The conflict in Ferguson, MO

[Simple Minded]

Like I have said in the past there is one thing Obama has accomplished. He has made possible for Black kids to grow up believing they to can be president someday.

Doc,

You're right about that. They can believe it possible to become president as a black person and yet still unable to speak about black issues. It's a racist dream.

Alex.

Alex sometimes you are just plain old evil.

C'mon Doc, be fair. You can't expect someone who does not live in the US to understand the plethora of different definitions, connotations, and subtle distinctions of "black."

Hell, how often have you heard a black person say "You don't know what it is like to be black in America?" to a white American. True enough. Now if the black person stops pretending to know what it is like to be white, and the white person stops pretending to know what it is like to be black, and the female stops pretending to know what it is like to be male, etc. We will all get along just fine.

Location, age, politics, attitude, appearance, wealth, occupation, etc. I have heard black people argue over "what it means to be black," or "you can't even be black," or "you ain't really black," just like I have heard Christians, Republicans, Democrats, Jews, etc. argue over what the other dude should be when they don the group ID label. There is always a higher level of purity that the other should attain...... it for no other reason than to proves one's worth to the group or cause.

Obama grabbed a group ID when it was a tactical advantage, just like all politicians adopt a local accent when speaking.

IIRC, Obama's mother is white! So was GW Bush!

Alex would make a damn fine Merikan...... in some cities, towns, and counties!

[Doc]

Like I have said in the past there is one thing Obama has accomplished. He has made possible for Black kids to grow up believing they to can be president someday.

Doc,

You're right about that. They can believe it possible to become president as a black person and yet still unable to speak about black issues. It's a racist dream.

Alex.

Alex sometimes you are just plain old evil.

C'mon Doc, be fair. You can't expect someone who does not live in the US to understand the plethora of different definitions, connotations, and subtle distinctions of "black."

Hell, how often have you heard a black person say "You don't know what it is like to be black in America?" to a white American. True enough. Now if the black person stops pretending to know what it is like to be white, and the white person stops pretending to know what it is like to be black, and the female stops pretending to know what it is like to be male, etc. We will all get along just fine.

Location, age, politics, attitude, appearance, wealth, occupation, etc. I have heard black people argue over "what it means to be black," or "you can't even be black," or "you ain't really black," just like I have heard Christians, Republicans, Democrats, Jews, etc. argue over what the other dude should be when they don the group ID label. There is always a higher level of purity that the other should attain...... it for no other reason than to proves one's worth to the group or cause.

Obama grabbed a group ID when it was a tactical advantage, just like all politicians adopt a local accent when speaking.

IIRC, Obama's mother is white! So was GW Bush!

Alex would make a damn fine Merikan...... in some cities, towns, and counties!

Well as they say the third times a charm. I let it go the first two times.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


Ferguson Police shooting training

2107526_pic_970x641.jpg (121.62 KiB) Viewed 906 times

.

[manolo]

Alex would make a damn fine Merikan...... in some cities, towns, and counties!

SM and folks,

..and just about everywhere else.

Quick aside. I was a college employment advisor. Went to talk with a group of unemployed youths in the inner city. Expected to give the usual cv talk and tips.

What a shock!! I was confronted with 20 highly intelligent young black people, most with Masters and PhDs, men and women. They gave it to me in the neck, and it was "Why the F*** (my language) are we applying for ten jobs a week and none of us have found anything". Now, leaving aside the burger flipping (and many burger joints wouldn't want overqualified and a bit too old black applicants in this city) what could I do to help?

So, I gave them all the contacts I had, phone numbers, names etc. But at the end of the session I decided to tell them the truth. I said "If you want to get off the dole quickly, you are going to have to turn to your own people. Use family, extended family and friends to grapevine something and then when you are in any kind of work, write for the jobs you really want. Use the references from your own people."

That's what it comes down to at the hard end.

Alex.

[Simple Minded]

Alex,

What city were you in when you were a college employment advisor?

As I have previously posted:

One of the most beautiful & just aspects of life. Each determines their own reality by their chosen foci and interpretation.

"The world is a looking glass and gives back to every man the reflection of his own face."
William Makepeace Thackeray

As we have previously discussed, given a population of sufficiently large size (say 10,000 people) one can find any wonderful or nasty trait of humanity one seeks. Those damn mental filters!

