Herman Badillo is a deputy mayor of New York and chairman of the board of the City University of New York. One of the things that has held minorities back is that many have lost sight of the value of the high standards that provide success in this country.
The result was that too many people have begun to see actual shortcomings as "cultural" styles that have to be defended against racism. Not being able to read, for instance, or not being able to speak English are not "cultural choices"; they are examples of an impermanent condition that can be cured by instruction.
Badillo, in his new book, "One Nation, One Standard," shows he is well aware of the fact that minority students from the Middle East and Asia don't rebel against high standards of academic performance; they go about mastering them, which is the only explanation when it is obvious that the same level of performance is seen in black and Latino students who do the same thing.
The liberals who secretly did not believe that black and Latino students were capable of rising to the challenge chose to remove as many challenges as possible in the interest of "fairness," while the world of work moved along as it always had, not hiring them. It was never recognized that being trapped in the world of the poor because one is barely educated is a lot harder on the individual than putting in long hours of study when necessary.
Badillo recognizes the problems and rightly believes that Latinos and the nation at large will benefit from the imposition of high standards and the removal of the lower standards that express more condescension than any kind of actual regard for student potential.
50 comments:
Full text, since it defaults to for-fee archive in a few days:
Herman Badillo is a hero for our time.
Badillo, born in Puerto Rico and raised in the Bronx, has impeccable credentials - he's been a congressman, a borough president, a deputy mayor of New York and chairman of the board of the City University of New York. He has not only been around the block, he has been in the neighborhoods and has thought long and hard about the various obstacles to those minorities presently given to accepting low levels of performance as "normal" or "cultural." He knows enough about human beings to recognize that once their value system includes and celebrates high academic achievement, most of the problems disappear.
One of the things that has held minorities back is that many have lost sight of the value of the high standards that provide success in this country.
The result was that too many people have begun to see actual shortcomings as "cultural" styles that have to be defended against racism. Not being able to read, for instance, or not being able to speak English are not "cultural choices"; they are examples of an impermanent condition that can be cured by instruction.
Badillo, in his new book, "One Nation, One Standard," shows he is well aware of the fact that minority students from the Middle East and Asia don't rebel against high standards of academic performance; they go about mastering them, which is the only explanation when it is obvious that the same level of performance is seen in black and Latino students who do the same thing.
At one point, there was even a discussion in America of "black English," as though it was a cultural choice and not a lack of mastering the language.
Arguments about cultural relativity did not serve black and Latino students well, nor did so many special programs that did not live up to the ultimate job, which is educating children so well that they can make career choices rather than have to settle for what little their skills can do for them in the workplace.
The liberals who secretly did not believe that black and Latino students were capable of rising to the challenge chose to remove as many challenges as possible in the interest of "fairness," while the world of work moved along as it always had, not hiring them. It was never recognized that being trapped in the world of the poor because one is barely educated is a lot harder on the individual than putting in long hours of study when necessary.
Badillo recognizes the problems and rightly believes that Latinos and the nation at large will benefit from the imposition of high standards and the removal of the lower standards that express more condescension than any kind of actual regard for student potential.
In a period when public education is so slippery with snake oil, it is inspiring to read the words of someone who is not afraid to stand up to a self-serving and incompetent vision that sabotages black and Latino students.
Badillo knows that an inferior education is the equivalent of offering a pat on the back with hands that have razor blades between the fingers.
The little cuts are disguised by the backslapping but, in the long run, the wounds will result in one career corpse after another. Herman Badillo is trying to shed a light on the situation. He is a hero for our time.
Happy Black History Month!
Well, I've been banned from the "WakeUpBlackAmerica" blog but I haven't gotten over my "Smash the Lying Racist Right" campaign yet.
Funny how Stanley Crouch and Herman Badillo could even fix their lying mouths discussing standards.
Crouch doesn't even have a college degree but bulshitted his way into an English Professorship at Pomona College.
Then in the late 80s, after being fired from the Village Voice for assaulting a co-worker, he surveyed the political and media landscape and realize there was gold in them thar hills for black righties.
So, as soon as he elected to gleefully kiss the ass of white supremacy, he became a nationally syndicated columnist.
Badillo was the token Latino Pol in NYC for over 20 years.
Always in the middle of the ticket, never at the top.
