Racism, Young-Earth Creationism, and the New World Order

Racism, Young-Earth Creationism, and the New World Order July 10, 2016

I have had comments on things I have posted on the blog and on Facebook, from commenters whom I don’t know and who’ve never to my knowledge posted on my blog or Facebook wall before. One was addressing the control of knowledge by the 1% to promote evolution and deny the truth about human origins. Others were claiming that the truth could be found in a study published in the Washington Post, but not by reading that article – instead, you had to read a conservative website’s reinterpretation of that article and the data in it.

In both cases, the claim is on one level essentially the same. The truth is there to be seen; those who did the research are part of a conspiracy to cover up the truth; and yet what they published publicly nonetheless gives people with insight everything they need to see through the conspiracy to the truth.

Conspiracy theories are not just found among white racists; people of color subscribe to them too. And conspiracy theories are not just found among young-earth creationists; secular people and atheists subscribe to them too.

The truth is that we don’t have access to bare, uninterpreted facts, and that “scientific studies prove” that scientific studies don’t “prove” anything. It has been ironic to have someone who apparently has no idea who I am nonetheless comment on my Facebook wall, misconstrue what I am saying, and insist that they have forgotten more about what they learned about epistemology than I have ever known.

What interests me most is why they would assert that when they apparently have no idea who I am or that I even have an academic background, never mind what it is in. It illustrates that even (and sometimes especially) educated people can engage in motivated reasoning. The individual in question clearly has a deeply vested interest in avoiding the conclusion that racism could in any way be a factor in the numbers of unarmed black males who are shot by police. But why would someone care so much that they would engage in that difficult and if not impossible task of making that case? What makes that more appealing than the no less arduous task of revising your worldview to include the fact that racism plays a role in our society?

I suspect that one major factor is communal. Individuals would presumably have less vested interest in denying evolution or racism if doing so would not impact their acceptance in communities of which they are a part.

But no scientific study can prove that that is what is going on.

Nevertheless, there are studies and perspectives which, if people are open to them, can help us to see what is going on, as long as we are willing to apply it to our own reasoning and not just that of others with whom we are already inclined to disagree. For instance, Connor Wood had a great post a while back about dogmatic atheism and religious fundamentalism, which included this flow chart that depicts what we find in both:

Kossowska_2016_uncertainty_dogmatism

See also Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry’s piece on why fundamentalism is a state of mind. I disagree with him, however, that fundamentalism involves a refusal to think. It takes much greater mental effort, and sometimes impressive feats of mental gymnastics, to be a fundamentalist. But is it just our own tendency to be impressed with those mental accomplishments that explains why we prefer dogmatic denialism to the acceptance of information offered by mainstream science and other such sources?

See too Jonny Scaramanga’s honest post recognizing that he is still a fundamentalist at heart.

"That’s a real shitty take on the words of Jesus. Too bad he didn’t come ..."

“Jesus Taught Generosity and Charity, Not ..."
"It’s very simple John. Paul had interacted with his Galatian readers before and knew that ..."

Easter and Historical Nuance
"Vinny said,"As much as I would like to play nice, I cannot help but ask: ..."

Easter and Historical Nuance
"That is a very wise admonition. I am gratified to learn that you aren't actually ..."

Easter and Historical Nuance

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • John MacDonald

    I think we commit a paralogism when we make the leap of faith from the agnostic “I don’t know if God exists,” to the atheistic “I have compelling reasons to believe that God doesn’t exist.”

    • John MacDonald

      How do you disprove an immaterial being when all we have access to is material reality?

      • Magic pink unicorn definitely counts as immaterial.

        • John MacDonald

          Then I am in the agnostic position of having to turn around 180 degrees and make this argument to theists: “How do you prove the existence of an immaterial being when all we have access to is material reality?”

          • OK

          • John MacDonald

            Theists say we have access to things like the voice of God, experiences of the numinous, and miracles, but epistemologically these things can just as easily be explained materialistically (hallucinations, coincidences, etc.).

          • The Mouse Avenger

            Yes, but do you necessarily HAVE to explain these things materialistically? 😕

          • John MacDonald

            I don’t think so. Maybe people are actually encountering the divine through these things. I don’t know.

  • “The individual in question clearly has a deeply vested interest in
    avoiding the conclusion that racism could in any way be a factor in the
    numbers of unarmed black males who are shot by police”

    -But it’s not a fact. It’s a lie. Most people shot by the police are White. Mississippi has the second-lowest difference in arrest rates between Blacks and Whites in the country.

    http://www.sentencingproject.org/the-facts/#map?dataset-option=BWR

    Racism is completely irrelevant to average Black outcomes in America. No Black-majority country has ever become a first-world country when not under White rule. Four East-Asian majority countries have, despite there being five times as many Black-majority countries.

    #WhiteLivesMatter

    • Are a disproportionate number of those shot by police while unarmed white? That is the relevant question. Please support your reply with relevant data. Thank you.

      • Are a disproportionate number of those who shoot at police while armed White? That’s the relevant question. Please support your reply with relevant data. Thank you.

        Police don’t have x-ray vision, you know.

    • Phil Ledgerwood

      “Racism is completely irrelevant to average Black outcomes in America.”

      This almost makes me reconsider whether or not denial should be an Olympic event.

      • “This almost makes me reconsider whether or not denial should be an Olympic event.”

        -Indeed; your denial does make me reconsider that. Would average Black American outcomes improve a hair if Whites in America just one day vanished into thin air?

        • Phil Ledgerwood

          Well, no, that would disrupt the economy in terrible ways, the same as if any ethnic group just vanished into thin air.

          Those outcomes would improve if racism vanished into thin air, though. Are you genuinely saying that the social ills that black communities face in America have absolutely no connection to racism? That racism has had zero impact on that community’s life in America and has had no lasting effects?

          • “Those outcomes would improve if racism vanished into thin air, though.”

            -Guess what? It did precisely that between the 1960s and 1990s. And, yet, racial inequality still exists. Ever wonder why?

            Over 87% of Mississippi’s Whites voted for Goldwater in 1964 just because of his vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Over 88% of Mississippi’s Whites voted for Romney in 2012. And, yet, Mississippi has the second-lowest difference between Black and White incarceration rates in the country. So, no, poor average Black social outcomes relative to average White ones cannot be attributed to racism. If anything, the opposite.

            “Well, no, that would disrupt the economy in terrible ways, the same as if any ethnic group just vanished into thin air.”

            -Not true.

            If every Black person in America vanished into thin air, pretty much every police officer in the country would breathe a sigh of relief, there would be no substantial impact on the labor market, and America would lose less than 4% of its top intellectual talent.

            If every Asian person in America vanished into thin air, everyone would be annoyed, as America’s tech industry would suffer, but they would be replaced by other Asians in years, if not months.

            If every Mestizo in America vanished into thin air, some rich Californians would be annoyed, but in the rest of the country, life would go on as if nothing had happened.

            Meanwhile, if White Americans disappeared, the only state that would survive to any degree of normalcy is California.

            “Are you genuinely saying that the social ills that black communities
            face in America have absolutely no connection to racism?”

            -Yes.

            “That racism
            has had zero impact on that community’s life in America and has had no
            lasting effects?”

            -It did have some impact during the age of slavery and segregation, just like it had some impact on Chinese during the same time. But no Black person living today was a slave, and segregation is long gone, replaced by anti-White, anti-Asian affirmative action.

          • Phil Ledgerwood

            And yet, Mississippi ranks very highly in income disparity between whites and blacks with the poverty rate gap being over 150%.

            https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest-financial-gaps-by-race/9842/

            This is the problem with apologists for the status quo. You tend to latch on to questionable combinations of statistics, but there is unfortunately a whole slew of socio-economic factors that interrelate.