America, with a population of 330 million plus makes one hell of a Rorschach ink blot. If one does not like the America one lives in, move 20 miles to another one. There's millions of Americas out there!

People clinging to their chosen group identity can be a nasty thing. It often seems to be to be a self-made hell.

Luckily, I don't have to deal with "communities." I deal with individual people.

[Simple Minded]

Well as they say the third times a charm. I let it go the first two times.

People (neutral group identity), they're all like that!

[kmich]

For the Europeans here, a tip. White Americans have made it their moral duty to throw fairy dust everywhere to obscure and deny the realities of race that are deeply woven in our history and culture. It becomes a parade of airy, insipid “it’s all relative” and a “matter of perspective” clichés (right, SM?). I would suggest rather than dealing with such fatuous stuff, reading up on our history (Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone with the Wind” doesn’t count). Oddly enough, I have frequently found Europeans and Asians with a deeper understanding of our history than most people have here.

[Heracleum Persicum]

.


DNA pioneer James Watson to sell his Nobel Prize medal


“ Because I was an ‘unperson’ I was fired from the boards of companies, so I have no income, apart from my academic income ”


Hmmmmm


Legislation says Watson should not say what he sayin .. but .. Nobel comity gave him a Nobel price for sayin what he sayin

sort of conflict here

Looks to me, Ferguson brings that conflict to surface


.

[Endovelico]

Saying that, from a biological point of view, "black people are not of equal intelligence to white people", is not worse than saying that "white people are not as athletic as black people". Neither means that there aren't intelligent blacks or athletic whites. It only means that historically, a developed intelligence wasn't as important for blacks' survival as it was for whites' survival (because of the type of environment each had to face), and that physical strength was more important for the blacks' survival. The theory of evolution tells us that each species develops those characteristics which are more important to the species survival. But genetically, whites are no different from blacks so that, given the adequate environment, blacks are as capable of a higher intelligence as whites are capable of higher athletic performance. At least that's what I think James Watson - as quoted by Azari - wanted to say. In spite of being white he was dumb enough to state that in the way he did, and he is paying the price thereof...

[Nonc Hilaire]

Saying that, from a biological point of view, "black people are not of equal intelligence to white people", is not worse than saying that "white people are not as athletic as black people". Neither means that there aren't intelligent blacks or athletic whites. It only means that historically, a developed intelligence wasn't as important for blacks' survival as it was for whites' survival (because of the type of environment each had to face), and that physical strength was more important for the blacks' survival. The theory of evolution tells us that each species develops those characteristics which are more important to the species survival. But genetically, whites are no different from blacks so that, given the adequate environment, blacks are as capable of a higher intelligence as whites are capable of higher athletic performance. At least that's what I think James Watson - as quoted by Azari - wanted to say. In spite of being white he was dumb enough to state that in the way he did, and he is paying the price thereof...

Yes, it is. Athleticism can be described from a neutral vantage point. It is a real thing.

IQ is an abstraction which is inferred from various puzzles and quizzes. The only thing IQ tests actually do is correlate well with success in Western academia. Intelligence is a poorly defined syndrome, and it is absolutely not a phenotypical genetic expression.

[Simple Minded]

For the Europeans here, a tip. White Americans have made it their moral duty to throw fairy dust everywhere to obscure and deny the realities of race that are deeply woven in our history and culture. It becomes a parade of airy, insipid “it’s all relative” and a “matter of perspective” clichés (right, SM?). I would suggest rather than dealing with such fatuous stuff, reading up on our history (Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone with the Wind” doesn’t count). Oddly enough, I have frequently found Europeans and Asians with a deeper understanding of our history than most people have here.

If you say so! A bizarre interpretation kmich! I'm not at all sure how you got there from reading my posts.

The trait I find humorous in so many proselytizers, and you have done it yourself (perhaps unwittingly) in the above post, is that, perhaps in the name of exhibiting high mindedness and decrying bigotry, "Freds" often make blanket statements of bigotry, directed against multitudes of people they have never met.

Every individual I have ever met gets to choose what they weave into their own history, culture, and behavior.