When he didn't realize his dream of becoming the first latino mayor of NYC and his political career was in the toilet, he too surveyed the landscape and decided to be an Uncle Tomas for the racist right.
So now these 2 shining examples of how America really works (going far by being willing to bend further and kiss more ass than your competitor) have the gall to question the accomplishments of blacks and hispanics.
If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be funny.
Question Paul.
If blacks rebel against high academic standards, how the f^ck do you have historically black colleges?
1. All blacks don't rebel against academic excellence. Crouch, et al., merely claim that rebellion against academic excellence is one of the major reasons explaining the discrepancy between averages among black, white, and Asian data. People who believe this, including me, cite the same reason to explain the difference between white and Asian AVERAGE academic achievement. People who understand statistics know that acknowledging that Asians ON AVERAGE outperform honkies does not mean that all honkies achieve poorly or that all Asians excel.
2. You claim that all black conservatives hold their beliefs because they are either getting paid or shining for mister charlie. Yet even more blacks earn their livings espousing lefty political views, and nearly as many honkies are lefties who adore clapping for black folks blaming racism for all problems. So let's just stick to the views espoused by people, and judge them outside of unprovable declarations of their secret motives. Please.
"Yet even more blacks earn their livings espousing lefty political views,"
Comes from our life experiences not from being paid to please the racist.
"and nearly as many honkies are lefties who adore clapping for black folks blaming racism for all problems."
Name ONE black person who blames racism for all problems and provide a quote."
Of course you WON'T because you can't.
You see Paul, lying, distortion and sophistry are a large part of your persona.
Here, read this and learn something.
Here Hue.
Read this for some truth.
http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/oprah.html
". Yet even more blacks earn their livings espousing lefty political views,"
Oh really.
You show me the black liberals being subsidized by fat foundations and thinktanks as are McWhorter, Steele, and Sowell.
3ost of the members of these outifits would riot if a black tried to move next door, but the rightwing negro doesn't care if you call him nigger, just as long as his name is spelled right on the check.
Even Rod Paige admitted that the "line is a lot shorter" for blacks on the Republican side.
Nowadays, all one has to do is be black and say your Republican and immediately you'll get a column in some rightwing magaize or a seat on some farright foundation.
Look at Michael Steele.
Never held public office yet within 2 years of becoming the GOP Chairman for PG County, his the LT Governor and a Senate Candidate.
Haven't heard jack about him since he lost though.
RB: Of the thousands of blacks holding office, 90% or so are democrats. Try winning any seat in Detroit or DC as a republican. Every major newspaper has one or more black columnists and 90% are libs. Think of all the organizations such as NAACP, Urban League, etc., all with full time staffs, all libs. Then there's the dozens of "African American Studies" programs at universities of all sizes and pedigrees, all with 100% liberal profs. Standford employs Sowell at its Hoover Institute, but how many black liberals on its AA Studies staffs?
On and on it goes. The lines for these jobs are longer, but there are many times more positions available.
Everybody each of us quotes and praises gets paid by somebody. Let's just stick to their ideas, please.
I have read before your article by Tim Wise, "What about Oprah"? I disagree with it. As you have stated before in many other posts, blacks today are doing great, and much better than before. Oprah isn't an exception to a rule, she exemplifies that americans of any "race" who make smart choices reap various amounts of rewards.
".Of the thousands of blacks holding office, 90% or so are democrats. Try winning any seat in Detroit or DC as a republican."
Right. These are professional politicians who are elected to represent the interests of those who voted for them. The constituents.
The black righties are are frontmen for the interests of the white right moneyman who pay them.
This isn't complicated.
Every major newspaper has one or more black columnists and 90% are libs."
Not any more. As the media moves further to the right, they have gleefully hired black front men like Crouch, Deroy Murdock, Robert George, Star Parker, Michael Myers, Michael Massey etc...with syndicated columns.
And it's growing.
"Think of all the organizations such as NAACP, Urban League, etc., all with full time staffs, all libs."
What you know about any of those organizations couldn't fill a thimble.
What about the righty orgs like Project 21, The Center for Nieghborhood Enterprise and B.ON.D who get big money from rightwing outfits like the Scaife and Bradley Foundations????
"Then there's the dozens of "African American Studies" programs at universities of all sizes and pedigrees, all with 100% liberal profs."