            I was especially entertained by your “point” that racism vanished in the 1960s, then you proceeded to argue that Mississippi was a racist state by their voting record in 1964. So, did racism vanish, or was Mississippi plagued with racism?

            The fact is that racism has never vanished and the thought that it has is patently absurd. You also overlook the fact that racism largely accounts for the black population in America in the first place.

            Which is interesting, because according to your line of argument, once slavery became illegal, black people should have instantly become as wealthy as white people because now the playing field was level. Of course, that didn’t happen because anyone can see that just because you -stop- persecuting someone doesn’t mean the -effects- of that persecution go away.

            I can’t believe I actually have to explain this to somebody.

          • States with higher poverty rate gaps than Mississippi:

            *Maine
            *the Dakotas
            *Minnesota (the only state in the country to vote for Walter Mondale in 1984)
            *Wisconsin
            *Iowa
            *Michigan
            *Illinois
            *Nebraska

            -all fairly White states with no history of slavery or substantial racism to speak of. Again, it’s the northern states of the country that are truly outstanding in their racial inequality in all aspects. Not those of the Deep South, which actually have histories of racism, slavery, and Jim Crow.

            No; I said racism vanished in all ways that have any effect on average Black outcomes in the 1990s, not the 1960s. Learn to read. Mississippi was definitely plagued with racism in the 1960s, today, its voting patterns can mostly be explained by the state’s White marriage rate.

            “You also overlook the fact that racism largely accounts for the black population in America in the first place.”

            -Not true. When the first Black slaves were introduced into the United States, White indentured servitude and Indian slavery was also commonly practiced in America. It’s not “racism” that explains America’s Black population, but the labor demands of southern planters.

            “You tend to latch on to questionable combinations of statistics, but
            there is unfortunately a whole slew of socio-economic factors that
            interrelate.”

            -This is a meaningless sentence. I’m calling your bluff.

            “This is the problem with apologists for the status quo.”

            -I? An apologist for the status quo? I’m not a fan of Obama, Paul Ryan, or Mitch McConnell.

            “Which is interesting, because according to your line of argument, once
            slavery became illegal, black people should have instantly become as
            wealthy as white people because now the playing field was level.”

            -Exactly. Blacks waited 50 years to start moving North after their liberation. I can only conclude that either the North must have been terrible for Blacks, or, more reasonably, the South wasn’t all that bad for them during those 50 years, when segregation and voting restrictions were in place throughout the entire South. Massachusetts was already desegregating its schools in the 1850s, so the idea northern racism was preventing Blacks from moving North during those 50 years of no migration is dubious to the extreme.

            “Of course, that didn’t happen because anyone can see that just because
            you -stop- persecuting someone doesn’t mean the -effects- of that
            persecution go away.”

            -Which is why Chinese in California and Japanese in Peru and the United States are so poor, eh? The Chinese in California were legally discriminated against even unto the 1970s (and are still in practice discriminated against today). And Japanese-Americans were subject to a little thing called internment.

            To understand Blacks in America, you must go back far further than slavery -you must go back to Africa. Same for Japanese and Chinese in the New World -you must go back to the Old to understand their general social outcomes.

            “The fact is that racism has never vanished and the thought that it has is patently absurd”

            -Why so? Is anti-Indian or anti-Chinese or anti-second-generation-Black-immigrant a big problem in America? Indians and Chinese are, after all, actively discriminated against in major universities, while Blacks are over-represented relative to their intellectual achievements.

            The thought racism has persisted in America to any important degree is absurd. Hardly a single American is willing today to admit that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a very bad idea (which, of course, it was).

          • Phil Ledgerwood

            *state list snipped*

            And in many of those states, the standard of living is much higher than Mississippi, which demonstrates that white people continue to get wealthy in those states while black people do not.

            For instance, Mississippi has the lowest median income of all 50 states.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

            By contrast, the state with the highest poverty gap in your list of “counter-examples” is North Dakota who is 20th. If we rank by per capita income, Mississippi is still on the bottom, but North Dakota shoots up to 8.

            In fact, if you look at that per capita list, the southern states are clearly at the bottom. They are poorer states.

            This is what I’m talking about. Analyzing socioeconomics in the United States is a lot more complicated than your brilliant, “This state voted for this dude, so they are racist, but black people aren’t as poor in that state as they are in some others” argument.

            “No; I said racism vanished in all ways that have any effect on average Black outcomes in the 1990s, not the 1960s. Learn to read”

            No, this is what you said:

            “Guess what? It did precisely that [vanish into thin air] between the 1960s and 1990s.”

            Learn to remember what you wrote.

            “When the first Black slaves were introduced into the United States, White indentured servitude and Indian slavery was also commonly practiced in America.”

            And look how prosperous the Native Americans are, today. Thank you for proving that enslavement has a negative economic effect long past the initial period.

            As for indentured servitude, a voluntary five year work contract is hardly comparable to African slavery, and after Bacon’s Rebellion, you saw very little indentured workers being brought over in favor of African slaves. By the time you get to 1775, you’ve got half a million European colonists and 300,000 African slaves.

            “Exactly.”

            Right. All that lack of education and having no property or money just magically vanished when slavery was illegal. That makes total sense. When slavery ended, everyone magically had all the same opportunities. Nothing was denied anyone, and the playing field was perfectly level.

            I wonder if we could make that work for other things. Like, maybe we could heal burn victims by putting out the fire that burned them.

            Seriously, is there something wrong with your brain? Let’s say I and my family kidnap yours. We take all your money and property and launch a national campaign to promote the idea that you and your family are violent criminals. We make you live in our garage and force you to weed our lawn.

            When you have kids, and they have kids, same story. My kids take over the operation, your kids are born, grow up, and die in my garage. The only thing they have besides my garage is weeding the garden. I teach them to fear me. I teach them that everyone else in the country thinks they’re dangerous subhumans. This goes on for generations, such that your descendants eventually don’t even remember there was ever a time they did not live in my garage.

            Then, one day, my family goes, “Ok guys, sorry about all this. You’re free to go. Bye now!” and kicks them out into the street.

            Your great great grandkids are not going to become investment bankers anytime soon, and that’s not even taking into account their obvious genetic challenges.

            “Which is why Chinese in California and Japanese in Peru and the United States are so poor, eh?”

            I must have missed that era in American history when we had massive Chinese and Japanese slave populations for two hundred years.

            “The thought racism has persisted in America to any important degree is absurd.”

            Yeah, I don’t know what the FBI is on about.

            https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses

          • “This is what I’m talking about. Analyzing socioeconomics in the United
            States is a lot more complicated than your brilliant, “This state voted
            for this dude, so they are racist, but black people aren’t as poor in
            that state as they are in some others” argument.”

            -What in the world are you trying to prove here? How is this even remotely inconsistent with anything I have said?

            “Learn to remember what you wrote.”

            -I did. These statements say nothing different. Racism with any measurable impact on typical Black social problems declined throughout the 1960s until it had vanished by the end of the 20th century.

            “a voluntary five year work contract”

            -It was by no means always voluntary, and often extended beyond five years.

            “When slavery ended, everyone magically had all the same opportunities.
            Nothing was denied anyone, and the playing field was perfectly level.”

            -Yes. Landless Mexicans used to pour across the Rio Grande in droves in the 1980s. And yet, hardly any Blacks poured North across the Ohio River for fifty years after the Emancipation Proclamation, despite numerous states, some quite wealthy, having a much more egalitarian attitude towards race than the ones in which most Blacks lived. And crossing the Ohio was infinitely easier than crossing the Rio Grande.

