatschools.org/california/studio-city/1978-Carpenter-Community-Charter-School/quality/Archive from August (The black percentage is 3): https://web.archive.org/web/20160828164704/http://www.greatschools.org/california/studio-city/1978-Carpenter-Community-Charter-School/quality/Replies: @res
I’ve always liked conspiracy theorists a little. I mean the classical, Alex Jones types. At least they’re able to separate themselves from what they’re being told to believe, whatever they replace it with.
And they always have arguments. They’re superficially logical and convincing and sometimes so subtly wrong that it takes a while before you’ve figured out how. Fundamentally, they understand that ideas must be built on something. Not just the sentimental vagina drippings we get from the respectable side.
Of course someone/something must have written racism on some of those blank slates. How did that happen? Where did racism come from?
The existence of racism (and any other behavior or character trait, really) is inconsistent with a blank slate theory.
There is systemic racism racism in the US. But it’s not what liberals think it is. The systemic racism in the US is aimed at poor whites, not at the “minorities”.
It’s time for separation.
Well a bit.
I think that people who write here don’t see all foreigners/people of colour as being the same.
The white antiracists that I know take the opinions of an early 20th century English working class male and invert them 180. Someone with a poor education and limited contact with foreigners who lives in somewhere like Yorkshire might divide the world into them and us. The antiracists still think that way. They do not see that we are one group among many. Some of these other groups are our pals, others we should be suspicious of.
The anti racist starts with a point worth making, zhe (or whatever they are called now) then takes it to unjustified extremes.
It'll take 20 plus years for the lunatic left to accept.Replies: @Rob McX, @ben tillman, @Unladen Swallow
I don’t think they’ll ever accept. Their strategy goes something like this: When a fact is likely to be true, deny it; when it is unquestionably true, suppress it. Of course the truth can no longer be hidden. But it doesn’t have to be. All you need do is punish those who utter it, i.e. hound them from their jobs and leave them ostracised and unemployable.
The data has apparently been revised since your article was published in June, and the black percentage went from 4 to 3. So an even smaller sample size…
Archive from April (The black percentage is 4): https://web.archive.org/web/20160408061836/http://www.greatschools.org/california/studio-city/1978-Carpenter-Community-Charter-School/quality/
Archive from August (The black percentage is 3): https://web.archive.org/web/20160828164704/http://www.greatschools.org/california/studio-city/1978-Carpenter-Community-Charter-School/quality/
To look at the data used in that chart select Ethnicity at the top then open individual tabs below as desired. Looking closer we see the data used was the total for grades 3-5 (because of small sample sizes the data for blacks in individual grades is not presented) in Overall Achievement for ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY. 14 blacks and 330 whites were tested of 438 total students enrolled.Replies: @Lord Jeff Sessions
True. It’s hard to imagine a society without taboos. The important thing is who controls what’s taboo and what isn’t, and their motive for doing so.
But life is going to get a lot more crowded, unpleasant, unaffordable, dangerous and plagued by crime and terrorism for the great masses of people who aren't sitting in the driver's seat of this new globalized version of western society.Replies: @Dave Pinsen
The Economist whines about traffic jams and crumbling infrastructure while they advocate mass immigration that makes both worse.
https://twitter.com/EconEconomics/status/789580185318395908
In fact it turns out that immigration has no effect on anything!
It's at this point I usually ask my leftist opponent that since immigration has no effect on anything, why do we need it?
On August 22, 2016, federal judge Rodney Sippel stopped all future school-board elections in Ferguson until some new scheme is established that will result in more Blacks winning school-board elections.
Judge Sippel reasoned that Ferguson’s school-board elections are racist because
1) the local teachers union endorses relatively few Blacks for school-board positions.
2) Blacks own less housing and therefore their “calculus of voting” causes them to vote less.
3) current election procedures result in School Board members who do not address Blacks’ “particularized needs” (e.g. Blacks are disciplined more).
The Obama Administration is using Ferguson to establish a model that any future incidents were a Black is killed by a White police officer will result in programs to
* subject the White police officer to a federal show-trial, if a conviction is possible,
* prevent the enforcement of traffic regulations against local Blacks,
* federalize the local police department,
* federalize the local school district by canceling future school-board elections.
http://people-who-did-not-see.blogspot.com/2016/10/ferguson-is-model-for-federalizing.html
As has been mentioned before, in most of Africa it is a common belief that if things are not going well for you, it is because some evil or spiteful person has cast a spell on you. So TNC is just bringing traditional African beliefs to America.
for what it is worth:
Led Zeppelin – The Song Remains The Same Live (HD)
On the rise of the term “affirmative action”, according to Ngram:
(1) The term (as currently understood) was coined in the late 1960s. None of the Ngram database’s usages before the late 1960s are related at all to race; from context, all the earlier usages I find clearly carry a more literal meaning (i.e., “do something [unspecified] proactively”).
(2) The term appears to have peaked in 1996.
(3) It may have declined substantially in the 2000s. (With the caveat that Ngram often gives screwy post-2000 results, which may be why it defaults to end at year 2000.)