So what?
You got these handkerchief heads like Orlando Patterson and Randall Kennedy at Harvard. Walter Williams at GMU, McWhorter at Cal-Berkeley Steele at Stanford and on and on.
Notice I named some of the righties whereas you just rant about these amorphous black "liberals" in academia.
And who gets the fat book contracts?
It ain't the black liberals.
Standford employs Sowell at its Hoover Institute, but how many black liberals on its AA Studies staffs?
"Every major newspaper has one or more black columnists and 90% are libs.""
And every major newspaper has at least 10 white columnists.
But of course the white boys got their jobs on merit, right Paul?
Steve: Go to any book store and look for socio-political books written by blacks. Many more by black lefties.
The fact remains: many times more lefty job openings for black lefties than black righties, and in any case all these people have somebody who agrees with them paying them to speak. Do any black lefty politicos really have righty views but hide them because they know that black areas will only elect lefties? Do blacks with PhDs hide their rightie views in order to get hired into AA studies programs? Do you really think that if we add all the people working for black lefty groups (NAACP, Urban League, etc) we will get fewer jobs than all the blacks working for righty groups?
I disagree, and in any case I wish to discuss the ideas espoused by both groups, no dismiss either side merely because somebody employs them all.
You're missing the entire point Paul.
Of course there are going to be more black liberals than black conservatives because liberals are about inclusion, opening up opportunities to as many as possible. Realizing that the rising tide lifts ALL boats. That we as a country benefit when we all do well.
Conservatives are about EXCLUSION. Closing doors limiting access, concentrating power and wealth in a few select hands.
Aside from the fact that the conservatives opposed the Civil Rights. Opposed the voting rights act. Opposed integration and just about every measure toward the advancement of blacks in this country and throughout the world.
So for the few blacks willing to grin in the faces of those who would gleefully reenslave us if they could, the opportunities are endless.
Black filters for white resentment and bigotry.
What a career move.
Did wonders for Clarence Thomas.
You are wrong on all counts in your characterization of conservatives, black and white:
1. They advocate "rising waters lift all boats". Liberals instead believe that that poor people's boats can rise only by lowering the boats of evil rich people.
2. They advocate inclusion; they do not exclude people from anything based on race; they do not reserve membership or qualification based on racial criteria. Yes, some racists exist who refuse to live next to blacks or who have clubs that deny black membership. But those are not the values espoused by 99.99999% of conservatives.
3. They embrace rather than reject "Civil Rights", by which I reckon you mean equal civil rights for all, regardless of race. Liberals categorize people by race, and give special consideration or deny certain consideration depending on these categorizations.
4. They support the Voting Rights Act of 1964, they merely oppose extending it now that blacks no longer face organized official denial of their franchise; to the contrary, in the same areas where that once occurred blacks now have a dominant voting block. This opposition to extending the voting rights act results from a support for limited govt, not in trying to exclude blacks from voting. The 99% of conservatives who are not racist supported the fedl govt acting to intervene in honkies in the 1960s in denying blacks their franchise, but now that doesn't happen anymore they want the government to pull back, just as did the federal troops.
5. They support integration, just not forced integration based on racial categorization and assigning different treatment to people based on those racial assignments.
Your characterization of conservatives are all wrong. They essentially want the same thing that liberals want, but think that different mechanisms will achieve those goals.
"1. They advocate "rising waters lift all boats". Liberals instead believe that that poor people's boats can rise only by lowering the boats of evil rich people."
Wrong.
Liberals believe that the rich should pay the same percentage of their earnings in taxes that poor workers and the middle class pay.
Progressives oppose corporate CEO's getting windfalls in stock options and payoffs while their companies lay off workers.
Liberals believe that if poor folks had access to some of the same advantages that people who have merely been born well have, that they can advance as far.
"2. They advocate inclusion; they do not exclude people from anything based on race; they do not reserve membership or qualification based on racial criteria."
What liberal initiative "excludes" anyone on the basis of race?
Affirmative Action only opens doors for people who have been left out. Set-asides only ensure that qualified people of color are given a chance to participate in areas where they were previously prohibited.
"Yes, some racists exist who refuse to live next to blacks or who have clubs that deny black membership. But those are not the values espoused by 99.99999% of conservatives."
I disagree.
