Compared to their peers, almost any member of the black intellectual class will expend an inordinate amount of energy on activities pertaining to racial issues.This phenomenon spans the entirety of the political and academic domains, including the eponymous Raina Kelley and Ellis Cose of Newsweek, Charles M. Blow of the NYT, all these other opinion columnists, this conservative Townhall.com columnist, conservative Thomas Sowell's recent book on the genesis of black culture, right-leaning websites like Booker Rising ("news site for black moderates and black conservatives"), black mathematicians, black professors like Cornel West and Skip Gates, black lawyers, any blog written by a black person (a reference usually included in the heading), and Michael Steele as the GOP chairman.
And just for fun, here's a clearly intelligent black woman with a Master's in math from Penn. The main core of her work is in ethnomathematics, including this recent tutorial on teaching geometry using black hairstyles.
Here's a quick gauge of how often this occurs. In honor of Michelle and Barack Obama, two embodiments of this law, 19 out of 45 total black professors (over 40%) at Harvard are faculty in the Department of African-American studies.
I'd wager this occurs primarily as a result of white liberals not only accepting, but actively promoting black racialism.
[Ms. Kelley's most recent article on the need for affirmative action inspired this post.]
Update (2/24/10 3:19 AM): I've slightly changed the wording of the rule so that it applies to more general cases not limited to pundits and social commentators.
46 comments:
That fraction of blacks actually capable of making a modest contribution to intellectual life instead uses such brainpower as they possess to brood over the white man's unfairness. Their inability to get over themselves is a sad, pitiful thing to witness.
This "talented tenth" would be better advised to use their time and energy in preparation for the inevitable day when whites--for whatever reason, be it war, economic collapse, or long-overdue disgust--will no longer be willing and able to sustain the government redistribution apparatus that keeps black people fed.
I think you are being unfair to Thomas Sowell here. Just by looking at titles, I would suggest less than a quarter of his works are about race. The rest are not socialist postmodern fluff and certainly contribute a positive value to the sum total of knowledge.
"19 out of 45 total black professors (over 40%) at Harvard are faculty in the Department of African-American studies."
Notice that means there are only 26 real black professors at Harvard, a school that can get the best of the best and still was only able to find 26 blacks out of some 50 million in the USA to fill its soft quota. In order to have the percentage it wanted it had to put another 19 in make work positions.
"I think you are being unfair to Thomas Sowell here. Just by looking at titles, I would suggest less than a quarter of his works are about race. The rest are not socialist postmodern fluff and certainly contribute a positive value to the sum total of knowledge."
I agree. But let's say 25% of his stuff concerns race. Look at any white economist. How much of their work concerns race?
Sowell is surely a legitimate thinker and intellectual. He isn't in the same category as the others listed, but the rule still applies to him (especially considering him relative to his political peers).
"That fraction of blacks actually capable of making a modest contribution to intellectual life"
It seems to me that at the tail end of the distribution, the proportion of blacks becomes shockingly small.
Let's suppose that you need an IQ of 150 to be a bona fide intellectual and only 5% of such people are suitable in age and temperament for doing so.
In that case, and assuming that IQ is normally distributed, one would expect just 1 or 2 bona fide black intellectuals in the entire United States.
So maybe there are enough black intellectuals for one department in one university. But that's about it.
Which is why so many black so-called intellectuals are doing stuff like african-american studies and critical race theory. There just aren't enough competent blacks to stand on their own merits.
At the same time, universities are desparate to hire black professors. One obvious solution is to create soft fields in which folks who aren't so smart can pretend to be intellectuals.
Under the Wiki entry for Matriarchy I found the following gem:
"Friedrich Engels, among others studying historical groups, formed the notion that some contemporary primitive peoples did not grasp the link between sexual intercourse and pregnancy.[citation needed] Research indicated that sexual intercourse occurred from early ages and pregnancy only occurred much later, seemingly unrelated to the sexual activity."
Sounds to me like it is saying that they were doing all the little kids so they couldn't make the connection to why women got pregnant.