            “Your great great grandkids are not going to become investment bankers
            anytime soon, and that’s not even taking into account their obvious
            genetic challenges.”

            -Literally the only first-world Black-majority countries are the ones in which the entire Black population is descended from slaves.

            At least you admit the obvious genetic challenges.

            If those were typical Jewish slaves, a disproportionate number of them would have become investment bankers in two generations. Almost three generations have passed since the end of any and all legal restrictions on Black advancement (not that the restrictions that did exist in the late 19th century can explain anything) and the Black-White male income gap is the same size as it was in the 1970s, when the Great Migration ended.

            “I must have missed that era in American history when we had massive
            Chinese and Japanese slave populations for two hundred years.”

            -Chinese railroad workers were treated far worse than slaves. This part’s important, as most Chinese and Japanese clearly have the genetic pre-requisites to succeed in America. And, lo, they mostly are successful.

            Per capita, in your link, Jews are the most “hated” ethnic group. This is precisely because of the fact they yield such disproportionate power in America, due to their very high media influence, overrepresentation in the Senate, average IQ, and average wealth.

            “And look how prosperous the Native Americans are, today.”

            -This was due to their enormous failures to adapt to civilized life, resulting from both genetic and environmental causes (like not being exposed to Western crops for millennia, being put into reservations, losing much of their land in the 19th century and the like). It’s a tragic story. There is absolutely no reason to suspect Native Americans, on average, have the genetic prerequisites to succeed in America to the same extent as, say, average Japanese. But clearly their predicament does result partially from non-genetic causes. Vietnamese-Americans, who are mostly successful, were never given land, but also never put into reservations.

            However, you fail even here, as most enslaved Native Americans left no descendants.

            Try harder.

          • Phil Ledgerwood

            “What in the world are you trying to prove here? How is this even remotely inconsistent with anything I have said?”

            Because you cherry pick statistics for the purpose of making non sequiturs out of them. “Here’s a state who voted for a racist, and the income gap between whites and blacks is lower than many other states. Ergo, racism has no effect on blacks, today.” I feel like I’m arguing with someone who believes the world is flat because Florida has more Starbucks than Rhode Island does.

            You have -begun- with your view of reality, and rather than get an advanced degree in economics or sociology, you get on the web and yank this statistic out and couple it with this other irrelevant statistic as verification. Obviously, this is what you want to believe, which is perhaps the most horrible thing about this conversation.

            “I did. These statements say nothing different. Racism with any measurable impact on typical Black social problems declined throughout the 1960s until it had vanished by the end of the 20th century.”

            That isn’t what you said. I wouldn’t mind this retraction if you hadn’t already tried to snarkily blame it on my reading abilities. At least the pedals go backwards on your bicycle.

            “It was by no means always voluntary, and often extended beyond five years.”

            Sure, there are exceptions, but you see how comparing this to the slavery of Africans is ridiculous. Or, you would, if you cared about actual reality and not the world as it exists in your head.

            “Landless Mexicans used to pour across the Rio Grande in droves in the 1980s.”

            See, here’s your shtick, “Mexicans immigrated heavily from their country in the 1980s, so as you can see, African slaves had it pretty good in the 1800s.” This makes no damn sense. They are two, totally different scenarios.

            In the 1980s, we offered immigration amnesty for Mexicans who were fleeing the drug cartels taking over their country and a path to citizenship. Of course a lot of people took us up on that. And did they instantly become wealthy? No. Their lack of money, property, and the prejudices of Americans were huge obstacles and affected the trajectory of their future in this country. You don’t hear people talking about the massive amounts of wealthy Mexicans in Texas and Southern California.

            African Slaves migrated north far earlier than you said. In the 1860s, 70% of Cincinnati’s African-American population was from the South. 65% of Detroit’s African-American population was from the South. Not to mention, in order for a slave to get to the North, they had to survive getting through the South. In addition, for at least some of that time period, there was a little matter called the Civil War that was going on. There are so many factors that you have to just eliminate from your brain in order to make your comparison mean anything.

            “Literally the only first-world Black-majority countries are the ones in which the entire Black population is descended from slaves.”

            Considering there are less than 30 first world countries, and they are primarily defined by either being the United States or an ally, I’d be curious to see why you make that statement or what possible relevance it could have.

            “At least you admit the obvious genetic challenges.”

            Of your hypothetical descendants, yes. They would have obvious genetic challenges from what I can tell.

            “If those were typical Jewish slaves, a disproportionate number of them would have become investment bankers in two generations.”

            Please point to the historical event where Jews were slaves and became economically prosperous in two generations.

            “Almost three generations have passed since the end of any and all legal restrictions on Black advancement (not that the restrictions that did exist in the late 19th century can explain anything) and the Black-White male income gap is the same size as it was in the 1970s, when the Great Migration ended.”

            Actually, that wage gap began to shrink rapidly after the Civil Rights Act was passed, then stalled out in the 70s. Probably because you can’t make racism or its effects magically go away by making it illegal. This is the sticking point that marks you as one of the stupider people I’ve run across. If someone does something bad to you, those effects don’t go away just because they stop. I have no idea why this eludes you. Stopping something does not mean damage goes away. If you stop bombing a country, their buildings are still destroyed. If you stop stealing from someone, they still have no money. If you allow people with no money and no education into college if they can pay for it and meet the academic requirements, they aren’t going to go to college. These are effects of Bad Things.

            You also seem to be under the impression that if something is illegal, it doesn’t happen. That also floors me. Like making something illegal that used to be legal brings it to an instant and universal halt. Like cocaine, for example.

            “Chinese railroad workers were treated far worse than slaves.”

            How can that be? The Burlingame Treaty legally required Chinese immigrants to have the same rights and freedoms as all other Americans? I thought that fixed everything? How could they possibly experience the ill effects of racism when there was a law on the books that prohibited it? I thought that didn’t happen!

            “Per capita, in your link, Jews are the most “hated” ethnic group.”

            Not sure how you got that from the report, since “Jewish” is listed as a religious category, not a racial one. And it clearly says “69.8 percent were motivated by anti-black bias.”

            “This was due to their enormous failures to adapt to civilized life, resulting from both genetic and environmental causes (like not being exposed to Western crops for millennia, being put into reservations, losing much of their land in the 19th century and the like). ”

            Says you. I have a feeling mass extermination, enslavement, dispossession, and internment may have had larger roles than their exposure to new breeds of corn, but obviously you and I have different ways of looking at data.

          • “Mexicans immigrated heavily from their country in the 1980s, so as you
            can see, African slaves had it pretty good in the 1800s.”

            -Clearly, you can’t read. I clearly was referring to Black freedmen in the late 19th century, not slaves.

            “69.8 percent were motivated by anti-black bias.”

            -Clearly, you can’t count. There are far more Blacks than Jews, so per capita, Jews are far greater victims of hate crimes than Blacks.

            “Here’s a state who voted for a racist, and the income gap between
            whites and blacks is lower than many other states. Ergo, racism has no
            effect on blacks, today.”

            -Uh, yeah. That’s called logic. Can you logic? Apparently not.

            “That isn’t what you said.”

            -It self-evidently was.

            “No. Their lack of money, property, and the prejudices of Americans
            were huge obstacles and affected the trajectory of their future in this
            country.”

            -No. None of those factors were even remotely relevant. Compare Vietnamese-Americans during the same time period. Their genes were hugely relevant.

            “There are so many factors that you have to just eliminate from your brain in order to make your comparison mean anything.”

            -No. I’m clearly talking about the period between the 1860s and 1910s. Your lack of literacy is astounding.