"3. They embrace rather than reject "Civil Rights", by which I reckon you mean equal civil rights for all, regardless of race. Liberals categorize people by race, and give special consideration or deny certain consideration depending on these categorizations."
All the conservative icons, like Reagan, Buckley, Goldwater, loeb and Thurmond vehemently opposed the Civil Rights Act and were only dragged kicking and screaming into acceptance by the maturity of the American populace to a certain extent.
Paul, all you do is characterize people by race by using easily manipulable stats to establish some notion of black inferiority.
The diametrical reversal of the black poverty rate, the explosion of black college grads, homeowners, business owners and professionals since the passage of the Civil Rights Act is proof positive that given the opportunity, black people meet the challenge.
"4. They support the Voting Rights Act of 1964, they merely oppose extending it now that blacks no longer face organized official denial of their franchise; to the contrary, in the same areas where that once occurred blacks now have a dominant voting block."
Black voters were intimidated and suppressed in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 just for 2 examples.
"5. They support integration, just not forced integration based on racial categorization and assigning different treatment to people based on those racial assignments."
There is no different treatment in AA for school admissions, just consideration of being a member of a historically (and currently) discriminated group.
Every student and every employee must perform to standards of the particular institution they matriculate in.
AA doesn't take your finals for you nor does it perform your job.
Conservatives want to do deny the OPPORTUNITY.
And please spare the nonsense about "merit".
I've been in corporate America for 20 years and have seen too many times white people getting favors, slidebyes, reassignments after failure, and undeserved advancements due to complexion and connection.
Steve writes: ====================
What liberal initiative "excludes" anyone on the basis of race?
==================================
The congressional black caucus; race-based scholarships and academic tutoring programs at universities; affirmative action.
You characterize these racial exclusionary practices in euphemistic terms, but advocates of racist practices always have. I will agree with you on one difference between today's pro-black racism and yesterday's anti-black racism (which I admit some still exists): nobody gets hurt by this form of racism which you advocate. Just taking a look around contemporary corporate offices, elite universities, and congress, and you find no shortage of people excluded by these practices. But neither do you see a commensurate amount of the people favored by these practices.
Today's conservatives oppose all forms of racial exclusionary practices. They seek to maximize the fractions of all populations enjoying prosperity.... as do liberals. But conservatives just have a different view of how to get there.
Yes, some racists exists among white conservatives. But no more so than among white liberals. Many prominent white liberals have zero black friends, employees, or partners; many are holliwood honchos who never cast blacks, or prominent politicians who get applauded at NAACP dinners but who have zero significant advisers who are black.
"The congressional black caucus; race-based scholarships and academic tutoring programs at universities; affirmative action."
LIES.
There are all kind of scholarships for whites only.
Polish scholarships. Jewish scholarships. Italian scholarships.
Name the tutoring program for blacks only.
I bet you can't.
More white woman have benefitted from AA than people of color by far.
You just can't stand the thought of reparative measures to address the damage done by 300 years of American apartheid.
"Many prominent white liberals have zero black friends, employees, or partners; many are holliwood honchos who never cast blacks,"
So what?
I could care less whether John Kerry has close black friends or whether Woody Allen casts blacks in his movies.
That doesn't make them racist.
I'm more concerned about their attitudes regarding public policy.
I mean you claim to have black friends and your attitude on race is vile as far as I'm concerned.
It's the same old condescending shit from you righties.
We blacks are too dumb to recognize who our allies are.
You just can't help yourself, can you?
"or prominent politicians who get applauded at NAACP dinners but who have zero significant advisers who are black."
Name ONE and tell me how you know they have no black advisors.
Steve writes: ====================
Name the tutoring program for blacks only. I bet you can't.
==================================
All major universities have tutoring programs reserved exclusively for "minority" students (black and hispanic only), with tutors of various "races" paid from various funding sources. I worked for one at UT-Austin; Georgia Tech as one, where I also attended. These are very common.
Steve writes: ================
More white woman have benefitted from AA than people of color by far.
============================
More whites period, when you count also whites who have "hispanic" sirnames, and whites who hire "rent a negros" to qualify for contracting jobs. Also, as we know, at the same elite schools where the AA fights have occured, Asian students with high marks get turned away for whites with lesser credentials due to the massive numbers of super-achieving Asians. We see now with elimination of AA at schools like UC-Berkeley that the fraction of honkey students has decreased; we should expect the same at UM-AA.