If you can find any post of mine where I claim bigotry and/or racism and/or prejudice does not exist in America or in any culture, I'll donate $50 to your favorite charity. Your interpretation of me denying a basic aspect of human nature is your own fabrication.

But hey, that's what makes internet discussion so much fun. Not the intent of the posters, but the interpretation of the readers.

[kmich]

If you can find any post of mine where I claim bigotry and/or racism and/or prejudice does not exist in America or in any culture, I'll donate $50 to your favorite charity. Your interpretation of me denying a basic aspect of human nature is your own fabrication.

But hey, that's what makes internet discussion so much fun. Not the intent of the posters, but the interpretation of the readers.

No, I don't believe that you claim bigotry and/or racism does not exist in America in your posts, you are far too clever for that. It is easier to obscure the whole nasty business with fatuous bromides, cliché's and general bullshit. Of course, as you would likely retort In your own disingenuous way, bullshit is relative to the interpretation of the perceiver.

[kmich]

Saying that, from a biological point of view, "black people are not of equal intelligence to white people", is not worse than saying that "white people are not as athletic as black people". Neither means that there aren't intelligent blacks or athletic whites. It only means that historically, a developed intelligence wasn't as important for blacks' survival as it was for whites' survival (because of the type of environment each had to face), and that physical strength was more important for the blacks' survival. The theory of evolution tells us that each species develops those characteristics which are more important to the species survival.

So for those hundreds of thousands of years after our hominid ancestors migrated from Africa, those who lived in the huts and caves of northern climates and became "white" used their minds, while the ancestors left in Africa had to stay busy running away from wild game and learning how to throw spears and becoming athletic. Got it

[Doc]

Saying that, from a biological point of view, "black people are not of equal intelligence to white people", is not worse than saying that "white people are not as athletic as black people". Neither means that there aren't intelligent blacks or athletic whites. It only means that historically, a developed intelligence wasn't as important for blacks' survival as it was for whites' survival (because of the type of environment each had to face), and that physical strength was more important for the blacks' survival. The theory of evolution tells us that each species develops those characteristics which are more important to the species survival.

So for those hundreds of thousands of years after our hominid ancestors migrated from Africa, those who lived in the huts and caves of northern climates and became "white" used their minds, while the ancestors left in Africa had to stay busy running and away from wild game and learning how to throw spears becoming athletic. Got it

Exactly why I don't like the idea of "Race" It is not the truth and it is not right. It just isn't.

Calling cultural differences "race" is saying "Well there is not much we can do about that"

I had this article thrown at me when I stated elsewhere that there is no such thing as "race"

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the ... -evidence/

After taking a lot of criticism for publishing the article Scientific American published an editors response note here:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/net ... criticism/


Then the next week Scientific American posted an Article supporting Wade here:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/pri ... ite-power/
On the Origin of White Power

By Eric Michael Johnson | May 21, 2014 | Comments26

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

A new book argues race and genetics explain “the rise of the West.” Bad science explains the downfall of its ideas.

"KKK" by Nathaniel Gold

Nicholas Wade is not a racist. In his new book, A Troublesome Inheritance, the former science writer for the New York Times states this explicitly. “It is not automatically racist to consider racial categories as a possible explanatory factor.” He then explains why white people are better because of their genes. In fairness, Wade does not say Caucasians are better per se, merely better adapted (because of their genes) to the modern economic institutions that Western society has created, and which now dominate the world’s economy and culture. In contrast, Africans are better adapted to hot-headed tribalism while East Asians are better adapted to authoritarian political structures. “Looking at the three principal races, one can see that each has followed a different evolutionary path as it adapted to its local circumstances.” It’s not prejudice; it’s science.

The USA is a refutation of the above. It is a nation of immigrants. Much of the time the immigrants themselves have had a hard time adjusting to a new culture. However their children have a reputation of doing very well.

Yes there are problems Most blacks have not fared as well because of Slavery Jim Crow, and segregation. Socialism has become the chains. Does anyone have an idea how hard it is to get off welfare? As soon as someone on welfare gets a job they start losing benefits faster than they can make money working. Which is an awful lot like the way the share cropping worked. Or company towns worked. Note that I am not saying end all benefits. I am saying that Social welfare programs should be based on the idea that people are helped and encouraged to get off them and stand on their own feet as soon as they can.