            “Please point to the historical event where Jews were slaves and became economically prosperous in two generations.”

            -Slaves; no. Penniless immigrants; yes. Late 19th-early 20th century.

            “If someone does something bad to you, those effects don’t go away just because they stop.”

            -You’re treating barriers to entry as something permanent. They’re not.

            “If you stop bombing a country, their buildings are still destroyed.”

            -Historically, those buildings are rebuilt in a decade or less. Look at Germany and the USSR after WWII.

            “If you stop stealing from someone, they still have no money.”

            -And they’ll earn it back within a decade.

            “Probably because you can’t make racism or its effects magically go away by making it illegal.”

            -Or, infinitely more plausibly, because of genetics. Look at the Chinese and Japanese. They’re successful everywhere. Now look at Blacks. With very few exceptions, they’re unsuccessful everywhere. Racism is neither a necessary nor sufficient explanation for Black failure.

          • Phil Ledgerwood

            “Clearly, you can’t read. I clearly was referring to Black freedmen in the late 19th century, not slaves.”

            Your whole thing was about how slaves who were just freed sort of milled around in the South for 50 years because they had it so good.

            “Clearly, you can’t count. There are far more Blacks than Jews, so per capita, Jews are far greater victims of hate crimes than Blacks.”

            That wasn’t anywhere in the report, which you claimed it was. What’s more, even if your statement is true (which you have yet to produce data for), you just explained that the reason it’s that way is because of the much smaller number of Jews, not because of the increase in racism. That invalidates your actual point.

            Are you arguing just to argue? Do you have any intellectual continuity between your posts? It’s like, you make a point, I refute it, and then you forget all about your point to bicker about something else. I wouldn’t save up for law school if I were you.

            “Uh, yeah. That’s called logic. Can you logic? Apparently not.”

            It’s called a logical fallacy. Here’s your syllogism(s):

            Mississippi elected a government official who didn’t like the Civil Rights Act.
            The only reason anyone would have voted for someone who didn’t like the Civil Rights Act is if they were egregiously racist.
            Therefore, Mississippi is egregiously racist.

            The economic gap between blacks and whites is not as high in Mississippi as it is in some other states.
            The only possible reason for this is that blacks and whites have equivalent socioeconomic states.
            Mississippi is a representative case for every single other state in the Union.
            Therefore, blacks and whites have equivalent socioeconomic states in every single state in the Union.

            If you don’t understand why nearly everything in there does not follow, I’m not sure I have the time to teach you.

            Here, let me demonstrate.

            If Santa Claus does not exist, then I am smarter and better looking than you are.
            Santa Claus does not exist.
            Therefore, I am smarter and better looking than you are.

            That is logically valid, and it is also true that I am smarter and better looking than you are, but the premises are not sound.

            “It self-evidently was.”

            Sir, this is crazy. I copied and pasted exactly what you said. It was not what you claimed to have said. So, now you’re a liar on top of being a moron. At least being stupid isn’t malicious; you should stick with that.

            “No. None of those factors were even remotely relevant. Compare Vietnamese-Americans during the same time period.”

            Good point. I forgot about the hordes of wealthy Vietnamese in Texas.

            “No. I’m clearly talking about the period between the 1860s and 1910s. Your lack of literacy is astounding.”

            Here is what you said:

            >> Landless Mexicans used to pour across the Rio Grande in droves in the 1980s. And yet, hardly any Blacks poured North across the Ohio River for fifty years after the Emancipation Proclamation

            You are contrasting the activity of Mexican immigrants in 1980 with African slaves in the 1860s.

            My response, that you quoted the end of, was

            >> African Slaves migrated north far earlier than you said. In the 1860s, 70% of Cincinnati’s African-American population was from the South. 65% of Detroit’s African-American population was from the South. Not to mention, in order for a slave to get to the North, they had to survive getting through the South. In addition, for at least some of that time period, there was a little matter called the Civil War that was going on.

            Notice how all that is about the 1860s and following. You can’t fault me for a lack of literacy when you don’t have the ability to remember anything after you wrote it. You’re like a debate goldfish. Every time you look at something, it’s as if you’ve never seen it before.

            -Slaves; no. Penniless immigrants; yes.

            Then you have no basis for your statement, which is about what Jewish people would do if they had to recover from the same conditions as African slaves. I am glad to hear that someone with your predilections believes Jews are genetically predisposed to feats of prosperity, though. Good for you!

            “You’re treating barriers to entry as something permanent. They’re not.”

            You’re treating “barriers to entry” as an abstract principle that always behaves in the way you believe they should despite historical contingencies. They don’t. If you killed everyone in Libya but five people, then made amends by inviting them to the Olympic games, it’s going to be a while before that country recovers enough to send anyone to any Olympic games. Or even feels like participating, most likely.

            “Look at Germany and the USSR after WWII.”

            Um, dude? They had a massive amount of loans from other countries. America specifically sent people to Japan to rebuild their economy. They didn’t just pick themselves up from their bootstraps. We issued reparations.

            – Look at the Chinese and Japanese. They’re successful everywhere. Now look at Blacks. With very few exceptions, they’re unsuccessful everywhere.

            Except the data doesn’t bear that out.

            In the past 20 years, blacks actually superseded both White and Chinese weekly earnings in the UK in the late 90s. Right now, India is blowing everyone away in the UK, although the Chinese are doing much better, today.

            The point is, you’re making a sweeping generalization that is patently false unless you restrict the data and criteria to a very narrow set. Or more likely, you’re not using any data at all but your own perceptions, which – judging from your numerous claims of saying things you did not actually say – seem very unreliable.

            You have sort of the perfect self-correcting defense mechanism for being wrong, and it’s impressive in the way that massive landfills are impressive, but I don’t think it’s very convincing.

          • “Your whole thing was about how slaves who were just freed sort of milled
            around in the South for 50 years because they had it so good.”

            -Which does seem to be the case.

            “not because of the increase in racism. That invalidates your actual point.”

            How?

            “I copied and pasted exactly what you said.”

            -Indeed. I said the same thing in different words.

            “What’s more, even if your statement is true (which you have yet to produce data for)”

            -The data be in your link.

            The above was a massive strawman. Here’s my actual case:

            Mississippi voted both for Barry Goldwater, FDR, and Strom Thurmond with 87%+ of the vote (true).

            The only reason it could have voted for three such highly ideologically dissimilar presidential candidates is racism (true).

            Ergo, Mississippi in the 1960s was by far the most racist state in the Union (true).

            Ergo, Mississippi today is most likely the most racist state in the Union (true).

            The economic gap between blacks and whites is not as high in Mississippi as it is in some other states, some with no demonstrable history of racism to speak of (true).

            Ergo, racism cannot possibly be responsible for most of the Black-White outcome discrepancies throughout the Union.

            Which one of these premises are unsound?

            “Good point. I forgot about the hordes of wealthy Vietnamese in Texas.”

            -Indeed; you did. Vietnamese is the third-most widely spoken language in Texas and their social outcomes are similar to those of Texan non-Hispanic Whites.

            “You are contrasting the activity of Mexican immigrants in 1980 with African slaves in the 1860s.”

            -“Fifty years after the emancipation proclamation” is the period between 1862 and 1912. Count! I am referring to that entire 50-year period.

            “Then you have no basis for your statement, which is about what Jewish
            people would do if they had to recover from the same conditions as
            African slaves.”

            -In what ways did Jews in the Pale of Settlement have it better off than freedmen in the U.S. in the late 19th century?