Intellectual?
The average black economist is probably asked to speak, talk, and write about racial issues much, much more than the average white economist. It usually doesn't occur to the media to ask white people in general about racial issues that they aren't directly involved in. Blacks and other minorities are asked about such things all the time.
Well, they should ignore social pressures to focus on racial issues as well as their own uncontrollable urges.
I imagine this plays out kind of like the EBD fight. The black man can't control his urges to prove the superiority of blacks and instead of a low class thug attempting to fight an old white man, it's a black intellectual attempting to prove that blacks are equal and special in all areas of life. Both silly venture, and ultimately futile. EBD will beat your ass, or HBD will.
lliBlack people are obessed with race. Just going on youtube and looking around black channels will tell you that. Every black channel I've looked at has talked about race and many are dedicated to it.
Black people have the mindset that if you get an education you have to dedicate yourself to lifting up all other black people. They also believe that most black people, but not themselves, are "unconcious" or uneducated about black issues and need to be enlightened. These professors are apart of that enlightenment.
You lost me once you included Sowell as an example. Less than 25% is hardly anything to make a big deal about. It's one thing to complain about blacks talking about race in a disingenuous or intellectually dishonest way. But in Sowell's case, he doesn't do that. So you just have an issue with blacks talking race period, even if its less than 25% of their output and even if its written incredibly intelligently, honestly and from a conservative viewpoint. So if Sowell is lumped in with the bad crowd, what IS acceptable racial talk by black intellectuals. 5% of total output? Or maybe its only acceptable if he repeats pro-white nerd HBD talking points, the only acceptable conclusions to any issue in your mind?
And you are a white person who does almost nothing but obsess about race, with way less intelligence and logic than Sowell. And almost every site you read and all your idols are whites who predominately write about race. Isn't that kind of hypocritical?
Anonymous@(2/22/2010 3:53 PM) writes:
"You lost me once you included Sowell as an example. "
I agree that Sowell was a very bad
example to include, particularly
because, as a conservative Black
intellectual, he'd likely be asked
about race more than, well, just about
anyone else, so unless he took a vow of
silence on the topic he'd have to write
about race quite a bit.
The rest of your post is rather
juvenile, and in bad faith. Don't you
think you could skip the ad hominems
next time and just point out where you
think OneSTDV is wrong?
Anonymous@(2/22/2010 11:48 AM) writes:
"The average black economist is probably asked to speak, talk, and write about racial issues much, much more than the average white economist."
That's exactly why I think Sowell has
spent as much time as he has on the
topic, and why it is unfair to include
him with the others listed.
While I agree with the general point
about so called Black intellectuals,
there are of course exceptions, and
Thomas Sowell is one of them. A little
more surgical precision in the
criticism would be welcome.
"And you are a white person who does almost nothing but obsess about race, with way less intelligence and logic than Sowell. And almost every site you read and all your idols are whites who predominately write about race. Isn't that kind of hypocritical?
"
good call. pwned.
>good call. pwned.<
No, not even remotely a good call. We live in a society in which color-obsessed black people incessantly bitch about whitey while they wait in line for their next check. Bad enough when it’s Lakeesha and her six paint chip-munching crack babies down in the Projects, but anybody with intelligence and self-respect finds it far more galling to hear a polysyllabic version of the same damn thing from some Ivy League race hustler who only got where he is at the expense of dozens of better qualified whites.
Either way, whites are forced to pay for all this nonsense, whether through transfer-of-wealth schemes or racial preferences. So why the hell shouldn’t OneSTDV and others in the Steveopshere make an issue out of it, since it’s coming out of their hide?
Play right along with anonymous’ smear if it makes you feel smugly superior, but in the end your moral posturing will make no difference. The rotten system that has been imposed on us can’t last much longer. In the dystopian root-hog-or-die world that will be the end result of HBD-denial, a degree in “black studies” will count for less than nothing.
