A Supreme Court Ruling That Warms My Little Racist Heart

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot believe the shallowness of this discussion. It is an embarrassment, frankly.

Here is the context that is being omitted from this discussion:

Until Brown v. Board of Education, black students were forcibly segregated into inferior schools, while white students received better funding, better facilities and better education. This was not backdoor, under-the-counter, hush-hush behavior. This was OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POLICY. For generations.

After Brown ruled this practice unconstitutional, school districts around the country magically continued to do end-runs around it for the next two decades, in order to channel white students into better schools and black students into inferior schools. That is not irrelevant, either.

THIS is where the whole discussion STARTS.

The movement and ideology behind segregation did not suddenly vanish off the face of the earth in 1954. It didn't vanish by 1964, either. Or 1974. Or yesterday. The institutional structure behind such separate-and-unequal policies was MASSIVE. Powerful people, in powerful positions, with massive social and ideological investment.

[/ QUOTE ]

All true.

[ QUOTE ]
You cannot have a discussion about school integration unless you place it in the context of the segregationist history it was designed to remedy.
And you cannot have a discussion about affirmative action unless you place it in the context of the OFFICIAL second-class status it was designed to address.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine.

[ QUOTE ]
And yet here 2+2 is, arguing about whether blacks are genetically predisposed to low SAT scores and basketball.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, none of the above refutes that possibility. All of the above supports the idea that segregation and discrimination have had a negative impact on Black scholastic performance (an idea to which I subscribe). How does the existence of that major factor, preclude the possibility of there being other factors at work? It doesn't. It can't. That's not how factors work. We don't say, "Well, it so clear that factor D exists, and D is such a strong factor; therefore factor E can't exist." Any scientist saying that about anything would be no scientist at all.

I'd certainly hope there isn't any genetic component at work in poor average Black scholastic performance. That's what I'd like to think, but I can't be sure. And there is that huge gap. I'm not going to completely rule out any possible factors just because doing so would make me feel better that way.

I would guess, though, that it is pretty darn likely that there is some genetic factor at work in Black athletic performance.

Would you guess that the reasons Blacks so strongly dominate professional sports in the USA are purely due of socioeconomic factors? Blacks are what percentage of the population??? -and what percentage of professional sports players are Black??? It strains credulity to think that there ISN'T some genetic component at work in professional sports when it comes to overall Black sports achievement, the dominance is so overwhelming.

The argument about the effects of decades of segregation is much more likely to fully explain Black SAT scores, than the socioeconomic argument is to fully account for the marvelous dominance of Blacks in professional sports.

The thing is, though, that "nice" people usually don't like to acknowledge the possibility of Black athletic dominance being tied to a genetic factor, because then they would also have to acknowledge the possibility of Black scholastic performance being tied to a genetic factor. And they really CAN'T face that. It would make them somehow not so nice if they did. It would make them feel almost bigoted or racist. Besides, what is it going to help? It might hurt somehow, though.

Those are the reasons many people can't face that possibility, in my opinion. So they have to completely deny it and think of anyone who acknowledges that possibility as a bigot or racist. And a bigot or racist, as we all know, is the very lowest type of person in modern America. So the denial of such a possibility is necessary for these people to retain their sense of goodness about themselves.

[ QUOTE ]
It boggles the mind.q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

It's often hard for the human mind to resist the tendency to let emotions color analysis. Nevertheless, it is a tendency that I believe should be diligently guarded against.

Thanks for reading.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, though, that "nice" people usually don't like to acknowledge the possibility of Black athletic dominance being tied to a genetic factor, because then they would also have to acknowledge the possibility of Black scholastic performance being tied to a genetic factor. And they really CAN'T face that. It would make them somehow not so nice if they did. It would make them feel almost bigoted or racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

And these sort of people (*cough* q/q, dvaut *cough*) are often the first to mock the religion-based idea that we are all created equal, and the first to tout human evolution and a general naturalistic philosophy, where genetic differences are not only expected but unavoidable.

And q/q, I must commend you - the last two posts I have seen you make in this forum have a little content! Before I know it, you'll probably be posting 2,500-word dissertations, Boro-style. Keep up the good work!

Also, just for fun - let's say I suddenly have a change of heart and agree with the White Guilt Party that AA is justified because of past injustices, etc. So at what point are the past injustices too far in the past to be relevant? 200 years? 500 years? 5000 years? Do you think those receiving preferential treatment will ever voluntarily give it up?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
And yet here 2+2 is, arguing about whether blacks are genetically predisposed to low SAT scores and basketball.