Telling people as a group that they are genetically inferior to cope is pure and shameful BS. It is why many black children, especially in the inner cities don't study. Why should they? When they are told life is so stacked against them. Which leads to attitudes making it all to self fulfilling. In a different age the people telling them that would be the same people wearing white hoods telling them that they are sub human. I judge The Scientific American, a well known left wing thinking publication, by its publishing this rot to be part of the problem.

[Parodite]

If making money is the only measure of success, integration and general worthyness.. then only 1% of all Americans is worthy. I would say though that this 1% is the worst integrated of all.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

For the Europeans here, a tip. White Americans have made it their moral duty to throw fairy dust everywhere to obscure and deny the realities of race that are deeply woven in our history and culture. It becomes a parade of airy, insipid “it’s all relative” and a “matter of perspective” clichés (right, SM?). I would suggest rather than dealing with such fatuous stuff, reading up on our history (Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone with the Wind” doesn’t count). Oddly enough, I have frequently found Europeans and Asians with a deeper understanding of our history than most people have here.

The American policy since the 1960s has been to drive all racial speech underground in an attempt to smother it. It is okay at the dinner table, but cannot be mentioned in public spaces or most especially by public figures. Christopher Edley, who was a Harvard Law Professor, Dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, President and CEO of the United Negro College Fund, Program Officer in charge of the Government and Law Program at the Ford Foundation, and supporter of black nationalism (for a time at least) was key in shaping this policy:

"I’m convinced that the way you eliminate prejudice and racism in America is not by talking and education and explanation. I think you have to start with a simple cliché‚ like God, motherhood, or country. You have to have something that has a noble ring. And it seems to me that what this country needs is a movement, and I don’t know that this is the appropriate group to sponsor it. This country needs a movement. The way to eliminate prejudice is to smother it. If we could bring about a climate in this country where no one could express a prejuducial viewpoint without being challenged, we would begin to drive prejudice underground. And I submit to you that prejudice unexpressed and unacted upon dies–it doesn’t fester and grow–it dies. Now this is high sounding, and I don’t expect people to agree with such a simplistic solution. But I really believe that you can stamp it out. And if you look at our national figures today, there are certain people who cannot make a prejudicial remark. Many of our Governors, the President, many responsible Senators are precluded in their public lives from ever making a prejudiced public statement, and if they make a statement that sounds like it’s prejudicial, they’re called on it and the next day, as General de Gaulle found, it was necessary to recant. So we don’t allow them to get away with anything....At the citizen level, we say it’s perfectly all right for a bigot to express his bigoted thoughts. If you’re anti-Negro you can speak out against the Negro at supper. The simplicity of the idea I submit to you is the thing that gives it some national potential for changing the climate." From a small conference “to explore the role of education in combating racial discrimination,” Martha’s Vineyard, July 1968, published as Racism and American Education: A Dialogue and Agenda for Action, Foreward by Averell Harriman, Harper and Row, 1970

That Martha's Vineyard conference was called to address the political strategy after the MLK assassination riots.

It is a huge misconception of the situation to confuse American's unwillingness to publicly talk about racial relations as willful ignorance.

That being said, the quality of our ignorance, if given the chance to speak candidly, is an entirely different matter.

[Doc]

If making money is the only measure of success, integration and general worthyness.. then only 1% of all Americans is worthy. I would say though that this 1% is the worst integrated of all.

Blacks are not demanding to be put into the top 1% they are more concerned about bias against them from entering into the middle class. Arguments of different "races" are meant to keep the top 1% in the top 1% by dividing people. Preventing the worthy from rising above a certain level. The British used to do this sort of thing all the time in their colonies and homeland. Nice neat divisions make for nice stable hierarchies and the status quo. Wealthy European socialists are very good at that as well.