Where in human history has there been a class of black intellectuals? This category simply did not exist until the Land of the Free revamped its laws and converted the overwhelming majority to both liberal values and PC etiquette.I saw this developing between the turbulent Sixties and the crime-ridden nineties.In 30 years even Mississippi became egalitarian, a task made easier by their tail end IQ status among states. Watch TV now and imagine young whites observing only positive images of blacks. Distortion? Who knows the real truth except intelligent older whites who still read once in awhile.
By winning this cultural battle liberals now co-opt the very corporate enemy they despised earlier.It is corporations that spew multicultural garbage and tout blacks as reliable professionals in every field.With a huge army of black teachers in America's public elementary schools, children are trapped in classrooms where race may underlie every topic and real critical analysis is simply absent. Brainwashing is the usual result.
Sabril is right about an IQ of 150 ruling out most blacks, but a far more reasonable cutoff would be 125. The small cadre of blacks inhabiting this upper range would be sucked up by the Ivy league alone, but we forget about the 100-125 category, which could be where most of the new black elite lie.Here a good verbal facility can mask real limitations and the usual special treatment by liberal colleagues will take care of the rest.Do not expect many blacks in places like biochemistry or physics!
I have rarely in fifty plus years as a professor and high school teacher ever met a black who read widely. Reading seems foreign to their lifestyle. At UCLA I sponsored a black student from Louisiana whose job was professor of physics at Southern University. He was a wonderful guy and I really tried hard to help him get a doctorate, but once he went home to do the study, he simply could not get organized to execute it.Certainly he knew much basic physics, which was a revelation for me. Secondly, I gave five talks at Harvard's Grad. School of Education. After one on the values of science, a black grad student, the only one in an audience of about 200. ran up to me and peppered me with some very thoughtful questions. That, too, was a revelation and very memorable experience.These men seem quite exceptional in the general scheme of things but now we behave as if it is absolutely natural and normal for blacks to inhabit the upper reaches of academia. Alas, it is an artifice of AA and the liberal mindset.
Tom Sowell is a wonderful scholar and man of good character. The obsession with race that perverts any discussion with whites is not so severe in Sowell. In his book called Conquests and Cultures, he treats the British, the Africans, the Slavs, and Western Hemisphere Indians. He is thoroughly scholarly in the discussion of slavery and its variations across the globe. For example, he points out the terrible record of Brazil as an insatiable consumer of slaves.Brazil's treatment of slaves was one of the very worst as millions were handed death sentences and replaced quickly by fresh bodies.Brazil was the last nation to abolish slavery-waiting until 1888.Young white liberals shouting about American racism knew little or nothing about that universal practice.
I cannot find a Sowell comment about race and genetics, however. As excellent a scholar as he is, he seems to be an environmentalist like most social science types.Iam not sure how he would react to the facts of the case, so to speak. All differences that count are statistical, of course, and he is living proof of that.With Sowell as the ultimate black intellectual yet unable to break through the genetics barrier, Iam not very optimistic about black enlightenment.
This was an excellent post. I enjoy watching these accurate generalizations codified into Laws.
Inspired by this post, I came up with Planet Grok's Law of HBD Blogs. We can share the brunt of annnoyed HBDers, I guess. But I for one call for the discovery of more such Laws.
""And you are a white person who does almost nothing but obsess about race, with way less intelligence and logic than Sowell. And almost every site you read and all your idols are whites who predominately write about race. Isn't that kind of hypocritical?"
Ahh the hypocrite invective! The most useless critique available. Right up there with "you're a nerd!"
"Or maybe its only acceptable if he repeats pro-white nerd HBD talking points, the only acceptable conclusions to any issue in your mind?"
Oh wait, you used that too. Are you going to make fun of my bookbag, sneakers, and lunchbox next?
This post wasn't actually an explicit condemnation of blacks only talking about race (though almost everyone took it as such).
It was merely an observation that almost every black intellectual spends an inordinate amount of time discussing black racial issues. White and Asian scholars spend almost no time doing so.