It boggles the mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, well, there are plenty on this forum who spend great quantities of time pushing evolution skepticism (*cough bills217 cough*) and other nonsense that contradicts what has been accepted scientific fact for more than a century, so it shouldn't be a surprise that many on this forum have views on race that look like they come straight out of Birth of a Nation.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument, for college admissions, went something like this: Blacks are X% of the population; yet they're only X-Y% of college admissions. They're scoring worse on entrance tests. They're not genetically inferior intellectually. Therefore the reason why they're scoring worse, and therefore being admitted less, is that they're not prepared as well in their pre-college education, for a variety of reasons, the most important one being the general circumstances of racism and the legacy of racism. That is, the fact that they didn't do as well on tests and were underrepresented in college was de facto evidence of discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like this argument. I've made it a few times myself and its my main justification for AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meanwhile,
No one really knows and colleges guard like the answer to the ultimate question what the actual graduation rates are for minorities that are affirmative actioned into prestigeous schools.

The graduation rates would tell the real story, here, I think. If they are low, than the programs aren't doing anyone any good. If they are consistent with general admission, than the playing field will have been "leveled."
I can't logically entertain the possibility they are higher, in all honesty.

[Exsubmariner]

It's very funny that you mention economics. One of the things that has been found in objective studies of the effects of affirmative action is that it gives an advantage to the economically privilaged of the preferred class, because they take advantage to get farther ahead than they already are. The economically less advantaged of the preferred class continue to get left behind.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot believe the shallowness of this discussion. It is an embarrassment, frankly.

Here is the context that is being omitted from this discussion:

Until Brown v. Board of Education, black students were forcibly segregated into inferior schools, while white students received better funding, better facilities and better education. This was not backdoor, under-the-counter, hush-hush behavior. This was OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT POLICY. For generations.

After Brown ruled this practice unconstitutional, school districts around the country magically continued to do end-runs around it for the next two decades, in order to channel white students into better schools and black students into inferior schools. That is not irrelevant, either.

THIS is where the whole discussion STARTS.

The movement and ideology behind segregation did not suddenly vanish off the face of the earth in 1954. It didn't vanish by 1964, either. Or 1974. Or yesterday. The institutional structure behind such separate-and-unequal policies was MASSIVE. Powerful people, in powerful positions, with massive social and ideological investment.

You cannot have a discussion about school integration unless you place it in the context of the segregationist history it was designed to remedy.

And you cannot have a discussion about affirmative action unless you place it in the context of the OFFICIAL second-class status it was designed to address.

And yet here 2+2 is, arguing about whether blacks are genetically predisposed to low SAT scores and basketball.

It boggles the mind.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

In all honesty, I think that the segregation practice went far beyond what was instituted law at the time. I think it reached into the economics of the day. Black communities were poorer and therefore collected less taxes and got proportional public money for their schools. So, the premise of separate but equal turned into serparate and unequal.

What was economic reality then is not economically reality now. The purpose Brown vs. BoE was meant to redress doesn't exist any longer. The court took this into consideration, I'm sure.

Onto the idealogical and social investment. I submit that those people who are for racial quotas have an enormous investment in their perpetuation. I think that racial quotas do what they are intended to do. That is to drive a wedge in society to promote the classification of victims and preferred classes by forces in the government who seek to gain votes by paying off the victim mentality.

The answer to equality is to make everyone self reliant. The government would lose out on that, though, and naturally has no interest in it. Preferred classes and quotas and diversity simple serve to perpetuate reliance on a nanny government for the permenantly perpetuated underclasses.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The argument, for college admissions, went something like this: Blacks are X% of the population; yet they're only X-Y% of college admissions. They're scoring worse on entrance tests. They're not genetically inferior intellectually. Therefore the reason why they're scoring worse, and therefore being admitted less, is that they're not prepared as well in their pre-college education, for a variety of reasons, the most important one being the general circumstances of racism and the legacy of racism. That is, the fact that they didn't do as well on tests and were underrepresented in college was de facto evidence of discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]
I like this argument. I've made it a few times myself and its my main justification for AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Iron and Andy-

What do you guys think about cultural variables? I'm fairly certain that black people are genetically no better than white people at athletics, but I think it's safe to say that blacks are, on average, much better at basketball than whites. No reasonable person would claim that whites are, for some reason, being discriminated against, it just happens that basketball is more popular among blacks than whites.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm fairly certain that black people are genetically no better than white people at athletics

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you certain of this?