Steve writes: ====================
Name ONE and tell me how you know they have no black advisors.
====================================
John Kerry & Ted Kennedy very famously have never had a single black employee in any significant position. I am surprised you didn't read the various articles about this in the last election cycle. I'm not going to track down these articles for you. Believe what you like.
Opponents of AA oppose scholarships reserved for Italians, Irish, etc. However, there are relatively few of those, and no substantial such scholarships from huge corporations or from universities themselves.
"John Kerry & Ted Kennedy very famously have never had a single black employee in any significant position. I am surprised you didn't read the various articles about this in the last election cycle. I'm not going to track down these articles for you. Believe what you like"
It's the same dodge from you ever time you're challenged for proof.
"However, there are relatively few of those, and no substantial such scholarships from huge corporations or from universities themselves."
Corporations give donations to the United Negro College Fund.
I thought the idea was to get more minorities in college so they could fulfill their potential and realize the American dream.
What the hell is wrong with that?
"All major universities have tutoring programs reserved exclusively for "minority" students (black and hispanic only), with tutors of various "races" paid from various funding sources."
My alma mater, University of Maryland, doesn't have one.
I just called and inquired about it specifically.
Damn, you're lying AGAIN.
I am not "lying", nor have I ever lied on this or any blog. I report what I understand to be true, which almost always is; and *always* I base my claims on something, never inventions of my mind. However, I'm not perfect, and I can be mistaken, either by accepting an article that turns out to be untrue, or mis-interpreting or mis-remembering a detail.
Corporations support much more than UNCF. The also have their own scholarship funds reserved exclusively for black and "hispanic" kids, and donate to programs at universities that provide services only to black and hispanic kids.
Steve: Google "minority tutoring university". You will get infinate number of hits, including the first one for Ohio State's "Office of Minority Affairs":
http://oma.osu.edu/aas/tutoring.htm
"The purpose of the Tutoring Program is to assist minority students at The Ohio State University with enhancing and enriching their academic skills. Any minority student at The Ohio State University may apply for a tutor. No Cost to the Student."
The University of Chicago:
http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0302/campus-news/minority.html
“The University wants to focus even more strongly on the needs of underrepresented minority students, with the ultimate goal, of course, that one day they will not be underrepresented,” the College has recently launched the Collegiate Mentorship Program. To be housed in the Harper Mezzanine, it will provide intensive one-on-one tutoring for minority students.
Either retract your declaration that I "lied", or I am going to ban you from this blog.
Steve writes: ===================
I thought the idea was to get more minorities in college so they could fulfill their potential and realize the American dream. What the hell is wrong with that?
=================================
Nothing at all. I'm all for that. But I oppose obtaining this goal using racist policies, or any other strategies that officially cloister "minorities" into groups and resources. The success of "minorities" such as Asians without such strategies undermines the uses of these strategies, especially since these strategies have yet to produce their desired results.
Go ahead and ban me you racist f^ck.
You claimed "every major university" had a minority tutoring program.
Now you're googling like crazy to find anything you can.
Puh-leeze.
What you should have said is that most major university have UNDERGRADUATE TUTORING PROGRAMS which is easily verfiable.
But in your endless zeal to stigmatize and demonize blacks, you harp minority tutoring programs.
Go ahead and ban me Paul.
You are downright sickening anyway.
Steve wrote: =================
What you should have said is that most major university have UNDERGRADUATE TUTORING PROGRAMS
=================================
No, I said it correctly. They have tutoring programs reserved for "minorities", which excludes whites and Asians, and which the students do not have to pay, no matter how wealthy their parents are.
You are rude, which includes cursing and instantly branding people "liers". I will not tolerate any such conduct on my blog. Me claiming that "every major university has these programs" and you finding one that does not hardly justifies you calling me a lier, nor does it invalidate the thrust of my claim.
Here are two scholarship programs at UM-CP reserved for "under represented minorities":
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5769/1870
http://www.aap.umd.edu/Students/ScholarshipInfo.htm
Please go away... or start comporting yourself as do the other people on this blog.
What other people?
Don't worry I'm gone Paul.