Since it's only an observation about group behavior, that's why I included Sowell, even though much of his discussion of race I'd probably agree with. I could have written a post specifically about Ivy League quota profs like Gates and West (though I must admit West has a rather hypnotically academic manner of speaking) and criticizing them for their rhetoric. Instead, I merely was observing this general rule without making a judgment (though that math woman was pretty absurd).
"It was merely an observation that almost every black intellectual spends an inordinate amount of time discussing black racial issues. White and Asian scholars spend almost no time doing so."
This could indicate that not much is amiss. If we assume that blacks have some competency problem which prevents them from excelling at the highest levels academically, then this explains the relative dearth of blacks in fields outside african american studies. The field is valid because there are similar departments for other ethnic groups. Harvard has separate departments dedicated to celtic culture, germanic culture, near eastern culture, altaic culture etc. Given that all these foreign groups get a department and given that none of their cultures are as relevant to american life as african american culture is, it's perfectly fair for there to be an african american studies department. Blacks are highly represented in that field because they would be likely to have an innate interest in it, they have an edge since they can speak from personal experience, and their opinions are better received because others depend on blacks for information in this field.
>This could indicate that not much is amiss. If we assume that blacks have some competency problem which prevents them from excelling at the highest levels academically, then this explains the relative dearth of blacks in fields outside african american studies.<
Are you always this incoherent? If blacks seldom have what it takes to be good professors in fields such as philosophy or physics, then the the same objection applies to their participation in any academic field, including "African American Studies." But then, such courses are in fact already so dumbed down as to make their existence pointless.
The "talented tenth" should learn something useful, dignified, and within their intellectual grasp. The world can always use good dentists or welders.
"Black intellectual work" = a contradiction in terms.
"The field is valid because there are similar departments for other ethnic groups."
LMAO! The invention of bullshit intellectually vapid "studies" departments for every other grievance-ridden racial and ethnic group (and women, as well) somehow validates the existence of bullshit, intellectually vapid African-American studies departments! They all validate each other in a giant circle jerk of mutually reinforcing whitey hate!
Tell you what. Let's have a clean sweep, and tomorrow every professor of ANYTHING "studies" will be thrown out into the street and forced to seek gainful employment. Net loss to the advancement of human knowledge, ZERO.
Agree 100% with the OP. Blacks of every social class are race-obsessed, and our culture encourages them to be so. People like Sowell are not off the hook just because they offer the "right" perspective. I think the point is that the "color-blind" society is a pipe-dream delusion that whites had better disabuse themselves of sooner rather than later.
"This post wasn't actually an explicit condemnation of blacks only talking about race (though almost everyone took it as such)"
FWIW, I do condemn blacks for being race-obsessed even though I myself think and write about racial issues quite a lot.
No, I don't think it's hypocritical. It's like the difference (in the late 90s) between (1) people who were obsessed with internet stocks and who were investing thousands of dollars in pimentoloaf.com; and (2) people who were watching the internet stock bubble, observing the ridiculousness of the whole thing, and saying that pimentoloaf.com stock is overpriced.
Both groups can be said to be "obsessed with internet stocks," but the similarity ends there. The first group is caught up in the hysteria while the second group is actually criticizing the hysteria.
So when I say that black so-called intellectuals are obsessed with race, it would be more accurate to say that they are caught up in all the politically correct nonsense about race flying around these days.
"Ahh the hypocrite invective! The most useless critique available. Right up there with "you're a nerd!" "
Yes because pointing out intellectual inconsistency aka hypocrisy is SUCH useless critique. :-D Translation: you have no valid response. I'll take that as a win, thank you.
And calling you a nerd is not invective. It's just what you are. It explains why you do what you do. You are an advocate for your people, white nerds, much like Sharpton is an advocate for American blacks. Pointing out the demographic you are a part of and advocate for is not the same as insulting you. You fancy yourself a civil rights leader and advocate for your fellow white nerds.