(4) Relative frequencies of the phrase “affirmative action” in Ngram’s American English corpus (on an arbitrary scale in which peak year 1996=100):
3 — 1940s to 1966
7 — 1970
14 — Early 1970s
45 — Late 1970s (1978 is the peak year till the 1990s, at 52)
50 — All 1980s (steady)
60 — Early 1990s
90 — Late 1990s
100 — 1996 (peak year)
66 — Early 2000s
28 — 2008 (final year of the Ngram database)
Decisive Moments:
(a) 1975 is the turning point year, in which the phrase doubles in the Ngram database, from 22 to 42 in the weighted usage (1996=100), the largest year-on-year increase. The early 1970s also sees the birth of the capitalized version of the phrase, with a doubling of capitalized usage, from 1973 to 1974, and another doubling from 1974 to 1975.
(b) The other key turning point is the mid 1990s, in which a doubling of the term’s frequency occurs, which lasts from 1995 (the year of the upturn), peaking in 1996, and staying near the peak through 2001.
Link to Ngram of this data.
4 -- 1995 to 1998 (sustained)
63 -- 1999
29 -- 2000
78 -- 2001
37 -- 2002
37 -- 2003
29 -- 2004
61 -- 2005
84 -- 2006
100 -- 2007
66 -- 2008Late 1990s: "First Sailer Wave" (from zero to something)
Mid 2000s: "Second Sailer Wave"A Third Sailer Wave very likely exists...If Ngram gave us data through the present day, I would expect it to show a clear third upswing in mentions, in which "Steve Sailer" Ngram appearances rise another order of magnitude or more, over the previous peak in 2007.If you actually check Ngram's entries for "Steve Sailer," a lot are from the 2010s. Ex.:
____________________
2011: Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? by Pat Buchanan. Content: (a citation) "Steve Sailer, “Demography Is Destiny, and Our Destiny (Courtesy of Immigration Policy) Is Disastrous,” vdare.com, March 22, 2009."2012: A Springless Autumn, by John Young. Content: "Consider the comparison between the family incomes of families of various races that Steve Sailer uncovered. In Manhattan, the median income of Hispanic families with toddlers was $25,000. For blacks it was $31,000. For Asians it was ..."2015: The United States and Turkey's Path to Europe: Hands across the Table, by Armağan Emre Çakır. Content: "For example, journalist Steve Sailer maintains that Turkey«s EU membership ..."2015: The Economics of Immigration: Market-Based Approaches, Social Science, and Public Policy, by Benjamin Powell. Content: "Instead, they accept what Steve Sailer calls “citizenism”: governments should focus on promoting the interests of current citizens and their descendants.82 This moral position has been embraced by a wide range of critics of open borders, ..."
_______________________A smoothed chart for easier viewing -- The two "Steve Sailer Waves" are more clearly discernible.Replies: @res
Here is a 1980 paper on the etymology of "affirmative action": https://www.jstor.org/stable/40249337
This article cites a 1961 JFK executive action as the first use of the term (in its current sense): http://theweek.com/articles/462937/origins-affirmative-actionReplies: @Hail
Off topic, but potential thoughtcrime:
http://thesmartset.com/the-future-of-the-future/
(1) The term (as currently understood) was coined in the late 1960s. None of the Ngram database's usages before the late 1960s are related at all to race; from context, all the earlier usages I find clearly carry a more literal meaning (i.e., "do something [unspecified] proactively").
(2) The term appears to have peaked in 1996.
(3) It may have declined substantially in the 2000s. (With the caveat that Ngram often gives screwy post-2000 results, which may be why it defaults to end at year 2000.)
(4) Relative frequencies of the phrase "affirmative action" in Ngram's American English corpus (on an arbitrary scale in which peak year 1996=100):
3 -- 1940s to 1966
7 -- 1970
14 -- Early 1970s
45 -- Late 1970s (1978 is the peak year till the 1990s, at 52)
50 -- All 1980s (steady)
60 -- Early 1990s
90 -- Late 1990s
100 -- 1996 (peak year)
66 -- Early 2000s
28 -- 2008 (final year of the Ngram database)
Decisive Moments:
(a) 1975 is the turning point year, in which the phrase doubles in the Ngram database, from 22 to 42 in the weighted usage (1996=100), the largest year-on-year increase. The early 1970s also sees the birth of the capitalized version of the phrase, with a doubling of capitalized usage, from 1973 to 1974, and another doubling from 1974 to 1975.
(b) The other key turning point is the mid 1990s, in which a doubling of the term's frequency occurs, which lasts from 1995 (the year of the upturn), peaking in 1996, and staying near the peak through 2001.
Link to Ngram of this data.Replies: @Hail, @res
Some more fun with Ngram…
Ngram Am.English Corpus’ Frequency of “Steve Sailer,” 1995-2008
4 — 1995 to 1998 (sustained)
63 — 1999
29 — 2000
78 — 2001
37 — 2002
37 — 2003
29 — 2004
61 — 2005
84 — 2006
100 — 2007
66 — 2008
Late 1990s: “First Sailer Wave” (from zero to something)
Mid 2000s: “Second Sailer Wave”
A Third Sailer Wave very likely exists…If Ngram gave us data through the present day, I would expect it to show a clear third upswing in mentions, in which “Steve Sailer” Ngram appearances rise another order of magnitude or more, over the previous peak in 2007.