Paul, you're just mad because Steve came back with serious facts that opposed your opinion. You tried to use deflection to prove your point and he called you on it.
I've called you a racist before and you haven't banned me. Why would you ban Steve when he gets just as pissed off at your Eurocentric, racially insensitive and often racist comments? You're being a hypocrite.
Paul, we had a meeting this week about reviving our educational program that has helped primarily Black students in the past. You were the only white person at this meeting. You were also the only person who specifically said, "I want to help Black kids."
Why?
If you believe that programs which specifially target Blacks or other non-white ethnic groups are wrong, why would you characterize your stated goal by race?
For me, the goal is to help those students who need it most. In the Detroit metro area, this means I feel we should concentrate on helping students in Detroit whose school system is in shambles. These students aren't needy BECAUSE they are Black. They just happen to be Black.
The racism that caused the state to takeover their school system and change a multi-million dollar budget surplus into a multi-million dollar debt that now must be paid back is partially to blame for the closure of 52 schools in Detroit.
Our program has proven that given the proper tools and the opportunity, those students can improve their grades and improve their chances at a better life.
Your comments to Steve indicate that you don't believe in programs such as this targeting specific races, but you said in our meeting you want to help a certain race of students.
Explain yourself.
Nadir: Our program has never banned anybody; we have never had a race criteria. We have discussed this a few times and nobody has ever wanted a race criteria. When whites have applied, we always accepted them, though that total may amount to three honkies vs. over a thousand black students.
Yes, the only interest I have in working with students is to close the black-everybody-else gap. I would even support accepting grants reserved for black students. I agree that some of this contradicts my rejection of blacks-only programs. I don't like treating black kids like they inherently suffer from a learning disability. As you know, about 30% or so of our students are from wealthy families; they suffer from no economic hardships.
I have banned Steve (though I haven't figured out how to technically accomplish this) because I believe that he his rude. I agree that when you call me a racist you are also being rude, but I think that Steve takes it a few levels higher than you do.
For example, you don't automatically call me a liar when I make a claim; nor do I you.
Nadir: please justify the following:
Paul, you're just mad because Steve came back with serious facts that opposed your opinion. You tried to use deflection to prove your point and he called you on it
==================================
What facts? And how did I practice "deflection"?
Nadir: I believe that black kids can uplift their average achievement to levels that exceed the national average without any racially exclusive programs. Hypothetically, they can do it even without people like us, all on their own. They can simply choose to sit still in class, do their work, and commit no crimes. Most black kids behave this way anyway, and so too can those bringing down the average.
I am interested in helping such kids; having people like us around can maximize the results for their effort, and even along the way change some from negative or merely neutral conduct into positive conduct.
I don't blame "racism" for ruining Detroit's schools, and I am very interested to consider any justification for that assessment by you. The people who run Detroit's schools, and the parents and students, ruined it. They have not ruined the sports programs or music programs, just the academic programs. They can do it, and they can do it without any more money.
The same population of students comes to our program. We get the same results from these same students that those same students produce in their sports teams and in band practice. Why? Because we do things differently than those students are used to in their classrooms, but which they are accustomed to in band and sports: do what we say, or leave; work on boring fundamentals; rigorous assessments with high standards.
nadir,
Great post and thanks.
And Paul still hasn't answered your question.
Nadir: Please justify the following:
1. You calling me a racist. This must naturally involve you providing a definition of "racism", and describing how any of my behavior conforms to it. I have called you and Steve "racists" before, but always with a description of how I feel you guys qualify.
2. You saying that Steve provided any facts or logic to justify him calling me a lier.
3. How did I practice "deflection"?
Steve: I answered Nadir's question about why I devote my time only to helping organizations that focus on black kids. As long as you remain civil I won't proceed trying to figure out how to technically ban you.
Steve and Nadir: Both of you guys have accused me of being obsessed either with "race" (Nadir) or "negros behaving badly" (Steve). Yet I constantly post on other topics, yet you guys rarely comment on those other topics.
Paul, you don't fool anybody.
You post nonsense about Starbucks as a deflection against charges of "obsessing with race".
You do the same with "Paris Hilton and whites rioting at games"
I'm not a coffee drinker and I've seen white people acting up and using racial slurs all my life.
Big friggin deal.