            “Um, dude? They had a massive amount of loans from other countries.
            America specifically sent people to Japan to rebuild their economy.
            They didn’t just pick themselves up from their bootstraps. We issued
            reparations.”

            -Who mentioned Japan? Not I. More of your illiteracy. Germany had to pay reparations to Jews and to the USSR, while the USSR refused all Marshall plan aid and had to scrounge only from what it could get from Germany and other Eastern European countries, which, given Germany’s devastation, wasn’t all that much. Despite this, output in both had recovered to the pre-war level in less than a decade. Yes, Germany and the USSR both largely picked themselves up by their own bootstraps.

            “In the past 20 years, blacks actually superseded both White and Chinese weekly earnings in the UK in the late 90s.”

            -These are the “very few exceptions” I was talking about, aren’t they?

            “You have sort of the perfect self-correcting defense mechanism for being
            wrong, and it’s impressive in the way that massive landfills are
            impressive, but I don’t think it’s very convincing.”

            -And you’re just illiterate, innumerate, and dishonest.

          • arcseconds

            Just so you know, Enopoletus is what most of us would call an inhuman monster.

            Here is the level of his compassion for the incurably sick:

            When they’re unproductive and incurable, yes. I see no point in subsidizing the useless. Whether sick people deserve treatment provided by the government depends on the circumstances.

            His views on Turkish people:

            For example, I consider the Turkish people (excluding ethnic minorities) to basically be all villains, and I totally support nuking them off the face of the Earth

            Illegal immigrants:

            As for illegal immigrants in the U.S., unlike my stance towards the Turks, I don’t actively hope for their destruction, only for their permanent expulsion and for the end of Mexico’s three lost decades. But I also don’t mind a shoot-to-kill policy if they return.

            (Source)

            Same Sex marriage:

            I really don’t care about same-sex marriage. Again, it’s a product of social decay, not its cause.

            He also thinks economics cures social ills, never protests, and therefore Martin Luther shouldn’t be celebrated. His source for this is ultimately his ‘gut’ (see the Disqus conversation here).

            And as you can see above he believes in genetic determinism too.

            However, don’t worry: he hates Hitler!

            If you try very hard you can get him to move a wee bit on his opinions, but it’s like pulling teeth.

          • arcseconds, in case you want to know, I have written a history of the changing constituencies of the American political parties here:

            https://marginalcounterrevolution.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/explaining-the-party-shift/

            I keep waiting for someone famous to link to it, but it never happens.

            I can only be called an “inhuman monster” from the perspective of the degenerate anti-life, anti-White, and anti-property Left and its allies.

          • arcseconds

            Only from the perspective of people who think genocide is a moral horror.

            It shows just how skewed your perspective is that you think this is somehow a contentious view.

          • Hey; it’s the Turks who are a genocidal people. What do you do with such a people? You don’t just leave them standing to continue their genocide.

          • arcseconds

            They’re evil down to the last child, so they must be killed to the last child.

            Saying otherwise is anti-life and anti-white.

            This certainly sounds like a thing a reasonable and compassionate person would assert, and not at all like Hitler!

          • Young children are innocent, then again, so are fetuses. I view neither as having much value except to the parents. And when the parents are evil, there’s no good reason not to kill the children. Again, some of the Turks’ behavior may be genetic.

            Hey; if Erdogan wasn’t supported by the vast majority of the population, had numerous assassination attempts on him every time he went out in public, and didn’t act like Hitler, I wouldn’t have the views I have about the Turkish people.

            “Saying otherwise is anti-life and anti-white.”

            -Indeed.

          • arcseconds

            So killing people you don’t value is fine.

            And saying this is wrong is anti-life.

            Nothing I can do can demonstrate the monstrosity and the ludicrousness of your position than keeping you talking, EH.

            Why isn’t Erdogan allowed to kill off people he finds have no value… or is it just people that are on EH’s personal ‘like’ list that aren’t supposed to be killed?

          • I was never anti-abortion just because I like the fetus. I opposed Indiana’s nutty abortion law.

            Genocide must only be against genocidal peoples and their offspring.

            My position is perfectly sensible.

          • arcseconds

            It’s not sensible at all. It’s insane.

            You’re for killing innocents because you think there might be something genetic about the fact that other people’s parents voted a certain way in a couple of general elections.

          • This goes much further than that! If Erdogan was the least bad option, I would understand their choice. But to actually approve of him, and not try to assassinate him at every turn, is inexcusable.

          • arcseconds

            It doesn’t matter how bad Erdogan is.

            You’re proposing killing children because other people’s parents voted for him plus a theory you admit is speculative.

          • Again, this goes far beyond voting.

          • arcseconds

            Oh, yes, I forgot: you’ll kill kids because their parents aren’t assassins.

            That makes your position so much more reasonable…

          • John MacDonald

            Remind me not to get on Enopoletus’ bad side.

          • summers-lad

            I’d rather not be on his good side. That would be worrying.

    • arcseconds

      No Black-majority country has ever become a first-world country when not under White rule. Four East-Asian majority countries have, despite there being five times as many

      What relevance does this have to American police shooting black people?

      • A great deal. If Blacks, unlike other races, generally cannot work themselves out of their messes, they cannot blame White people (or “institutional racism” or whatever) for their being in them.

        • arcseconds

          Because African states aren’t first-world countries, it’s OK for US police to shoot US citizens who are black?

          • No, not my reasoning. My conclusion is that nobody can blame police shootings of Black people on “institutional racism”, since there obviously is no such thing and if there was (which there isn’t), there’s no reason to suspect the alternative would be better.

            I don’t know whether most police shootings are justified or not. I simply don’t have the information necessary to answer that question.

          • arcseconds

            It’s only obvious that there’s no such thing when you’re determined to ignore any evidence for it.

            You’re an excellent example of exactly what James was referring to: someone with a deeply vested interest in concluding racism is never a factor.

          • OK; I’ve had my turn to argue and am tired of winning. 🙂 What evidence exists for “institutional racism” (against Blacks and Hispanics only; ignoring that clearly existing against Whites and Asians) existing in the United States and affecting anything of importance in it?

            “someone with a deeply vested interest in concluding racism is never a factor.”

            -What interest is this? An interest in the facts? I accept when racism is a factor (voting patterns in Virginia, c. 1920) and when it isn’t (disproportionately Black social problems, c. 2016). I’m not a lunatic and have no desire to be a denialist or ideologue or have my beliefs be in discord with the facts.

          • arcseconds

            You mean ‘of importance to you’, no doubt, and as you don’t consider the welfare or even lives of others important at all, this presumably amounts to showing that there’s been an economic impact?

          • “as you don’t consider the welfare or even lives of others important at all”

            -This is self-evidently untrue. If this was so, I wouldn’t be calling for the nuking of the Turks, would I?

            Economic impact is OK; so is life expectancy impact, drug use impact or whatever. Anything you can think of a reasonable man can clearly sense as important.

          • arcseconds

            You are happy with allowing people who ‘aren’t productive’ to die, and for killing people who currently have no value to you and might possibly maybe be a danger to someone in the future.

            You also don’t care about the ability of gay and bisexual people to have their partnerships accepted on an equal basis with heterosexual couples.

            So no, you don’t care about the lives or welfare of people.

            You can stop pretending you do at any moment.

            It’s reasonable to not want to be subject to arbitrary investigation by police. ‘Driving while black’ is a thing. Ergo institutional racism exists.

          • You’re nuts, arcseconds. I care a great deal about the lives of people. I want them to improve, not be deprived.

            “It’s reasonable to not want to be subject to arbitrary investigation by police.”

            -Kinda weak, but OK.

            “‘Driving while black’ is a thing.”