And don't deny you're a nerd. You are. You have a lot to be ashamed of, particular your poor attempts at logic and intellectual inconsistencies, but don't be ashamed of being a nerd. There are plenty of decent ones. If anything I'm insulting nerds by including you as one
OneSTDV provides a valuable forum for discussion of various HBD issues, including race.Rarely does he engage in anything resembling hypocrisy. His opinions are presented directly and honestly and usually have a scientific foundation.To be called a "nerd" is meant to be demeaning but in my experience the best and brightest are nerds. I guess that a slick social-rolling nerd is probably not called a nerd among pop culture leftist True Believers.Anyway, nerdism is what blacks desparately advance as the proof of their "coming of age" intellectually.They crow about their wondrous Ph.D's endlessly.It can't be too bad.
OneSTDV is perfectly right about the obsession with race but Planetgrok may be unfair in belittling HBD'ers who must fight for a fair society while the academic Left and their public school acolytes brainwash children and adolescents in the mythology of equality and the priveged epistemic status of minority or oppressed peoples.
That the HBD'ers discuss race intelligently is a necessary counterweight to the diatribes of obsessive blacks ranting online about "racism." They have rendered that word meaningless by using it indiscriminately. We are fully justified in opposing the slander and lies that liberals use daily in their "discourses."
As I often mention, the book by Paul Gross and Norm Levitt called Higher Superstition nails the crackpot nature of much black "scholarship." Lies and exaggerations about science as part of black heritage are itemized and refuted. Prolific black authors like Hunter Adams and Ivan Van Sertima are discussed at length and utterly demolished. Sound "racist?" The co-authors are liberals who believe that postmodern attacks on science are misguided and dangerous. They sadly find oceans of nonsense in black and other minority "scholarship." Subjectivism is not the road to truth!
Reading Gross and Levitt will be a rare treat for all of you. They detest the plunge into pseudoscience and propaganda by the Left, but they assiduously avoid any discussion of HBD. This glaring omission is excusable because they are breaking new territory by critizing the epistemological basis for much of the leftist attack on science and math.They wish not to be a bigger target. However, they ruthlessly expose the quackery of the Left and leave it to rational readers to decide which route to truth is better.
High Comedy! :D
"OneSTDV provides a valuable forum for discussion of various HBD issues, including race.Rarely does he engage in anything resembling hypocrisy. His opinions are presented directly and honestly and usually have a scientific foundation...
...HBD'ers who must fight for a fair society while the academic Left and their public school acolytes brainwash children and adolescents in the mythology of equality and the priveged epistemic status of minority or oppressed peoples.
That the HBD'ers discuss race intelligently is a necessary counterweight to the diatribes of obsessive blacks ranting online about "racism." They have rendered that word meaningless by using it indiscriminately. We are fully justified in opposing the slander and lies that liberals use daily in their "discourses."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Is this parody? The incredible self-importance, the visions of martrydom and messianic mission! Too hilarious to be true, especially the part about OneSTD being intelligent! Good stuff Cornelius.
Cornelius, dude, HBD is a venue for frustrated white nerds to commiserate while trying to prop up their self esteem for their lives not adding up to the great destiny they feel they deserved due to their so called great intelligence. Stop trying to build it up into some grand messianic mission. It's nerds whose lives didn't add up to what they wanted and need both excuses, scapegoating and a support group grounded in scientific sophistry to cope with that.
Every group deserves their academic excuse-making and support groups. That's why it doesn't bug me when blacks do ethnic studies and white nerds do HBD, which in prinicple is exactly the same concept for white nerds (don't fool yourself, you have no moral high ground, it is the exact same thing).
Cornelius Troost
(awesome name, btw)
I'm not trying to belittle anyone.
I'm just observing a phenomenon and presenting it in a fun manner, because otherwise I'd be grumpy all the time, and I do not like being grumpy.
To me, the HBD community's near-constant focus on blacks is much like swatting mosquitoes while a huge demographic hippo is charging toward you. I understand that you and others may disagree with me on this and that's ok.