If you actually check Ngram’s entries for “Steve Sailer,” a lot are from the 2010s. Ex.:
____________________
2011: Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? by Pat Buchanan. Content: (a citation) “Steve Sailer, “Demography Is Destiny, and Our Destiny (Courtesy of Immigration Policy) Is Disastrous,” vdare.com, March 22, 2009.”
2012: A Springless Autumn, by John Young. Content: “Consider the comparison between the family incomes of families of various races that Steve Sailer uncovered. In Manhattan, the median income of Hispanic families with toddlers was $25,000. For blacks it was $31,000. For Asians it was …”
2015: The United States and Turkey’s Path to Europe: Hands across the Table, by Armağan Emre Çakır. Content: “For example, journalist Steve Sailer maintains that Turkey«s EU membership …”
2015: The Economics of Immigration: Market-Based Approaches, Social Science, and Public Policy, by Benjamin Powell. Content: “Instead, they accept what Steve Sailer calls “citizenism”: governments should focus on promoting the interests of current citizens and their descendants.82 This moral position has been embraced by a wide range of critics of open borders, …”
_______________________
A smoothed chart for easier viewing — The two “Steve Sailer Waves” are more clearly discernible.
It'll take 20 plus years for the lunatic left to accept.Replies: @Rob McX, @ben tillman, @Unladen Swallow
The lunatic left lives on lies. They will never accept it; they will never admit it; and they will never allow it to be discussed by others.
https://twitter.com/EconEconomics/status/789580185318395908Replies: @Lurker
You’ll often be admonished that immigration has no effect, no effect do ya hear me, on infrastructure, road congestion, health care, crime, school class size, wages etc etc
In fact it turns out that immigration has no effect on anything!
It’s at this point I usually ask my leftist opponent that since immigration has no effect on anything, why do we need it?
It'll take 20 plus years for the lunatic left to accept.Replies: @Rob McX, @ben tillman, @Unladen Swallow
Honestly, the evidence is overwhelming already, not only have they not moved to it, they deny ever more strongly with each passing year. The left intelligentsia not only knows less biology than they did a generation ago, they know less social science research about say racial differences in crime than they did as well.
They know less of course because knowing more would seriously deflate their ideological worldview, so they choose to pretend such data doesn’t exist. They have already been in denial for over twenty years already, another twenty won’t make any difference at all.
In Cell today, apropos of your comment, two papers published back to back.
But of course it’s not even possible that there could have been adaptive introgression or recent selection for alleles effecting genes expressed in neurons that have measurable effects on brain phenotype between human populations, because that would be racist and science isn’t racist.
Buzz’s post gets to the fundamental problem this country has always faced with blacks and will now increasingly face with Hispanics, are their problems due to structural discrimination or their own shortcomings?
It’s a problem black intellectuals, such as WEB DuBois used to honestly grapple with but today few do. The ones that do like Glenn Loury are regulated to fringes of black culture and the larger media itself. You’ll never see him featured in a black media outlet. There won’t be any fawning reviews over a marginal article.
I remember during Coatesmania last year how frustrated and frankly jealous Loury sounded about the praise Coates was receiving. It must be terribly frustrating to spend a lifetime honestly grappling with the issues your people are facing only to see some marginal talent get rich off of selling nonsense to and about them.
Obviously things like slavery, redlining, segregation, the GI bill etc are systemically racist, and have an lingering effect after their end. How much effect is debatable. Just because disparate impact can't be directly proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The real discussion should be whether or not systemic racism and disparately impactful policies are socially justified. If a society actively favors its majority in pursuit of unity, harmony, and nationalism, then that unequal treatment is both useful and desirable. The debate should be about to what degree, not whether or not it exists.
Example 1: In the US, voting schedules and voter ID requirements disproportionately depress minority turnout. This is disparate impact. But so what? Those affected should accommodate the policies, not the other way around.
Example 2: In Japan, the government surreptitiously favors ethnic Japanese citizens over non-Japanese citizens (like many Chinese), when it comes to buying real estate. This is done in order to deny foreign/minority ownership of assets within their nation, which could accumulate too much power outside the Japanese ethnic group. I have no problem with this systemic racism, and want exactly the same thing done in China, for Chinese people.Replies: @Fester P. Librage
Thankfully the Chinese and Japanese, who have both committed historical atrocities equal to or worse to those of white Americans, do not suffer from the pathological altruism of American whites. Behind closed doors and safe from the pinwheel eyed gaze of the white globalist SJW cabal they will always work to protect their ethnic and cultural interests.
But there will be no discussing the merits of allowing disparate impact in White majority countries, because without a vibrant religious outlet too many whites cheerfully aim their violent social competitiveness and xenophobic empathy in self destructive directions that make this sort of discussion impossible.