            -[citation needed]. Anecdote is not equal to data.

          • arcseconds

            — you don’t care about people attracted to the same sex having the same rights as
            — you’re happy to let the sick die if they can’t work
            — you want to shoot returning illegal immigrants
            — you’re happy to abandon black people to living in poverty and deprivation
            — you want to kill all Turks.

            These are not the attitudes of a caring person, EH, they’re the attitudes of a wannabe mass-murdering racist monster.

            Sure, you care about healthy, heterosexual, middle-class, white people. Same as other racist monsters. Same as Hitler.

          • “you’re happy to abandon black people to living in poverty and deprivation”

            -arcseconds, I am a friend of the invisible hand. If people can’t earn their keep, why should they be subsidized? I am an enemy of all poverty and deprivation.

            “Same as Hitler.”

            -If Hitler actually cared “about healthy, heterosexual, middle-class, white people”, he wouldn’t have engaged in the war that killed the greatest number of them, now would he?

          • arcseconds

            If people can’t earn their keep, why should they be subsidized? I am an enemy of all poverty and deprivation.

            A blatant contradiction: you won’t give any assistance to incurably sick people, forcing them to live in poverty and deprivation.

            You somehow think it’s possible to exterminate an entire nation without starting a war?

          • A war on Turkey is fully justifiable.

            Again, I am a friend of the market.

          • arcseconds

            How nice for the market. Pity you’ll let people die in penury and sickness because of this friendship with an artifact.

            Hitler thought that invading Poland was fully justifiable. Are you somehow under the delusion that going to war with with Turkey will be some kind of bloodless affair (except for, you know, the intended genocide) that will be over quickly? Look at what happened with the Iraq invasion: it lead to the destablizing of the region for the forseable future, the deaths of thousands of innocents and the suffering of millions (but not white people for the most part!), cost billions, and led to the formation of IS.

          • The Iraq invasion did not lead to “the destabilizing of the region”; that is a Democrat myth which is vastly inconsistent with reality. The destabilizing of the region came about purely as a result of Obama policies. In 2003, the army was let go, which is what led to the Sunni insurgency, which was quashed by the end of 2008. Regional consequences were non-existent; the insurgency did not spread outside of Iraq under GWB’s watch. There was no organized and deliberate attempt by U.S. forces to hurt the Iraqi civilian population in any way. Under my plan, the entire Turkish army and most of its male population will be destroyed, so there is no need to worry about insurgency. The land can then be used to settle American citizens, and to create a 51st state.

            If everyone in Iraq was killed (not that I would ever recommend that; the Iraqi people have suffered enough), there wouldn’t have been any insurgency.

            The “formation of IS” in April 2013 was a result of Obama-era decisions. The Islamic State was defeated as of 2009.

            Also, the market is not “an artifact”, it is a human institution in which the vast majority of Americans participate.

            “Pity you’ll let people die in penury and sickness because of this friendship with an artifact.”

            #1 Who’s your favorite U.S. Senator?

            #2 Which document is most consistent with your views?

            https://books.google.com/books?id=WUwm39YKfmQC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

            http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29572

            Most Americans agree with me that healthcare is not a government responsibility.

          • xi557xi

            ‘The Iraq invasion did not lead to “the destabilizing of the region”; that is a Democrat myth which is vastly inconsistent with reality. The destabilizing of the region came about purely as a result of Obama policies. ‘

            LOL.

          • Dude, it’s true. All the data show it.

          • xi557xi

            Uh-huh.

          • You’re saying you have contrary evidence? Present it.

          • xi557xi

            No, I’m saying you have no evidence for your claim in the first place. It’s pure speculation, except to say that unseating Saddam and Qadhaffi from power unleashed a chain of events that resulted in IS.

          • Dude, the IS was deliberately created by Obama for the purpose of regime change in Iraq. Its 2013-present manifestation began with the al-Nusra capture of Raqqa in March 2013. If you recall, Bush did not invade Syria. Obama sent massive quantities of light arms to Syria for the purpose of crippling Iran. Obama most likely wants an Atlanta 1864, so I expect an October-September surprise in Mosul.

          • xi557xi

            I hate to make the cliche tinfoil hat remark, but you’re really begging for it…

          • All that I’ve said is true. When Obama wants to overthrow some guy, you’ll have to admit he does it.

            Make sure your cameras are covered. NSA’s watching.

          • xi557xi

            Nothing that you have said is true.

            What is true is that unseating Saddam and Qadhaffi from power unleashed a chain of events that resulted in IS. Saddam even predicted what would happen.

            ‘Mission accomplished, right?

          • My earlier statement was accurate. Yours is banal and not entirely right.

          • xi557xi

            Yours will be accurate when you can provide policy statements or white papers detailing your claims. (You might also want to back-step that embarrassing assertion that Bush’s not having invaded Syria must relieve him of responsibility for the chaos that traveled over the porous border).

            Until then, Ockham’s razor suggests the epicenter of our current storm was the unseating of the dictators.

          • The chaos traveled across the TURKISH (i.e., NATO) border. Get your facts straight. Look at a fucking map.

          • xi557xi

            LOL. The hole you’re digging gets deeper by the post.

          • Everything I say here is true.

          • xi557xi

            Your saying so is what makes me trust you less.

          • Why?

          • xi557xi

            It establishes you in a position of unquestionable authority over things you cannot possibly verify.

          • The Mouse Avenger

            You shut the dickens up about Bush! >:-( And you, Enopoletus, should shut up about Obama! Both of you are wrong about both presidents!

          • The Mouse Avenger

            Well, you know what? Good riddance to Saddam, Gaddafi, Bin Laden, the Taliban, & all their ilk! They were horrible, dreadful people that were absolute dictators & tyrants, & who made the lives of their people a living hell! If we hadn’t gotten rid of Saddam, the Iraqis would never have even had the chance to live in freedom & democracy!

          • BTW, arcseconds, you’re wrong on Trump. White genocide can be stopped, America can be Made Great Again, and the GOP remains competitive on all levels of gov’t. Trump will probably win in November, causing tens of millions of leftwing crybabies to burst into tears, just like they did in 2004.

            Mitt Romney did terribly among Iowa and New Hampshire Whites. I expect Trump to win NH.

          • arcseconds

            http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/us/racial-disparity-traffic-stops-driving-black.html

            Note that in Torrington, connecicate, black drivers are 5 times as likely to be stopped as the general population, and 20% less likely to be carrying contraband.

          • Using some basic math, that means the proper difference between Black and White stops in Torrington, Connecticut, is 4x, not the actual number, 5x. Does this sound like a big difference? I just can’t see that. If police officers are aware that Black drivers are 4x as likely to be carrying contraband as White ones if they are stopped at the exact same rate, they may be overzealous and try to up that number. Or, more likely, this discrepancy may be based on the type of car, driving behavior, or some other aspect not related to the race of the driver. Even in the remote case this discrepancy is based purely on the race of the driver (which I doubt strongly), logical fallacies explain this far better than any sort of racism.

          • arcseconds

            Please show your working and explain your assumptions.

            How is it that carrying less contraband means they should be searched more?

            But there you go: you’re presented with evidence of systemic racism, and you just explain it away to make it black people’s fault, just as I said.

            You also don’t understand what ‘systemic racism’ is. It doesn’t matter whether the officer has warm fuzzies in their heart or seething hatred: if they stop black people more often than other people that’s a disproportionately worse outcome for black people.

            Let’s try another one.

            Employers avoid African-american names in preference to ‘white’ names.

          • “if they stop black people more often than other people that’s a disproportionately worse outcome for black people.”