***Cornelius, dude, HBD is a venue for frustrated white nerds to commiserate while trying to prop up their self esteem for their lives not adding up to the great destiny they feel they deserved due to their so called great intelligence.***
Joe,
Are you serious? It is the denial of HBD that leads to inappropriate blaming of people or institutions for inequality. For instance, the success of the Chinese in Malaysia, the success of Jews in various places, the Indians in Uganda and Fiji. When you deny the reality of HBD, you have to blame unfairness or oppression by the more successful group. This creates massive resentment and targets the wrong causes.
Why do you object to people presenting this side of the argument? Do you think HBD is simply incorrect, or do you object to people discussing it?
Joe,
May you and your entire family be slaughtered by Communists.
Then when you try to defend yourself, I'll make fun of you for your messianic delusions of grandour. How dare you think it's somehow your "mission" to defeat Communism?
You are just a loser who deserves to slowly die in a Gulag.
After all, if you object to OneSTDV fighting Communism on an intellectual level, why shouldn't I object to you fighting Communism on a physical level?
What right do you have to defend yourself against any Equality Lovers who decide you have too much property, and thus it would be a good idea to kill you and take it?
According to your disgusting Worldview, you have no right to defend yourself whatsoever.
OneSTDV very clearly suggested that black intellectuals are obsessed with race. This is a fact that can, of course, lead to an enlightening discussion if relatively honest, sincere people share their views. I spent many years in academia and always enoyed the process of mutual enlightenment from seminars and even my guest lectures with feedback. However, here we have to endure various and sundry malcontents of liberal persuasion. They are full of dismay and anger that not all agree with liberal mythology so they resort to castigating of the cheapest kind. Civility and good manners were never learned by them.
@ Joe:
"And calling you a nerd is not invective. It's just what you are. It explains why you do what you do. You are an advocate for your people, white nerds, much like Sharpton is an advocate for American blacks."
A) I love how you equate high intelligence white males with nerds. That says something about how sheltered you must be from those of high intelligence (did someone get rejected from Yale?).
B) Should I apologize that high intelligence white people built Western Civilization. It just so happens I'm a member of that group. If I were a member of another group, I'd still have the same opinions regarding high-IQ white males.
And the bolded statement might be one of the most absurd comments ever written on this site, as Sharpton's perspective derives entirely from a self-motivated racialism, while my views derive from a disinterested understanding of how HBD impacts societal progress and development (I also respect Asian accomplishments and advocate limited immigration from those countries, implying my views aren't entirely selfish).
Basically what you're advocating is that whites as a whole and high intelligent individuals (those not benefiting from the multicult), just sit back and let the PC police trample all over them. Let their children be ignored in school, let their jobs be taken by the incompetent, their income be taken away and given to the lazy, let their social legitimacy and cultural vibrancy be expunged from the record of society and finally let their country morph into Brazil.
We get it. You want the West to die instead of acknowledging HBD. I'd hypothesize why you feel this way (I think it's pretty obvious), but I'll refrain from going there.
But I will give you a singular honor. You're the first commenter to be banned from my site!! I will delete all further comments from you without even reading them.
Go away and take all your alter-egos (Gil, JIGG, when you just use Anonymous) with you.
You wrote:
"And the bolded statement might be one of the most absurd comments ever written on this site, as Sharpton's perspective derives entirely from a self-motivated racialism, while my views derive from...
self-motivated racialism. The exact same thing. Plain and simple. The only absurd thing is your attempt to claim anything otherwise like "disinterested" motivations. too funny.
not only are you not bright, you're delusional.
I love how you equate high intelligence white males with nerds. That says something about how sheltered you must be from those of high intelligence
i don't equate high intelligence with nerds. i equate YOU with nerds.
i have high intelligence, am much much smarter than you as evidenced by how i always pick apart your faulty logic, yet i am not a nerd. you on the other hand i do not think at all have high intelligence, yet you are quite a nerd. don't flatter yourself by lumping yourself with us high intelligence people.