Even real, working scientists, who ought to know better, get sucked into this because, at first glance, it all appears nice and logical to their scientifically-trained minds. What they usually fail to grasp is that the underlying axioms used to construct this nonsense are all shamanic gibberish.
Anyway, the result is that honest argument is impossible. How can I have a calm, neutral policy discussion with someone who sees "systemic racism" or "implicit bias" as fundamental features of reality? It's like having an academic debate about economics with someone who takes it as axiomatic that fairies exist and they have the power to spin wool into gold. Even a dry appraisal of the facts is likely to devolve into a shouting match, so why even bother?
Of course, a liberal could point out that I have my own irrational blindnesses. And that's a fair point. But the larger point is that we increasingly have no neutral grounds upon which all or even most of us can discuss things. Which is yet another reason that I see a national breakup as inevitable...Replies: @Harold
Ask them to make a rational case for their axioms.
Damn shame that such interesting claims come from the most dishonest filmmaker alive. Wonder if he’s up to his usual shenanigans, or just fell ass-backwards into finding actual agents provacateur.
We know white liberals and even black people do not believe in the white racism theory otherwise they would not have to impose sanctions on those who reject it. Black people know they aren't as good as others. Liberals know this too. This is why blacks clamor to get into 'historically white' academies and why white liberals admit them. Neil Degrasse Tyson maybe presented on TV as a brilliant astrophysicist but everyone knows ( except for most of the TV audience) that he couldn't get a job on a Mars rover team from Cornell or Cal Tech except, perhaps, as a public relations supernumerary!Replies: @Frau Katze, @Eagle Eye
I think a lot of the left believes it. Don’t forget how much of the left once overlooked savage Communist camps that killed people for equally ridiculous reasons.
I think many leftists just like violence, and they are dreaming of undoing this special type of racism that whites are infested with using their very own camps.
Of course none of them would admit. It’s the solution of their dreams.
You see, your average, born in Albion dentist could seem dandyishly naive to an untrained eye; after all, only the true Scotsman wouldn’t look a gift-Trojan- horse in the mouth.
But, there’s a clichéd method in the madnesss:
Just imagine having all these Benetton children of the corn, that had never heard of check-up , as new patients in your ordination.
You ‘ve just struck a trifecta of gold grillz,caps, and slugs.
It means a never ending supply of a long, slow, root canals*, oral exams, X-rays, fillings, braces, cleanings, tooth whitening, extractions, bridges, oral surgeries, dental implants, caps, crowns, fluoride sealants,veneers…
….and most importantly:dentures…you know, for kids!
Naturally, all this drilling, filling, and billing is automatically 100% covered by the NHS.
A late Dr.Orin Scrivello*,DDS, would feel like an elephant in candy store;
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/01/26/dentist-association-warns-treating-migrants-terrible-teeth-will-cost-taxpayer-billions/
I also think it's better to change the start date to near when the terms started to be used (say 1950 here). Although the plots look less dramatic, they are more informative when spread out.Replies: @Clyde
also did not check the case insensitive box. Affirmation action is a useless search.
Academics are not powerless. They control the education of young people.
Today’s Washington Post:
South Africa Says it Will Leave International Criminal Court
“Most African leaders agree with the value of such an institution… But many of these leaders were outspoken about the courts subsequent focus on African indictments.”
About a 10 to 1 ratio I suppose?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/south-africa-says-it-will-quit-the-international-criminal-court/2016/10/21/0eb8aa66-978f-11e6-9cae-2a3574e296a6_story.html
Nothing Buzz said requires any adherence to or belief in a conspiracy. His worldview is entirely logical-that is its power.
I’ve made this argument, on this very blog, before.
If you believe in human equality (between races or groups-not for each individual, of course), then social inequalities have social causes. This is obvious: if humans are a combination of nature and nurture, and by nature we are equal, then inequalities are caused by nurture.
If inequalities are caused by nurture, then they are contingent on the particulars of our social circumstances.
The particulars of our social circumstances are changeable-by changing our society.
Thus, we can change our society until equality is achieved-until the society successfully rewards everyone’s (as measured by the groups to which they belong) natural abilities.
If we can change our society, we should change our society.
This is entirely rational based on the initial premise: all men are created equal. The initial premise is essentially the founding concept of our country and civilizational philosophy.
This entirely rational worldview has two endstates: we either give up our belief that ‘all men are created equal,’ or we push society until all men are socially (intellectually, financially, culturally, etc etc) equal.
No conspiracy theory is needed.
joeyjoejoe
Sorry:
“Nothing Buzz said requires any adherence to or belief in a conspiracy. His worldview is entirely logical-that is its power.”
I don’t assume or mean to imply Buzz actually adheres to this worldview. It should have read ‘the worldview he described’
joejoejoeyjoejoe
But there will be no discussing the merits of allowing disparate impact in White majority countries, because without a vibrant religious outlet too many whites cheerfully aim their violent social competitiveness and xenophobic empathy in self destructive directions that make this sort of discussion impossible.Replies: @Opinionator
What are xenophobic social competitiveness and xenophobic empathy?
“Disparate impact”.
“Systemic racism”.
To think that people actually buy into this nebulous dreck and that they are legally empowered to VOTE is enough to send one to the vomitorium!
That seems to be the theory in France. I think one can argue it has helped in some ways (while perhaps hurting in others), but I don’t think it has delivered the French from the “race mess”.
There has been much written about this. Here is an example: http://qz.com/283120/dont-believe-anyone-in-france-who-says-they-dont-see-race/
Archive from April (The black percentage is 4): https://web.archive.org/web/20160408061836/http://www.greatschools.org/california/studio-city/1978-Carpenter-Community-Charter-School/quality/Archive from August (The black percentage is 3): https://web.archive.org/web/20160828164704/http://www.greatschools.org/california/studio-city/1978-Carpenter-Community-Charter-School/quality/Replies: @res
The raw data saws 3.2% at http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/SB2015/ViewReport?ps=true&lstTestYear=2015&lstTestType=B&lstCounty=19&lstDistrict=64733-1235&lstSchool=6016356&lstGroup=1&lstSubGroup=1
To look at the data used in that chart select Ethnicity at the top then open individual tabs below as desired. Looking closer we see the data used was the total for grades 3-5 (because of small sample sizes the data for blacks in individual grades is not presented) in Overall Achievement for ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY. 14 blacks and 330 whites were tested of 438 total students enrolled.
Also, thanks for pointing me to the raw data!
(1) The term (as currently understood) was coined in the late 1960s. None of the Ngram database's usages before the late 1960s are related at all to race; from context, all the earlier usages I find clearly carry a more literal meaning (i.e., "do something [unspecified] proactively").
(2) The term appears to have peaked in 1996.
(3) It may have declined substantially in the 2000s. (With the caveat that Ngram often gives screwy post-2000 results, which may be why it defaults to end at year 2000.)
(4) Relative frequencies of the phrase "affirmative action" in Ngram's American English corpus (on an arbitrary scale in which peak year 1996=100):
3 -- 1940s to 1966
7 -- 1970
14 -- Early 1970s
45 -- Late 1970s (1978 is the peak year till the 1990s, at 52)
50 -- All 1980s (steady)
60 -- Early 1990s
90 -- Late 1990s
100 -- 1996 (peak year)
66 -- Early 2000s
28 -- 2008 (final year of the Ngram database)
Decisive Moments:
(a) 1975 is the turning point year, in which the phrase doubles in the Ngram database, from 22 to 42 in the weighted usage (1996=100), the largest year-on-year increase. The early 1970s also sees the birth of the capitalized version of the phrase, with a doubling of capitalized usage, from 1973 to 1974, and another doubling from 1974 to 1975.
(b) The other key turning point is the mid 1990s, in which a doubling of the term's frequency occurs, which lasts from 1995 (the year of the upturn), peaking in 1996, and staying near the peak through 2001.
Link to Ngram of this data.Replies: @Hail, @res
Interesting analysis. Thanks! How did you get the relative frequencies? (i.e. is there a non-laborious way?)
Here is a 1980 paper on the etymology of “affirmative action”: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40249337
This article cites a 1961 JFK executive action as the first use of the term (in its current sense): http://theweek.com/articles/462937/origins-affirmative-action
1967 -- Base Year (approximate Ngram appearance rate of the phrase "affirmative action" for the 1940s to mid 1960s, lower relatively in the mid-1960s than it had been in much of the 1940s-'50s).
1967 to 1970 -- First doubling
1970 to 1972 -- Second doubling
1972 to 1975 -- Third doubling (1975 the critical year in which about 7/10th of this doubling occurs)
1975 to 1979 -- Fourth doubling
1979 to 1996 -- Almost a Fifth Doubling
1996 to Late 2000s -- Decline back down to mid 1970s levels..Calculations of Year/Peak Year. I don't think there is a way to excel particular Ngram charts to Excel, so you have to do it manually.Replies: @res
4 -- 1995 to 1998 (sustained)
63 -- 1999
29 -- 2000
78 -- 2001
37 -- 2002
37 -- 2003
29 -- 2004
61 -- 2005
84 -- 2006
100 -- 2007
66 -- 2008Late 1990s: "First Sailer Wave" (from zero to something)
Mid 2000s: "Second Sailer Wave"A Third Sailer Wave very likely exists...If Ngram gave us data through the present day, I would expect it to show a clear third upswing in mentions, in which "Steve Sailer" Ngram appearances rise another order of magnitude or more, over the previous peak in 2007.If you actually check Ngram's entries for "Steve Sailer," a lot are from the 2010s. Ex.:
____________________
2011: Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? by Pat Buchanan. Content: (a citation) "Steve Sailer, “Demography Is Destiny, and Our Destiny (Courtesy of Immigration Policy) Is Disastrous,” vdare.com, March 22, 2009."2012: A Springless Autumn, by John Young. Content: "Consider the comparison between the family incomes of families of various races that Steve Sailer uncovered. In Manhattan, the median income of Hispanic families with toddlers was $25,000. For blacks it was $31,000. For Asians it was ..."2015: The United States and Turkey's Path to Europe: Hands across the Table, by Armağan Emre Çakır. Content: "For example, journalist Steve Sailer maintains that Turkey«s EU membership ..."2015: The Economics of Immigration: Market-Based Approaches, Social Science, and Public Policy, by Benjamin Powell. Content: "Instead, they accept what Steve Sailer calls “citizenism”: governments should focus on promoting the interests of current citizens and their descendants.82 This moral position has been embraced by a wide range of critics of open borders, ..."
_______________________A smoothed chart for easier viewing -- The two "Steve Sailer Waves" are more clearly discernible.Replies: @res
Any idea why the ngram page only goes through 2008 while they offer raw data from 2012?
Excellent succinct explanation of the pseudo science of racism. Thanks, Buzz.
I am not so sure that the systemic racial discrimination theory being actually believed is essential to the way things are. If the invisible empire of racism was no longer accepted as a justification for affirmative action it might not change anything. Handicapped people get given things by society, and they are held up as deserving. Immigrants become eligible for affirmative action (elite university blacks are about 40% immigrant ) though they have no claim of discrimination in the US. Human dignity is opposed to a reality in which no one is to blame for some people and peoples being handicapped.
I tried logging onto https://www.unz.com/isteve, and got the following message:
“Your access to this site has been limited
Your access to this service has been temporarily limited. Please try again in a few minutes. (HTTP response code 503)
Reason: Exceeded the maximum number of requests per minute for crawlers.”
I was only able to get here by logging on to an old thread.
Is the site under attack again?
Chief Justice Burger wrote the majority opinion.[5]
“
The Court of Appeals' opinion, and the partial dissent, agreed that, on the record in the present case, "whites register far better on the Company's alternative requirements [aptitude tests]" than Negroes.[6] 420 F.2d 1225, 1239 n. 6. This consequence would appear to be directly traceable to race. Basic intelligence must have the means of articulation to manifest itself fairly in a testing process. Because they are Negroes, petitioners have long received inferior education in segregated schools, and this Court expressly recognized these differences in Gaston County v. United States, 395 U.S. 285 (1969). There, because of the inferior education received by Negroes in North Carolina, this Court barred the institution of a literacy test for voter registration on the ground that the test would abridge the right to vote indirectly on account of race. Congress did not intend by Title VII, however, to guarantee a job to every person regardless of qualifications. In short, the Act does not command that any person be hired simply because he was formerly the subject of discrimination, or because he is a member of a minority group. Discriminatory preference for any group, minority or majority, is precisely and only what Congress has proscribed. What is required by Congress is the removal of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment when the barriers operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of racial or other impermissible classification.
Congress has now provided that tests or criteria for employment or promotion may not provide equality of opportunity merely in the sense of the fabled offer of milk to the stork and the fox. On the contrary, Congress has now required that the posture and condition of the job seeker be taken into account. It has -- to resort again to the fable -- provided that the vessel in which the milk is proffered be one all seekers can use. The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination, but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited."
Now, 45 years later, we are still waiting for the Negroes to get edumacated.Replies: @Anonymous, @JackOH
Jack D, yeah, Griggs v. Duke Power, USWA v. Weber (hope I got that right), and the whole mind-set derived from those and other anti-White “enabling decisions”. That’s what we’re talking about, right, de jure anti-White racism?
Toss in corporate gamesmanship of affirmative action that favors White women, and the past half-century may be counted as among the most destructive of personal liberty and family relations, and probably a lot more.
“Damn shame that such interesting claims come from the most dishonest filmmaker alive.”
“the most dishonest filmmaker alive”? Really? Of course you have no evidence of that, let alone any proof.
To look at the data used in that chart select Ethnicity at the top then open individual tabs below as desired. Looking closer we see the data used was the total for grades 3-5 (because of small sample sizes the data for blacks in individual grades is not presented) in Overall Achievement for ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS/LITERACY. 14 blacks and 330 whites were tested of 438 total students enrolled.Replies: @Lord Jeff Sessions
So it looks like we’re dealing with a sample size of 14. So if the black pass rate is 86% that means 12 out of 14 kids passed. The white pass rate was 75%, and the hispanic rate was 66%. So if only 9 out of 14 black kids had passed you would get the distribution we’re all familiar with. With blacks scoring lowest, then Hispanics, then whites, then Asians. So it only takes like 3 kids to mess this up. Frankly, looking at how small these sample sizes are, I’m surprised you don’t get more of these flukes.
Also, thanks for pointing me to the raw data!
I've made this argument, on this very blog, before.
If you believe in human equality (between races or groups-not for each individual, of course), then social inequalities have social causes. This is obvious: if humans are a combination of nature and nurture, and by nature we are equal, then inequalities are caused by nurture.
If inequalities are caused by nurture, then they are contingent on the particulars of our social circumstances.
The particulars of our social circumstances are changeable-by changing our society.
Thus, we can change our society until equality is achieved-until the society successfully rewards everyone's (as measured by the groups to which they belong) natural abilities.
If we can change our society, we should change our society.
This is entirely rational based on the initial premise: all men are created equal. The initial premise is essentially the founding concept of our country and civilizational philosophy.
This entirely rational worldview has two endstates: we either give up our belief that 'all men are created equal,' or we push society until all men are socially (intellectually, financially, culturally, etc etc) equal.
No conspiracy theory is needed.
joeyjoejoeReplies: @ben tillman, @ben tillman, @Tulip
It’s not obvious; it’s self-contradictory. If by nature we are equal, then we are equal in our nurturing faculty. If we are equal by nature, there are no differences in nurture.
I've made this argument, on this very blog, before.
If you believe in human equality (between races or groups-not for each individual, of course), then social inequalities have social causes. This is obvious: if humans are a combination of nature and nurture, and by nature we are equal, then inequalities are caused by nurture.
If inequalities are caused by nurture, then they are contingent on the particulars of our social circumstances.
The particulars of our social circumstances are changeable-by changing our society.
Thus, we can change our society until equality is achieved-until the society successfully rewards everyone's (as measured by the groups to which they belong) natural abilities.
If we can change our society, we should change our society.
This is entirely rational based on the initial premise: all men are created equal. The initial premise is essentially the founding concept of our country and civilizational philosophy.
This entirely rational worldview has two endstates: we either give up our belief that 'all men are created equal,' or we push society until all men are socially (intellectually, financially, culturally, etc etc) equal.
No conspiracy theory is needed.
joeyjoejoeReplies: @ben tillman, @ben tillman, @Tulip
Well, someone is promulgating this patently false worldview, and the project is too big to be handled by a single person.
Wow. I got busy for a while, so I didn’t see this until now. The responses are interesting reading.
Thanks, Steve.
That’s another great thing about Unz and Sailer: They really do incorporate their readers into their work.
We know white liberals and even black people do not believe in the white racism theory otherwise they would not have to impose sanctions on those who reject it. Black people know they aren't as good as others. Liberals know this too. This is why blacks clamor to get into 'historically white' academies and why white liberals admit them. Neil Degrasse Tyson maybe presented on TV as a brilliant astrophysicist but everyone knows ( except for most of the TV audience) that he couldn't get a job on a Mars rover team from Cornell or Cal Tech except, perhaps, as a public relations supernumerary!Replies: @Frau Katze, @Eagle Eye
You are doing an injustice to Neil Degrasse Tyson.
Of course he is NOT a brilliant astro-physicist, although one should not underestimate the intellect needed to turn abstract science into understandable and entertaining TV.
On the other hand, you must admit that NDT is a VERY gifted PR BS artist. He could easily be the head of the Mars Rover PR team, not a “supernumerary.”
"Your access to this site has been limited
Your access to this service has been temporarily limited. Please try again in a few minutes. (HTTP response code 503)
Reason: Exceeded the maximum number of requests per minute for crawlers."
I was only able to get here by logging on to an old thread.
Is the site under attack again?Replies: @BB753
Same here. Happened to me hours ago.
“It’s not obvious; it’s self-contradictory. If by nature we are equal, then we are equal in our nurturing faculty. If we are equal by nature, there are no differences in nurture.”
Maybe you don’t understand the theory. ‘Nature vs. Nurture’ does not imply ‘genetics vs. baby care’. In this argument, ‘nurture’ is shorthand for ‘societal impact.’-what society an individual grows up in, what schools he attends, what food he eats, what his parents are like, how clean his house is, etc etc. A more correct (though less memorable) phrase would be ‘nature vs environment,’ or ‘nature vs. upbringing.’
‘Upbringing’ is clearly not equal between individuals or races (or subcultures). That is the whole argument: we can change society to create equal upbringing, and we should, because genetically (‘nature’) we are equal. If we are genetically equal, then the outcomes of life are, by definition, caused by different societies-or social constructs- in which we are raised.
joeyjoejoejoejoeyjoe
I've made this argument, on this very blog, before.
If you believe in human equality (between races or groups-not for each individual, of course), then social inequalities have social causes. This is obvious: if humans are a combination of nature and nurture, and by nature we are equal, then inequalities are caused by nurture.
If inequalities are caused by nurture, then they are contingent on the particulars of our social circumstances.
The particulars of our social circumstances are changeable-by changing our society.
Thus, we can change our society until equality is achieved-until the society successfully rewards everyone's (as measured by the groups to which they belong) natural abilities.
If we can change our society, we should change our society.
This is entirely rational based on the initial premise: all men are created equal. The initial premise is essentially the founding concept of our country and civilizational philosophy.
This entirely rational worldview has two endstates: we either give up our belief that 'all men are created equal,' or we push society until all men are socially (intellectually, financially, culturally, etc etc) equal.
No conspiracy theory is needed.
joeyjoejoeReplies: @ben tillman, @ben tillman, @Tulip
“This is entirely rational based on the initial premise: all men are created equal. The initial premise is essentially the founding concept of our country and civilizational philosophy.”
Ah, yes, if you just assent to the immaculate conception of Mary, my political program completely makes sense, and that’s why its okay for me to impose it on you through force!