Black people evolved different body structures (leaner, longer arms and legs) than white people due to the warmer African climate - their bodies were well suited to displacing heat, while whites in the colder European climates had bodies (stocky, shorter arms and legs) more suited to limiting heat loss. The black body structure confers clear advantages when it comes to basketball, for one - and also leaping/running-type contests, or what I would think of as more pure athletic events that are mostly dependent on genetics rather than a refined skill (which, before someone goes ZOMG RACIST, is not to say that non-whites can't excel at games of more refined skills - look at Tiger Woods [who I know is part-Asian before you nitpick], or for that matter, Phil Ivey).

Has no one on this forum ever had an anthropology class?

(See, DVaut, I do know a little about evolution!)

And you know what? I don't care! I love the NBA/NFL! Who cares what color the players and coaches are? Who cares if most of the players are black and most of the coaches are white? SO WHAT? A lanky build does not advantage a coach, and the vast majority of the general population (and of everyone else involved in pro sports front office operations) is, well, white!

To answer DVaut's earlier post, I of course have no governmental objection to, for example, the NFL's minority hiring policy, since the government is not involved.

Of course, that doesn't stop me from thinking it's retarded and downright demeaning when, for example, a minority coach must be brought in for an interview when the pre-selected successor is already picking out office furniture.

If the Bears were to fire Lovie Smith, or the Pistons were to fire GM Joe Dumars, etc., I seriously doubt they'd need some retarded affirmative action-lite policy to find another job.

[/rant]

Edit: Apparently there were a few more white sprinters than I thought, but you get the picture.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm fairly certain that black people are genetically no better than white people at athletics

[/ QUOTE ]

What makes you certain of this?

Black people evolved different body structures (leaner, longer arms and legs) than white people due to the warmer African climate - their bodies were well suited to displacing heat, while whites in the colder European climates had bodies (stocky, shorter arms and legs) more suited to limiting heat loss. The black body structure confers clear advantages when it comes to basketball, for one - and also leaping/running-type contests, or what I would think of as more pure athletic events that are mostly dependent on genetics rather than a refined skill (which, before someone goes ZOMG RACIST, is not to say that non-whites can't excel at games of more refined skills - look at Tiger Woods [who I know is part-Asian before you nitpick], or for that matter, Phil Ivey).

Has no one on this forum ever had an anthropology class?

(See, DVaut, I do know a little about evolution!)

And you know what? I don't care! I love the NBA/NFL! Who cares what color the players and coaches are? Who cares if most of the players are black and most of the coaches are white? SO WHAT? A lanky build does not advantage a coach, and the vast majority of the general population (and of everyone else involved in pro sports front office operations) is, well, white!

To answer DVaut's earlier post, I of course have no governmental objection to, for example, the NFL's minority hiring policy, since the government is not involved.

Of course, that doesn't stop me from thinking it's retarded and downright demeaning when, for example, a minority coach must be brought in for an interview when the pre-selected successor is already picking out office furniture.

If the Bears were to fire Lovie Smith, or the Pistons were to fire GM Joe Dumars, etc., I seriously doubt they'd need some retarded affirmative action-lite policy to find another job.

[/rant]

Edit: Apparently there were a few more white sprinters than I thought, but you get the picture.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is both true and false. The problem is lumping all 'black' people together. I read that book that got a lot of press a while back titled "Taboo" that was all about the subject. It basically gave evidence that Africans from different regions have certain advantages but then it tried to lump them all together as one group.

Depending on where your ancestors are from and how mixed you are you might get some good genes or you might not. Certain black people have really good genes for fast twitch muscle fibers. But this doesn't mean that we know which are which and we certainly shouldn't claim that 'black people' are at an advantage when most of them don't carry those genes.

[CORed]

My opinion of the Roberts court so far is mixed, but I think they got it exactly right this time. Brown vs. The Board of Education was a great ruling, but the Warren Court screwed up later when they bought into the idea that all schools had to have the same proportion of races as the general population, even if the "segregation" was a result of where people lived, rather than a legally mandated segregation policy. I sincerely hope that the Roberts doctrine (if I may call it that) will be applied to affirmative action as well as school desegregation.