After all, if you object to OneSTDV fighting Communism on an intellectual level, why shouldn't I object to you fighting Communism on a physical level?
i have no problem with fighting communism. but no one here is a fighter or culture warrior or anything, just angry crybabies who use scientific sophistry to make excuses for themselves and make the same case over and over day after day to assuage their fragile egos: WHITE NERDS ROCK!!!
That's all HBD comes down to: I'M A WHITE NERD, AND WHITE NERDS ROCK. PLEASE LOVE ME!!
"Warriors against communism" HAHAHAH
@ Joe/Gil/JIGG,
You're quite a sad individual. But, unfortunately :(, that's all we'll be hearing from you. You are now banned from any further commenting. Any response to this or any other post will be immediately deleted without me even reading it.
(And no, the obvious attempts at goading me into juvenile tactics won't work.)
-OneSTDV
And on a related note, the main page for CNN.com just featured an article on the great "job creator" Van Jones:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/23/jealous.naacp.van.jones/
Well this comment thread sure went to hell in a handbasket.
The insane feminist and misandrist tag team of Lady Raine and Denise Romano have done a number on my blog too. But I haven't banned them yet. Their diatribes highlight their insanity.
But, Joe, if OneSTDV and the rest of us are so much less intelligent than the self-proclaimed awesomeness that is yourself, how could we ever possibly grasp the blinding truth of your comments, freighted as they are with insights so numinous that just to ponder them makes my face hurt? As the possessor of such godlike apprehension, surely you must grasp the paradox at work here?
Help us to understand our lack of understanding, Joe! We are but flecks of dandruff on your swollen frontal lobes!
Oh, wait. You've just been banned, haven't you? My bad.
Joe, how can you support using violence to fight Communists but not words?
It would be like if I said it's wrong for OneSTDV to argue with you, but it would be okay if he cut your throat with a dull knife.
You are clearly a worthless liar.
@ kudzu bob:
After I explicitly banned him at 10:53, he posted two more long comments, with much the same tone and smugness that he exhibited in previous conversations. I deleted them, but you've heard it before from this clown.
I greatly enjoyed your acerbic rejoinders. That's how one should respond to people who offer nothing but name-calling, shallow assertions that "you're just wrong and you make no sense!!", and blustering about their own supposed merit.
This is all very amusing, however sooner or later everyone including white people will have to realize it's basically a war.
The "arguments" really don't matter.
You will be missed almost as much as a suppurating dose of drug-resistant clap, comma-splice boy.
Heh, is it hypocritical to upbraid those who are upbraiding others for being race men as race men themselves? Is this kind of next level meta-hypocrisy or do the two levels cancel one another out? ;P
Seriously though, if there was some kind of discussion about the White HBD folks from ethnic race studies people, who basically said that they were obsessed with race and viewed things through a narrow racial dimension (as well they often do) and criticised them for this, I hope there would be a symmetrical "OMG you hipocrits!" response.
But if not, why not? Because some would see one as legitimate and the other as not, though they do the same thing. So how to resolve this conflict and create a standard of equal treatment that is not simply based on whether a group has power or not, or whether a group is a minority or not? Ultimately the solution is to ground things in evidence and impartial scientific method and to avoid anything that is impressionistic or special. Ultimately the solution should not enshrine bias and seeing things from a particular racial perspective as a foundation of discipline which is sealed away to a certain extent. Whether HBD folks or African American Studies folks (to take two examples) meet this standard better is the question.
I disagree with your inclusion of Thomas Sowell here.
He does not, unlike the leftist charlatans, make his blackness a credential. That is the material distinction.
He is what might be called a comparative social economist - as opposed to math. econ. - whose field necessarily includes race and culture. So, although he is not an HBD-er, he is no different than they are in studying race and differences. Similarly Sowell, like HBD-ers, is writing about race from a reactive and not an affirmative position. He, like they (y'all), is responding to the incessant left-liberal critique of America.