            -So? If it’s based on the car or driving patterns, it’s not racism. Again, my argument is that Black people’s worse average outcomes in life can be explained mostly by their genetics, and that systemic/institutional issues play no detectable part in explaining poor average Black outcomes.

            “How is it that carrying less contraband means they should be searched more?”

            -Did I say that? No. So let’s not make stuff up, shall we?

            “In other words, the gap between White and African-Americans widens with resume quality.”

            -I strongly suspect this is because the resumes are fictitious and, while well-resumed Blacks are strongly desired by companies, they are obviously unusual, and, so, inspire more employer curiosity about credentials. Consequently, resumes featuring fictitious well-credentialed Blacks are more likely to be scrutinized by companies with calls to universities, companies, and other references.

            Second, the amount of discrimination we measure by industry does not appear correlated to Census-based measures of the racial gap by industry. The same is true for the amount of discrimination we measure in different occupations. In fact, we find that discrimination levels are statistically indistinguishable across all the occupation and industry categories covered in the experiment. We also find that federal contractors, who are thought to be more severely constrained by affirmative action laws, do not discriminate less; neither do larger employers or employers who explicitly state that they are an “Equal Opportunity Employer” in their ads.

            is very much consistent with my interpretation of this.

            “But there you go: you’re presented with evidence of systemic racism,”

            -Which, given the absence of other useful data, is nothing of the sort.

            “and you just explain it away to make it black people’s fault, just as I
            said”

            -What did you expect? I look carefully at evidence. I do not simply discard it when it is contrary to my prejudices or accept it with full trust when it fits them. And it’s laughable to think that just because you give me some ambiguous data I bow down before you and accept your dubious conclusions just because it fits some Vermonter shibboleth.

            I’m a skeptic. I don’t just eat up dubious claims.

            “Please show your working and explain your assumptions.”

            5*.8=4

            Do you want anything more?

          • The Mouse Avenger

            Employers avoid African-American names in preference to ‘white’ names.

            That really makes me sad & mad. 🙁 I think African-American names are the most beautiful, creative, imaginative, & unique names in the whole wide world! ^_^ Who wouldn’t want to hire people with names like those, & why wouldn’t they do so? I’d hire them in a heartbeat, without a doubt!

        • xi557xi

          You still believe in races? LOL. Time to leave the 18th century, Billy Bob.

          • How ’bout this? I’ll stop believing in races when the SJWs will.

          • xi557xi

            Difference is, they’re talking about social identity. While you’re talking about biology. LOL.

          • I really could use a colorimeter for skin tone so I can determine if my life matters, and also which of my friend’s live’s matter…I’m confused.

            Many of my friends are what some call “mixed race” (I say we are all the human race, but that’s not PC and can get you kicked out of some institutions).

          • xi557xi

            You don’t need one. Just parse the double standards of your city police conduct and you’ll learn everything you need to know.

            If by institutions you mean your local KKK chapter meeting, then yeah, I feel for ya.

          • I doubt such “double standards” exist in any important way.

          • xi557xi

            Of course you doubt it. You’re white and live in the South. You’re the reason groups like BLM have to exist. To force you to parse.

          • Nice try, but you’ve even got the region wrong. I live in a very White Dem area in a northern suburb.

          • xi557xi

            If you’re not from the South, you don’t know what you’re missing. Comment stands.

          • So if I wanted to identify as Black to receive affirmative action benefits, would they allow me to do so?

            Somehow, I doubt it.

          • I’m confused now. I thought biology had nothing to do with identity anymore. That’s the whole Target bathroom issue again.

          • “I thought biology had nothing to do with identity anymore.”

            -Who knows? SJWs are weird.

          • xi557xi

            If you wanted to claim you were Swedish to get similar benefits that wouldn’t work either.

          • How would anyone know I wasn’t Swedish without DNA test (which wouldn’t work; I’m from northern Russia)? Last time I heard, race isn’t listed in a passport.

          • xi557xi

            Oh they’ll know you’re not Swedish. Question is, how.

          • What sorta response is this?

          • xi557xi

            It’s a question for you. How do we identify ‘nationalities’ before we even hear them speak their languages? Is it physiological differences we detect, or is it because Italians and Swedes are different ‘races’?

          • Who knows? Genetic tests are best for this purpose. If we’re to adopt a cultural definition, look at how they’re raised. Parents, family, etc.

          • xi557xi

            Genetic tests tell you very little about this. In fact, ancestry tests can register inconclusive results as to whether one’s direct paternal lineage is Turkish or Ethiopian. How could this be if there are different ‘races’?

    • Proud Amelekite

      Every black majority country on the Earth has been negatively impacted by white country interference (Apartheid, etc). It is disingenuous to treat black majority countries as if they have been on equal footing with their peers.

      • Then explain why the Bahamas had a higher real GDP per capita in 1969 (before the end of British rule) than in 2014. Explain why Barbados has fallen behind the UK in RGDP per capita ever since independence. Explain why South Africa is the only country in Sub-Saharan Africa with what can be described as an even remotely adequate electrical grid, and why its housing situation has, by all accounts, deteriorated since 1994.

        “It is disingenuous to treat black majority countries as if they have been on equal footing with their peers.”

        -The difference between South Korea and Ghana was negligible when Ghana became independent. They were about as on equal footing as two countries can be. Which one rose ahead? Which one fell behind?

        • Jeff Rose

          Allow me to offer an explanation of the difference in GDP before and after colonial occupation. During occupation the mother country would pour in resources to build an infrastructure in order to exploit the natural resources of the colony. After occupation that supply is cut off. The natural resources continue to be exploited (only now by international firms instead of individual governments) and the GDP plummets. This same phenomenon explains the comparison between Ghana and South Korea. Ghana has suffered the fate mentioned above, while the Korean War left South Korea to an entirely different fate. At that time the US was still in the midst of the Cold War and the Red Scare, and saw South Korea as a bastion of capitalism against the Red North and China. The US poured resources into South Korea in the form of foreign aid and loans, and also mainted (and still does to some extent) a heavy military presence in the country. Add to that even more foreign aid from Japan, who also saw the Red North as a threat, and you can see quite clearly how The Koreans pulled ahead. The actual amount of aid offered by the US was around $60 billion between 1946 and 1978, by contrast the entire African continent received $69 billion from the US in the same time period. There is no difference in outcome because of race, the only difference was in how the dominant powers of the world valued each individual country.

          • “After occupation that supply is cut off. The natural resources continue
            to be exploited (only now by international firms instead of individual
            governments) and the GDP plummets.”

            -This is, indeed, how it seemed to work in most of Africa (exceptions include Botswana and Cabo Verde). As a rule, the U.S. keeps few to no troops in most of Africa (Egypt is the exception). But, in India and many other countries of Asia (exceptions include Burma and the Philippines), such as Indonesia, growth sped up after decolonization. It wasn’t just something unique to the countries with lots of U.S. troops.

            The problem with your theory is that it proves too much: what of China? It had a similar pattern of growth to Japan and South Korea, merely delayed by a few decades, and is a country far, far too large to be in any substantial way affected by foreign aid. According to Paul Bairoch, in 1969-1971, Tunisia, Jordan, the Ivory Coast, and especially South Vietnam received higher aid per capita than South Korea. The South Vietnamese economy was always fairly weak, but the excuse of war can be made in that case. Jordan, despite receiving massive foreign aid and hardly ever being at war, has had lackluster growth. Tunisia’s growth is not in any way comparable to South Korea’s, but it’s not anything to sneeze at, either. The Ivory Coast has been a total disaster. So here, there does seem to be a difference in outcome because of race. However, there is an exception: The country that saw both very high growth and very high per capita aid levels is Botswana, which has approximately caught up with South Africa in most ways, and, due to earlier growth, is roughly similarly as rich as China.

            https://books.google.com/books?id=JAWBMOqwkJkC

            So your theory cannot, by any means, explain the biggest economic miracle of the past 40 years, while my racial theory can do so easily.

            And if the infrastructure was only built to exploit natural resources, then why doesn’t this infrastructure continue after exploitation is transferred to international firms? Don’t international firms want profits? They make a lot of them in Botswana.

    • Jeff Rose

      “Most people shot by police are white”

      Sure, but black people are shot at a disproportionately higher rate, about 2.5 times higher than whites after you account for the fact that black people only make up about 13% of the population.

      “Mississippi has the second-lowest difference in arrest rates between blacks and whites”

      Not sure what point you are making here. The link you provided shows that in MS blacks are arrested 3 times as often as whites. If that’s the second lowest difference in the nation then I think it’s safe to say there’s a problem…

      “Racism is completely irrelevant to average Black outcomes in America”

      Really? Because statistically speaking Black outcomes are far worse than white in America across the board. You can look at poverty rates, crime rates, prostitution rates, arrest rates. Name any socio-economic ill and it disproportionately effects Black people in America (or rather brown skinned people in general). How do you explain the disparity? If you really believe that there is an even playing field then you must conclude that Black Americans are just statistically worse people than White. But that is a racist belief, a white supremacist belief! However it seems this is truly what you believe, as you go on to state that “No Black-majority country has ever become a first-world country when not under White rule,” as if you truly believe black people are helpless without white. I challenge you to name a single “black majority country” that was never under white rule. The entire continent of Africa was subject to European colonization, and while the Europeans did bring systems of education and governance to the Africans, they also brought exploitation bordering on slavery, and in some cases brutal resistance to African attempts at autonomy. The vast majority of “black majority countries” that were under white rule were left in shambles. And then you even point out that 4 East Asian countries that weren’t under white rule did achieve success, meanwhile ignoring the fact that all of the east
      Asian countries that were colonized by whites are still struggling to develop. You have a white supremacist world view, and a white supremacist version of history, and yet you claim that racism doesn’t exist.

      • arcseconds

        He does believe black people are just worse people than white people.

        • A good deal, but not all. 2/3 of Black men were never in prison! Clarence Thomas is the most righteous Supreme Court justice in all respects!

          • arcseconds

            Oh come on now, Harding, you think that black people are on the whole genetically inferior, and that obviously isn’t confined to just those that are in prison. Yes, it’s consistent to think that there might be the odd outlier.

            Otherwise, what was the point of bringing up majority African countries?

          • Your summary of my views is correct here; it was just your previous summary was too general.

      • “Not sure what point you are making here. The link you provided shows
        that in MS blacks are arrested 3 times as often as whites. If that’s the
        second lowest difference in the nation then I think it’s safe to say
        there’s a problem…”

        -There is a problem with Black criminality (and with Mississippian White criminality). It’s not a problem of “institutional racism”.

        Hawaii is the most racially equal state in America in almost all respects, but a good portion of its Blacks are in the military and a good portion of its Whites are mixed with Pacific Islanders.

        “I challenge you to name a single “black majority country” that was never under white rule.”

        -Liberia. Ethiopia’s monarchy was also only disrupted for a couple years, though it was ruled by Italy for that time. Then again, you can say the same thing about South Korea, Japan, Germany, and parts of China.

        “they also brought exploitation bordering on slavery,”

        -Wait a sec; who was trading those slaves to the Europeans before substantial Sub-Saharan imperialism? Europeans abolished slavery in most of Africa; they did not create the institution.

        “and in some cases brutal resistance to African attempts at autonomy”

        -Well, obviously, but that’s also what Japan did to Korea, Taiwan, and China.

        “The vast majority of “black majority countries” that were under white rule were left in shambles.”

        -Maybe so. And yet, Barbados and the Bahamas remain the only Black-majority first-world countries around today, as they were in the 1970s. Haiti, which declared independence on its own and with a violent rebellion, is much more in shambles than they.

        “ignoring the fact that all of the east
        Asian countries that were colonized by whites are still struggling to develop.”

        -Uh; Singapore? Malaysia isn’t East Asian-majority, but it has a sizeable Chinese population which is entirely responsible for its transformation into a first-world country. Brunei also has oil and is a first-world country due to this.

        Yes, European imperialism obviously hurt the Indian subcontinent. But India’s pre-existing assets were not fully suitable to rapid development, either.

        “You have a white supremacist world view, and a white supremacist version
        of history, and yet you claim that racism doesn’t exist.”

        -My views on this are shared by a fraction of Americans too small to substantially impact the average Black person in either a positive or negative direction.

        “or rather brown skinned people in general”

        -Not South Asian Indian-Americans, though. Funny how that is.

        • Jeff Rose

          Sorry, I based my original comment on the assumption that you were being inconsistent in your world view. As I’ve read through your other replies on this thread though I see that isn’t the case. If you truly hold to the belief that there is some difference between “races” then your arguements aren’t inconsistent at all. When you say “racism” doesn’t exist you mean “institutional racism” doesn’t exist. You are arguing against institutional racism in favor of what others (not you) would call “actual racism.” I see no logical inconsistency. I simply think you are wrong.

          • I always try to reconcile any intellectual inconsistencies in my head, so thx for noticing.

            What reasons make you suspect my incorrectness?

          • Jeff Rose

            Sorry again, let me rephrase. I think we simply disagree on the premises of our argument as I see it. It would go something like this:

            A: all people groups have roughly equal ability (genetically speaking; aka “all men are created equal”)

            B: every people group is given a roughly equal opportunity to succeed (i.e. no institutional racism, sexism, etc.)

            C: every people group will have roughly the same outcome

            If (A&B) then C

            But I think you and I would agree that C is false. Statistically speaking there are highly disproportionate rates of poverty, crime, salary, etc. between different people groups. So, if C is false, then (A&B) is false. I hold to A being true (and I would cite the human genome as evidence), therefore I conclude that B must be false. You however do not hold A to be true, so you are free to assume that B is true, or even that A and B are both false. Now we have no logical inconsistency, only a disagreement on the premis “A” and the evidence thereof.

          • That’s a good way of putting it. I think B is sometimes (often?) false between countries, but true in almost all cases within countries, and think A is very much false.

  • J Milton

    Uh oh – a discussion of dogmatism crosses paths with a discussion on racism. It truly seems perverse to deny that racism is quite real, permeates our society, and has a significant negative impact on the lives of black Americans. But is it the only factor? We need to watch our dogmatic tendencies here as well.

    • “It truly seems perverse to deny that racism is quite real, permeates
      our society, and has a significant negative impact on the lives of black
      Americans”

      -Only to those with the most negligible understanding of the facts and those most permeated with nutty Vermonter political ideology.

  • The only consistent and statistically significant factor in economic outcome and financial stability/opportunity is family structure.

    Regardless of skin tone (yes, TONE, not color) your odds of success go up or down based on having a mom AND a dad in the home.

    It’s a very inconvenient truth for pc driven progressives, but the facts are there for all to observe.

    Broken white homes are dirt poor and desperate just like all other skin tones.

    • There is a grain of truth here, but it’s only a grain. Back when marriage was near-universal among Blacks, those with characteristically Black names did have, on average, better life outcomes than those Blacks with other names. The reverse became the case in the 1960s. But most Blacks never really excelled before the 1960s, either.

      In any case, Iceland and France have problems, but they are not comparable to Black America.

      • I’m talking about raw census data from as early as it was collected. