Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Real Conversation About Race
Many on the left claim we don’t have the courage to have a real conversation about race. No, we just don’t want to have a conversation on your terms. And therein lies the conundrum. Back in June, I reached out to an African-American friend to have a real conversation about George Floyd and race. While it was a pleasant conversation, with no acrimony, I felt we didn’t move the needle much. I got the sense he felt tokenized – that is, I was only reaching out to him because he was “my black friend.” I also got the sense he had a tough time moving past the left talking points.
So I would love to have a real conversation about race with someone of a different race. I sincerely would like to hear how you really feel, the pain you feel. For all progress we have made on race, I acknowledge we have more work to do. I have heard many African Americans still feel like they don’t belong in this country. That’s horrible, and I truly want to listen and understand. At the same time, I am uninterested in a conversation where:
- The other party feels like I am reaching just to “show how much I care.”
- The purpose is to make me (as a white male) guilty and gain absolvement for my sins.
- Mobs, stealing, and violence are excused if not glorified.
- The goal is to further segregate the races (e.g., African Americans should only live with other African Americans).
- The topic of anti-semitism amongst black leadership is off-limits. As someone who is Jewish (and honestly even if not), I cannot simply ignore the rabid antisemitism of some black leaders. It infuriates me that one kind of hatred is tolerated and excused while the other is the scourge of the earth. The relationship between Jews and African Americans is troubled, with both sides at fault, and we need to be honest about that.
- Criticism of the BLM movement is off-limits.
- Institutional racism is a given.
To be clear, I am very open to hearing how I might be unintentionally inconsiderate and insensitive; criticism that there are things I just don’t understand is very much open for discussion. That’s the whole point of this conversation. Help me understand, see your perspective. But I won’t be a punching bag for all that is wrong in America.
Is such a conversation possible? If not, I have grave fears for race relations in this country.
Published in General
Joker, I like everything you say here, and you’ve said it well.
Jerry, do you really believe that a conversation about one’s perspective on race relations between and white man and any black person, should include, “not only have you been denied basic education for 200 years, denied competitive jobs, and the right to vote for your representatives, but you really need to know your race is only 80% as smart as my race”?
This is an illustration of the first sentence of my first comment on this thread — “It is impossible to have an honest conversation about race in this country.” I’m trying.
No one has been denied basic education for 200 years, because no one is 200 years old. Slaves were denied basic education. Slavery ended about 150 years ago. Education of black Americans was sub-par for quite a long time, though not non-existent. I do not know of good statistics on this issue. I do note that Thomas Sowell describes good schools for blacks in Harlem in the 1940s.
Say that someone’s great-grandfather was denied a basic education. So what?
I don’t know my family’s educational history before my grandfather, who was the first in my line of descent born in this country. His parents were from southern Italy, which was very poor and uneducated — based on a quick look, the illiteracy rate in southern Italy was around 70%, and I found a report that southern Italian immigrants in the early 1900s had an illiteracy rate in the 40-45% range. So there’s a good chance that my paternal great-grandparents were “denied basic education.”
But my grandfather got an education. A doctorate, in fact, as did my father and I. I don’t see any way in which the sub-par educational opportunities of my ancestors would hold me back.
Ditto for voting. Blacks did vote in this country since the 1870s, though the black vote was suppressed in the South through around 1965-70. But there’s nothing in the way of black voting now, and hasn’t been for pretty much my entire lifetime (I’m 53).
The “80% as smart” comment is not an accurate description of the IQ issue. IQ is a measure of the general intelligence factor (abbreviated g), but it is not comparable in percentage terms in this way. A person with an IQ of 120 is smarter than a person with an IQ of 100, but describing this as “20% smarter” is not a proper conceptualization. The IQ metric is essentially a scaled score, without the sort of physical benchmark that we have for a characteristic like height, for which a percentage comparison would be proper.
[Cont’d]
So true
About being “denied competitive jobs.” I don’t have the statistics on this. It does seem accurate that black Americans were held back to some extent, though I notice that, somehow, Thurgood Marshall managed to get a law degree in 1933, and Thomas Sowell managed to graduate from Harvard in 1958 (later receiving a master’s from Columbia in 1959 and a PhD from Chicago in 1968).
We’ve had about 55 years of racial preferences in employment in favor of black Americans, though I think that the extent of the advantage given has declined since approximately 1990, as so-called “affirmative action” became less popular and quotas in employment and contracting — though not in education — were ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. That’s a pretty long period in which the “playing field” has been tilted in favor of black Americans.
I agree. I experience anti-white racism most of the time I go to a store with a black cashier – FedEx, post office, grocery store..
You want an honest conversation? You concerned about Black “agency”? As to honesty, what you are presenting is unprovable, pointless and defamatory of an entire designated race. Even if true, it is extraneous to “the Black problem” and in that it goes against the central point of the OP.
And I mean this as kindly as I can, and without undue provocation, but your argument is the foundational rationale, it is the backbone of, white supremacism. To say that blacks are fundamentally and intrinsically inferior psychologically and intellectually is the very definition of White Supremacy.