[Endovelico]

So for those hundreds of thousands of years after our hominid ancestors migrated from Africa, those who lived in the huts and caves of northern climates and became "white" used their minds, while the ancestors left in Africa had to stay busy running away from wild game and learning how to throw spears and becoming athletic. Got it

You may try and make it sound ridiculous, but just think:

In the colder northern climates you don't just pick your food from trees. You must figure out how to feed yourself, you must figure out how to survive winter, you must develop more sophisticated tools to ensure your survival. The cleverer ones survived, the dumber ones died early. Physical strength was useful but wasn't sufficient. In the warmer African climate, housing wasn't a necessity, food was readily available, predators were abundant and very dangerous. The stronger, faster individuals survived, the weaker ones died very early. If you think that a few thousand years of pruning the less efficient in either situation wouldn't make a difference, you are kidding yourself. Under present conditions these differences will fade away in time.

[Simple Minded]

The American policy since the 1960s has been to drive all racial speech underground in an attempt to smother it. It is okay at the dinner table, but cannot be mentioned in public spaces or most especially by public figures. Christopher Edley, who was a Harvard Law Professor, Dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, President and CEO of the United Negro College Fund, Program Officer in charge of the Government and Law Program at the Ford Foundation, and supporter of black nationalism (for a time at least) was key in shaping this policy:

"I’m convinced that the way you eliminate prejudice and racism in America is not by talking and education and explanation. I think you have to start with a simple cliché‚ like God, motherhood, or country. You have to have something that has a noble ring. And it seems to me that what this country needs is a movement, and I don’t know that this is the appropriate group to sponsor it. This country needs a movement. The way to eliminate prejudice is to smother it. If we could bring about a climate in this country where no one could express a prejuducial viewpoint without being challenged, we would begin to drive prejudice underground. And I submit to you that prejudice unexpressed and unacted upon dies–it doesn’t fester and grow–it dies. Now this is high sounding, and I don’t expect people to agree with such a simplistic solution. But I really believe that you can stamp it out. And if you look at our national figures today, there are certain people who cannot make a prejudicial remark. Many of our Governors, the President, many responsible Senators are precluded in their public lives from ever making a prejudiced public statement, and if they make a statement that sounds like it’s prejudicial, they’re called on it and the next day, as General de Gaulle found, it was necessary to recant. So we don’t allow them to get away with anything....At the citizen level, we say it’s perfectly all right for a bigot to express his bigoted thoughts. If you’re anti-Negro you can speak out against the Negro at supper. The simplicity of the idea I submit to you is the thing that gives it some national potential for changing the climate." From a small conference “to explore the role of education in combating racial discrimination,” Martha’s Vineyard, July 1968, published as Racism and American Education: A Dialogue and Agenda for Action, Foreward by Averell Harriman, Harper and Row, 1970

That Martha's Vineyard conference was called to address the political strategy after the MLK assassination riots.

It is a huge misconception of the situation to confuse American's unwillingness to publicly talk about racial relations as willful ignorance.

That being said, the quality of our ignorance, if given the chance to speak candidly, is an entirely different matter.

Nap,

I don't ever recall this being a national policy, but it does work well in lots of locations, businesses, churches, sports teams, neighborhoods, common projects, occupation, etc. all over this country or the world. has for centuries. Perhaps it could summed up as a common culture?

Seems easy enough to chose to either get along with people or to get pissed off. Focus on either the common ground or on differences. Choices made by people who actually interact face to face.

I know, I'm a dinosaur. I've known it for decades.

The more interesting question in my simple mind, is why is the phenomena (both good and bad) so localized? Black Fred & White Joe get along just fine in these locations, but not in other locations. Might it have something to do with Joe and Fred's attitudes towards themselves and other people?

Politics and culture seem local to me. Attitude even more localized.

[manolo]

Alex,

What city were you in when you were a college employment advisor?

SM,

Anonymity . One of my web weaknesses is veering to the confessional.

Alex.

[manolo]

Oddly enough, I have frequently found Europeans and Asians with a deeper understanding of our history than most people have here.

kmich,

We have all the old stains and have mostly come to terms. There is a thing called 'American exceptionalism' which sounds like the plea of a teenager to me.

Also, it always easier to look at the stains of another. We do a fair bit of that here on the forum.

Alex.

[kmich]

It is a huge misconception of the situation to confuse American's unwillingness to publicly talk about racial relations as willful ignorance.

That being said, the quality of our ignorance, if given the chance to speak candidly, is an entirely different matter.