There is no a shred of evidence to support the supposition that all “men” are created equal in the sense of their human potential. I am never going to compete with Jamaican sprinters, sorry. Further, no one in the 18th Century believes for one second that “equality” was the capacity for equality of outcome. So you are imposing a dishonest and historically incorrect spin on the language. [See Dred Scott decision or America’s first immigration and nationalization act if you want to understand what “equality” meant at the Founding.]
Here is a 1980 paper on the etymology of "affirmative action": https://www.jstor.org/stable/40249337
This article cites a 1961 JFK executive action as the first use of the term (in its current sense): http://theweek.com/articles/462937/origins-affirmative-actionReplies: @Hail
Interesting, though it took ten years for the term to really “make it,” acc. to Ngram, suggesting a more important “popularizer” (not coiner) should be sought out, about 1967, and perhaps another in 1974 or 1975.
Roughly…
1967 — Base Year (approximate Ngram appearance rate of the phrase “affirmative action” for the 1940s to mid 1960s, lower relatively in the mid-1960s than it had been in much of the 1940s-’50s).
1967 to 1970 — First doubling
1970 to 1972 — Second doubling
1972 to 1975 — Third doubling (1975 the critical year in which about 7/10th of this doubling occurs)
1975 to 1979 — Fourth doubling
1979 to 1996 — Almost a Fifth Doubling
1996 to Late 2000s — Decline back down to mid 1970s levels.
.
Calculations of Year/Peak Year. I don’t think there is a way to excel particular Ngram charts to Excel, so you have to do it manually.
Regarding popularizers, some thoughts from the 1980 paper linked above (DOI 10.2307/40249337 available at Libgen):
1964 Civil Rights Act
1973 statute set up "affirmative action program plans" for federal agencies
1974 Virginia Law Review article, "Affirmative Action and Equal Protection"
1978 Supreme Court Bakke decision (through term does not appear)
Not sure how much delay to expect for the book writing/publishing process though.
Here is data for the NYT: http://chronicle.nytlabs.com/?keyword=affirmative%20action
1972, 1977 and 1995 look like the big increase years there.Replies: @Hail
1967 -- Base Year (approximate Ngram appearance rate of the phrase "affirmative action" for the 1940s to mid 1960s, lower relatively in the mid-1960s than it had been in much of the 1940s-'50s).
1967 to 1970 -- First doubling
1970 to 1972 -- Second doubling
1972 to 1975 -- Third doubling (1975 the critical year in which about 7/10th of this doubling occurs)
1975 to 1979 -- Fourth doubling
1979 to 1996 -- Almost a Fifth Doubling
1996 to Late 2000s -- Decline back down to mid 1970s levels..Calculations of Year/Peak Year. I don't think there is a way to excel particular Ngram charts to Excel, so you have to do it manually.Replies: @res
Thanks for the reply. Too bad there is no easier way to export the frequencies. Outputting a CSV file would be handy. I wonder why Google does not support that (NYT has export, but not of CSV).
Regarding popularizers, some thoughts from the 1980 paper linked above (DOI 10.2307/40249337 available at Libgen):
1964 Civil Rights Act
1973 statute set up “affirmative action program plans” for federal agencies
1974 Virginia Law Review article, “Affirmative Action and Equal Protection”
1978 Supreme Court Bakke decision (through term does not appear)
Not sure how much delay to expect for the book writing/publishing process though.
Here is data for the NYT: http://chronicle.nytlabs.com/?keyword=affirmative%20action
1972, 1977 and 1995 look like the big increase years there.
Regarding popularizers, some thoughts from the 1980 paper linked above (DOI 10.2307/40249337 available at Libgen):
1964 Civil Rights Act
1973 statute set up "affirmative action program plans" for federal agencies
1974 Virginia Law Review article, "Affirmative Action and Equal Protection"
1978 Supreme Court Bakke decision (through term does not appear)
Not sure how much delay to expect for the book writing/publishing process though.
Here is data for the NYT: http://chronicle.nytlabs.com/?keyword=affirmative%20action
1972, 1977 and 1995 look like the big increase years there.Replies: @Hail
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The NY Times data (appearances in NY Times) does look like it closely tracks the Ngram data, doesn’t it. What I most notice for NYT data is the 1971-1975 period (the same as Ngram), when the phrase “affirmative action” started at basically its “base rate” and rose steadily to the level it has maintained since (with some spikes, the biggest of which is 1995).
Interestingly, 2006 to 2014 has been its post-1970 low point. By 2016 it has recovered to 1970s-1990s levels.
Does this say something about the Obama Era and the elite media’s choice of topics? OTOH, the cratering of mentions (from 2004) begins before anyone knew Obama was running for president. It stayed very low in the Obama Era critical year 2008.
The achievement gap is always black-white or Hispanic-white or Native American-white. It's never black-Hispanic or Hispanic-Asian.
Why is not testing as well or earning as much as whites "bad" anyway. Why are we the benchmark? Nobody seems to wring their hands about whites (or blacks or Hispanics) getting outscored or out-earned by Asians.
Even anti-white whites can't help but navel gaze.Replies: @Kyle
“Nobody seems to wring their hands about whites (or blacks or Hispanics) getting outscored or out-earned by Asians.”
Speak for yourself.