And it does not do anything for the question of how we are going to get along. You don’t think this is fundamentally divisive?
I don’t have to be “on the side of the radical Left” to be against arguments for white supremacy.
And “agency” is a buzz word. Yes, blacks are like any put upon group. And groups can, and have been, derogated and crushed. Planned Parenthood is, and was founded upon, reducing (as RBG put it, I think) people that you don’t want more of. This is about as near as you can get to black genocide without using boxcars and bullets. You can argue the point that Planned Parenthood’s founding mission is all old history, but it is relevant in it’s import.
It is not simple incompetence that has crushed much of black family structure, and crippled education in black communities, and has historically lowered black wages. It is fifty years of considered government action.
I have maintained that there is not pervasive or systemic racism in America; not such as BLM says, or at least there wasn’t 20 and 30 years ago; not among the general population, among everyday people. There is scattered racism, but that’s endemic to humanity world-wide and throughout time. But there has always been in parts of the US and in various circles, governmental pressure down upon blacks from many parts of government. It has been refined and altered over the centuries, but it is still there, right down to Biden saying, If you don’t vote for me, you ain’t Black. Or, Why don’t you get tested for cocaine before coming to work here? This is crude extrusion of a pervasive view in government and politics. It is fifty years of deliberate political action.
Flicker:
Your response is an illustration of why it is so difficult to have an honest conversation. You cannot avoid resorting to defamation. I realize that you are trying not to do so.
You are completely wrong scientifically. The differences in various characteristics between population groups are measurable and provable. IQ is the most notable characteristic, because it turns out to be the single best predictor of many life outcomes, but there are others — physical characteristics like height and athletic ability, psychological traits like extraversion and conscientiousness and aggressiveness and trait neuroticism.
The black IQ distribution is substantially lower than the white IQ distribution in the US. This is true in other countries, and generally true for groupings of countries. I do not think that it is defamatory to point out facts.
Interestingly, on IQ in particular, it turns out that Orientals (meaning Chinese-Japanese-Korean, sometimes also called Northeast Asians) are higher than whites, and Jews are the highest single group. This is determined by the same scientists (psychometricians) who you accuse of being white supremacists, though this result is obviously inconsistent with a white supremacist ideology. Rather, it is the result of following the data.
The differences in characteristics is a matter of distributions within population groups, and there is quite a bit of overlap. It is not the case that every Jewish person is smarter than every white, or that every white person is smarter than every black. People must be judged as individuals.
Once distributional differences between groups are recognized to exist — and they do exist — then the question is the source of such differences. The source may be cultural or biological. It is difficult, but not impossible, to differentiate between these sources. Research is ongoing in this area, but is unfortunately hindered by the sort of reaction illustrated by your response.
It would be nice if we didn’t have to discuss such issues. The problem is that accusations of systemic racism (or sexism) rely on accurate observations of differences in average group outcomes, which are typically explained by differences in group characteristics, but consideration of such explanatory variables is treated as impermissible. The result is a false conclusion that systemic racism exists, which results in actual injustice as the underperforming group is given special privileges.
I don’t think that certain populations, races, or ethnic groups are “superior” to others in some metaphysical sense. They may be superior in some specific characteristic or activity, and even in these instances, it will be a matter of averages and distributions.
As an example, it appears that some black groups have superior running ability, illustrated by those groups’ dominance in Olympic events. Men of West African ancestry dominate in sprinting events, and men of East African ancestry (around Ethiopia and Kenya) dominate in long-distance running. I guess that you could say that these groups are “superior” in this ability.
By the way, Flicker, I generally agree with you about the dreadful effects of welfare policies on black families, and in your point about abortion. Though I don’t think that it’s entirely accurate to suggest that these policies were imposed on American blacks. On welfare, most black voters seem to vote for the party that put these policies in place, so you can’t just blame it on white folks. On abortion, it is black mothers who are disproportionately choosing to have their babies killed.
Okay, let’s say that you’re right about everything. How does this information lead to improving racial social disharmony? And how, specifically, do propose to use this concept of genetically-specific and quantifiable racial inferiority to improve interracial harmony?
I was wondering the same thing. Although, to be fair, you (@flicker) and the OP (@bullwinkle) seem to be referring to the micro level (one-on-one conversations) whereas Jerry (@arizonapatriot) is taking the macro perspective, so I think you’re all talking past each other a bit.
But I too wonder: even if we stipulate everything “the science” (heh) says, what are productive social policies that could possibly address/accommodate/acknowledge/incorporate such data?
To be clear: I don’t want to do this at all. It would go against everything America stands for.
I don’t think that it’s helpful to characterize the possibility of genetically based differences in characteristics between racial groups as “racial inferiority.” It’s a difference, in distribution, if the hypothesis turns out to be correct. There is significant evidence that it may be correct in certain areas, including IQ and high-level performance in certain sports, but it is difficult to disentangle possible genetic and cultural causes.