Steve: Go through all the months of posting and see if I don't regularly post on a variety of topics, including white folks behaving badly. The way you operate is to create ad hoc circular definitions that require on your part perfect reading of my mind. If I post only on race, you call me obsessed with the topic (though I can always count on many responses and debate on those posts); if I post on other topics, you declare it a ruse (never mind that nobody ever responds to those posts).
I'm not going to have this blog continue to be dominated by these sorts of discussions; they will repel real intellectuals who want to have real discussions of ideas.
Thus I will take time to figure out how to technically ban uptownsteve.
Paul,
In several posts in this thread Steve answered your arguments point by point with logically reasoned answers to most of which you had no reply.
I have called you a racist and elitist many times because your attitude is Eurocentric and based on white supremacy. Just because you don't call people "nigger" doesn't mean you aren't racist.
Your racism is based less on physiology and more on culture. You beleive that white culture is inherently superior to other cultures.
It is the same argument that European imperialist have when they decide they are going to invade another country because the people there are "uncivilized" and "savage". Perhaps this is used to deflect the principle of "race" from the discussion, but none of those people who are invaded are ever white.
I admit that I have some racist tendencies, which are rooted more in my love of African people and people of African descent because of our shared ancestry and our shared struggle. I also love Irish people because I share their ancestry, but we don't share a common struggle. I don't identify with that part of my culture as much a I do my African and Native American roots. This racism is culturally based as well.
I don't hate white people and I know you don't hate Black people. You just believe you are superior culturally or intellectually to most people of other colors but not necessarily because of their biological makeup. It's because of their culture.
When people share your ideas, you think they are okay. Maybe this isn't racism. Maybe it's just closed mindedness.
I don't like people who believe they are superior. I tolerate you because I have seen good qualities in you.
Honestly, I don't understand the reasoing behind some of your statements, and neither does your family. I've had conversations with your brother about how to perform an intervention, but we can't figure out how too change someone's delusional ideas.
Tom, can we send Paul to rehab for his ills? I don't know.
Steve,
I've known Paul for several years now, and though I think he has racist tendencies, I don't think he is all bad. He is in denial about his racial attitudes, and I think that is part of the problem, but when it comes down to it, he's an okay dude.
Take him with a grain of salt.
Paul isn't lying when he makes a statement. Though I can't figure out why all the time, he really does believe the things he says.
It's more like a member of a cult who has been brainwashed than someone who is trying to deceive you. The fact that he has turned against the teachings of his father and his upbringing are a mystery to us all, but we love him and pray for his return to the fold.
This is a guy who was once arrested for burning a Confederate flag in Georgia. He once founded a Historically Black College Defense Force to combat the takeover of Florida A&M's engineering program by a white Florida university. He loves Black folks, though often it is in a condescending, paternalistic way.
As they used to say in church, charge it to his head, not to his heart.
Paul, I don't think you should ban Steve because he has brought a different perspective to some of our discussions.
Steve, you should refrain from calling Paul a liar, and though I often end up enraged and cursing him myself, we try to keep the flame wars to a minimum here. It is a place for frank, open debate that is guided by intellect and fueled by emotion.
Try not to let the emotion take control.
Nadir: I have placed Steve on a moderator status. If he attempts to post in a manner that I find congenial I will happily approve it.
Nadir,
I respect your comments and will refrain from name calling.
I know many brilliant black debators who are amazed that I frequent rightwing websites and blogs.
My attitude is that you can truly gauge the validity of your ideas unless you debate your opponents.
Their attitude is that rightwing blogs only reveal what white America truly feels but doesn't say face to face with blacks. So they don't bother with people like Paul because all he's going to do is anger them.
I don't have a problem with anger because it is part of what I am.
Anger motivates me. It's what got me out of the inner city.
However I will refrain from emotion on this blog Paul.
Nadir:
1. I will address any of Steve's comments that you specify as meriting a response from me.
2. I am a racist only in the way that you define yourself as a racist. I also have an allegiance to black folks and take a special interest in contributing to the advancement of their average levels of success.
3. However, I am not a racist in thinking that any "race" of people possesses any genetic or otherwise inherent deficiency or superiority; or in seeking to hold back or in any way suppress the natural rights or advancement of any individual or group based on racial categorization; nor in affording special status or standards different for people of different "races".