American racial attitudes are complex, often contradictory, and filled with a variety of feelings. Ignorance of racial realities and lack of insight into racial attitudes are rarely conscious or willful. If they were, they would be far easier to address. Many people simply do not want to go there for a variety of reasons, much of which they fail to have any insight into.

I've been there, and continue to need reminders. After the Kitty Hawk race riots of 1972, the Navy started what was called "racial awareness seminars." The one I went to was conducted by an African American Chief Boatswain's Mate from Anniston, Alabama. I said all the nice thing white people are suppose to say about race relations, all the things about dealing with people as people, and so on. He got in my face and told me I was full of sh!t. He didn't stop.

But you know, he was right. I had no idea of the depth of my own ignorance of racial issues and of my own attitudes. That Chief's relentless confrontations totally changed the way I understood race and my own attitudes about it. I was a hard, white nut to crack, and like most of us, a heavy hammer was needed to open me up, but it was one of the most valuable life experiences I have had. That is probably why I can be a dick on this issue. I found out later that the Chief had had an older brother killed by the Klan.

[NapLajoieonSteroids]

So for those hundreds of thousands of years after our hominid ancestors migrated from Africa, those who lived in the huts and caves of northern climates and became "white" used their minds, while the ancestors left in Africa had to stay busy running away from wild game and learning how to throw spears and becoming athletic. Got it

You may try and make it sound ridiculous, but just think:

In the colder northern climates you don't just pick your food from trees. You must figure out how to feed yourself, you must figure out how to survive winter, you must develop more sophisticated tools to ensure your survival. The cleverer ones survived, the dumber ones died early. Physical strength was useful but wasn't sufficient. In the warmer African climate, housing wasn't a necessity, food was readily available, predators were abundant and very dangerous. The stronger, faster individuals survived, the weaker ones died very early. If you think that a few thousand years of pruning the less efficient in either situation wouldn't make a difference, you are kidding yourself. Under present conditions these differences will fade away in time.

There are myriads of problems with this.

-If it were really eugenic pruning, there'd be much more diversity then there is now.

-Homo Sapien Sapiens have never been particularly isolated or sedentary. Long distance migratory patterns and inter-mixing is a very common theme up to the beginning of agriculture.

-Mate selection (or even getting the chance to mate) is a very capricious thing.

-Even if mating correlated with adaption to the surrounding environment it would only be done to minimums. You don't need to be all that fast or smart (both as presently measured) to succeed in those climes mentioned. In fact it may be preferable to be rather mediocre. As a rule, positive and negative outliers, for both body and mind, are treated suspiciously or are generally unwelcome.

-The delineation between groups is vague, arbitrary and is poor at conceptualizing. Diseases often associated with one area or people are often found in other areas at high percentages (Sickle cell anemia comes to mind.) Is it then an "African disease" or a "Mediterranean" one or an "Ashkenazim Jewish" one? How is that decided? Who does it belong to more and what are we to gain by assigning it to just one group?

-You mention a lack of housing; but my understanding is that housing has always been a pretty universal trait in Africa with the exception of hunter gatherers. Hunter gatherers are not only located in Africa of course.

-In general, the differences are not that pronounced. West African elite sprinters and East African distance runners may beat out all others due to some sort of genetic pressure, but this is a cross section of the top of the top outliers.

-Most differences of IQ average [if we are to trust IQ testing to begin with] are due to a lack of acculturation, at least here in the US. When corrected for, the average white and black American will score around 100 and fall within the 85 to 114 range. There is no reason to doubt that this is generally true in all post-industrialized societies (or is presently capable in most of the rest.)

Now if were were talking about maybe the San people or the Australian aboriginals or other groups that seem either closely tied to the origin of the homo sapien sapien species or long isolated from it; maybe I'd entertain that there is an argument for a change in cognitive ability there; but this is dealing with a very small segment of humanity and doesn't seem to reflect most of the planet.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Did the DA deliberately misinform the grand jury?

Gw4nQd6lryw

[Doc]

Did the DA deliberately misinform the grand jury?

Brown was facing Wilson each time he was shot. So he was not running away when shot. Plus this is from MSNBC. Every left wing pundit in the country has been trying to keep the story alive.

Gw4nQd6lryw