The way that this information could improve interracial harmony is by rebutting the claim that differences in outcomes are proof of racism. Different groups are likely to have different outcomes, as a matter of averages and distributions, and this should neither surprise us nor concern us. Although when there is a disparity in outcomes, it raises the possibility of unfair treatment as a possible cause, so such issues should be investigated, carefully and empirically.
I thought of an example unrelated to race. About 2.3 million people are incarcerated in the US. About 90% of them are men. Does this demonstrate systemic anti-male sexism in the criminal justice system? Well, maybe, but maybe men commit far more crimes than women. Maybe one of the reasons for a higher rate of criminality among men is a higher distribution of aggressiveness, which may be partially (or wholly) genetically determined. Such an analysis would rebut the claim of systematic injustice against men as a group. I haven’t investigated this issue in detail, but it is a plausible explanation, so I am not concerned about such systematic injustice — even though I am in the group on the unfavorable side of this particular distribution.
For anyone interested in an overview of the IQ issue, here is an episode of Sam Harris’s show, in which he interviews Charles Murray. It is somewhat lengthy — about 2 hours — but shorter than reading multiple articles and books. Also, most of the important points are made in the first hour or so.
The introduction by Harris is particularly instructive. The Bell Curve was published in 1994. Until shortly before this interview, which was some time in 2017 or 2018, Harris had not read The Bell Curve, and had assumed that the accusations of Nazism and White Supremacy leveled against Murray were justified. After looking into the issue himself, Harris concluded that this was a terrible mischaracterization of Murray and his work, and that Murray may be the intellectual treated most unfairly in this country over the past several decades. Harris actually apologizes to Murray for having uncritically believed the defamatory accusations.
So are you saying that the one-on-one conversations, or small group conversations, presumably to diffuse racial animus and to promote civil racial harmony, that Bullwinkle asked for, are answered by “But there is no systemic racial bias in society or government, it’s just that you are an inferior social class”? Or perhaps more to the point, that “You appear to be bringing all these negative outcomes on yourselves, and to a large degree these are outcomes determined by your own genes”? And “So don’t blame us”?
And to the point of the OP, why did you bring up
racial inferiorityracial genetic predisposition to inferior life outcomes, as your starting point in this conversation? And how do you use this argument to enhance racial harmony?It is quite a pickle, isn’t it?
We’re not going to achieve harmony by refusing to face facts.
The hostility and defensiveness expressed in your phrasing is part of the problem. Here’s something that I notice. I wonder if you have kids. I have four. They differ in their abilities in a variety of ways. Some kids are smarter than others, even in the same family. Do you love the smart ones any more? I don’t. But the smarter ones are likely to have better outcomes in a variety of respects, statistically speaking.
Here’s a quote from Charles Murray’s Human Diversity (indirectly through Tyler Cowen’s review of the book, here):
Different population groups have a different bundle of qualities, as a matter of distribution. Maybe the problem is that people don’t understand probability distributions and statistics. I’m one of the bizarre weirdos who actually studied that stuff through the graduate level, so it seems obvious to me.
Maybe I could start by pointing out that, based on the evidence, both Jews and Northeast Asians have a higher IQ distribution than whites. I’m an ordinary white guy, demographically speaking. It doesn’t bother me that Jews and Northeast Asians have a higher IQ distribution than my group. This appears to result in these groups having somewhat better outcomes by a variety of measures, on average, always with the caveat that there’s a lot of individual variation. So what?
[Cont’d]
On thinking about this issue, I worry that people have backed themselves into a corner as a matter of moral argument.
I think that it is true that, in the past, the argument that one racial or ethnic group was “superior” in one way or another was used as a justification for mistreatment of another group. In addressing the injustice of such mistreatment, it seems to me that some people have implicitly accepted this invalid moral argument, but sought to rebut it by asserting that no group is “superior.” Well, one group is probably going to be “superior” in some limited sense, on any particular characteristic, as a matter of either: (1) the group average, or (2) the proportion of members of the group with extraordinary ability.
So there seems to be a fear that if, for example, blacks have a lower IQ distribution than whites, this will somehow be used to justify slavery or Jim Crow or some similar moral outrage.
No. Nobody gets to enslave anyone else. Everyone gets equal treatment under the law, fairly applied, under common standards that are based on individual behavior. Period. Smart people don’t get to enslave less smart people, strong people don’t get to enslave weak people, rich people don’t get to enslave poor people.
And nobody gets to kick anyone else out of the country. I actually dislike the whole race discussion, because it splits my countrymen into squabbling groups of race-hustlers. We’re all Americans. We’re all in this together.
We want a country in which everyone gets a chance to use their abilities to achieve a decent life. And we’ll help out the disadvantaged, within reason. Some will do better than others, in various ways. Some groups will do better than others, on average, in various ways. That’s inevitable, and not unjust. It’s just life.
God, by the way, loves everyone, and doesn’t much care how smart you are, or how strong you are, or how rich you are. He gave everyone certain gifts, and He wants everyone to use them properly.
Is that why men get the chair and women don’t?