4. Whenever you or Steve have called me a "racist" I believe you have never provided a definition of "racism" and demonstrated where I meet that criteria. Meanwhile, whenever I call you guys racists, I always provide a definition and an explanation for how I believe you guys qualify. For example, you guys call people with identical views "tom" or "racist" according to how you guys racially categorize them; I consider that to be racist by the definition that I provided above.
5. I do believe that at different times and places specific groups of people have collectively succeeded more than other groups. In some cases you may assign different racial categorizations to these people. Clearly in the 1970s Japanese out-performed Americans in many areas of technical innovation and production. Today in the US and even around the world, Asians are achieving better education standards than are whites in the US. Also, Asians commit fewer street crimes per capita in the US and in Japan.
During the first thousand years of the Egyptian pharaohs, those people as well as people living in Iraq, Iran, India, Syria, China, and Lebanon, produced more advances in civilization than people living in Europe. I conclude the same about the time known as the European Dark Ages.
I do not believe that that qualifies me as an anti-European racist.
Today in the US and even around the world, Asians are achieving better education standards than are whites in the US. Also, Asians commit fewer street crimes per capita in the US and in Japan."
Yet Asian professional on average, make less than their white peers.
And where are the Asian CEO's, college presidents or politicians?
Southern Asian immigrants like Filipinos, Vietnamese, Cambidians and Laotians are relatively poor and underperforming both here in the US and in their native countries.
In Northern Virginia as well as the Bay Area of California there are large swaths of Southeast Asian immmigrant poverty and criminality.
You are determined to establish inherent racial (code:cultural) differences between people and that's bullshit.
Middle classed people of every hue have the same values and habits.
The same with the poor and rich.
I've already provided proof on this board of the disproportionate criminality of Southern European immigrants in America when they were the urban poor.
You just don't want to deal with it.
9:39 PM
Today in the US and even around the world, Asians are achieving better education standards than are whites in the US. Also, Asians commit fewer street crimes per capita in the US and in Japan."
Yet Asian professional on average, make less than their white peers.
And where are the Asian CEO's, college presidents or politicians?
Southern Asian immigrants like Filipinos, Vietnamese, Cambidians and Laotians are relatively poor and underperforming both here in the US and in their native countries.
In Northern Virginia as well as the Bay Area of California there are large swaths of Southeast Asian immmigrant poverty and criminality.
You are determined to establish inherent racial (code:cultural) differences between people and that's bullshit.
Middle classed people of every hue have the same values and habits.
The same with the poor and rich.
I've already provided proof on this board of the disproportionate criminality of Southern European immigrants in America when they were the urban poor.
You just don't want to deal with it.
9:39 PM
Steve writes: ================
Yet Asian professional on average, make less than their white peers.
=============================
This contradicts the data that I have seen and referenced here. I am curious to see such data.
Steve writes: =================
where are the Asian CEO's, college presidents or politicians
===============================
Good point. But apparently they don't need these jobs in order to obtain average incomes and wealth that exceeds that for whites. But I agree that there seems to be a discrepancy here, especially at elite universities where the Asian population rivals or exceeds that of honkies, and also as Deans in technical fields dominated by Asian students.
I am very curious to see data addressing this point, Steve. If a discrepancy exists (as it seems to), then I could only ascribe it to racism by whites against Asians.
Steve: I agree that all middle class people have the same values, and that there exists in the US pockets of Asians living in poverty. But on average, more Asians than whites (and more whites than blacks) are practicing those "middle class values", and hence the resulting average rates of poverty, wealthy, academic achievement, etc.
You again declare that I am "determined to establish inherent racial differences". However, I have explicitely denied this, and never asserted such a position. To the contrary I have concluded that the disparity of black/white/asian achievements is 100% explained by the average choices of these three groups, and I have claimed that black, white, and asian people who make the same choices will obtain the same outcome.
Yes, when honkey immigrants came to the US, they exhibited many criminal behaviors that exceeded their fraction of the US population, similar to the situation amoung black folks today. Those white immigrants collectively adjusted their average behavior, and as a result their average level of achievement rose. This points the way to eliminating the achievement gap betweeen black and white, and white and Asian.
For blacks who exhibit positive habits, there is no achievement gap with whites or with Asians. Anybody who wants to close the white-Asian achievement gap should get more white folks to make better choices.
Post a Comment