Regarding your main post topic - It is important to consider that who is regarded as a black public intellectual in the first place is largely a function of their making their race their leading credential. I find it sad that there are so many intelligent, substance-focused blacks who are completely ignored and unknown (to the general public), because they are simply knowledgeable in their fields.
The same is true in the arts. Take poetry, for example. How much media attention is given to Amiri Baraka or Langston Hughes or Tupac Shakur? How much to a true poet, Derek Walcott?
The other night I saw a show about Einstein, and two of the talking head astro/physics commenters were black, one American, one British. And I can never help thinking that it is refreshing to see blacks speaking as, well, simply normal people who are enthused and intelligent about their subject. (Is there any subject in which one could less possibly "keep it real" than advanced mathematical astro-physics?) Another such example I found striking was a young black guy on a show about old railroad enthusiaists. 100% about his love of old trains, not there to give "the black man's perspective."
I believe that what strikes me most in these instances, is the impression of their happiness, their freedom.
Black race-grievance-consciousness is the worst of "mind-forg'd manacles," a perpetual clog upon their mental freedom and happiness unless shed.
Yes because pointing out intellectual inconsistency aka hypocrisy is SUCH useless critique. :-D Translation: you have no valid response. I'll take that as a win, thank you.
First, the charge was untrue. You projected your thinking ("people shouldn't think or write 'too much' about race so anyone who points out that blacks are thinking or writing about race 'too much' is casting aspersions on blacks") in place of the author's position ("blacks think and write about race a lot").
OneSTDV made an observation about blacks that happens to be true of himself, then you projected your negative valuations of that behavior into the discussion and called him a hypocrite.
Second, the charge of hypocrisy (not a synonym for intellectual inconsistency, btw) is a classic logical fallacy. A car thief who says stealing is wrong is not proven incorrect by someone pointing out he's a hypocrite; he's a correct hypocrite (assuming for the purposes of argument that stealing is wrong).
So your whole critique is based on error founded on error. It wasn't really worth the time I gave it (like the errors of most 5th graders), but your smug sense of security in your fallacious arguments prompted me to waste time on you anyway.
So no, don't take it as a win. Take it as a loss, after which you humiliated yourself. You're like a prosecutor trying to charge someone with a crime for an act he did not do, and which wouldn't be a crime even if he did. Epic fail.
And calling you a nerd is not invective. It's just what you are.
I see. So, when I call black intellectuals negro frauds, it isn't invective, it's just what they are. When I call a Jewish lawyer "Shylock" it isn't an invective, it's just what he is.
It explains why you do what you do. You are an advocate for your people, white nerds, much like Sharpton is an advocate for American blacks.
Sissy. You missed your chance for "intellectual consistency," because you're a wuss. They aren't "American blacks," they're negros. Doesn't matter what they call themselves, that's what they are.
You have a lot to be ashamed of, particular your poor attempts at logic and intellectual inconsistencies, but don't be ashamed of being a nerd.
Did you go to college? Shouldn't that be "particularly," or "in particular"? And, isn't a "poor attempt at [...] intellectual inconsistencies" something to be more proud, than ashamed of?
I would certainly rather all my attempts at "intellectual inconsistencies" be poor ones, but that's just me.
I just want to add that OneSTDV might be the worst choice of handle for an HBD blogger, ever. :)
Cornelius Troost is a fabulist, albeit a quite interesting one: inbetween working for the L.A.P.D vice squad as an on-hand academic pornography expert, and giving 'harvard lectures' to impart his racial expertise, it's fair to say he leads a quite adventurous life --- sort of like the 'most interesting man in the world' commercial for Dos Equis!
I'd say he and no one less than Phineas J. Whoopee are the only comparable worldly dudes!
It's instructive to compare this issue with women and gay intellectuals.
Some (most?) work on general issues, and don't feel called to dwell on fefminist/gay issues.
Perhaps the analoguous "law" is that, where female or gay intellectuals get into feminist or gay issues, they rarely venture beyond these issues?
Post a Comment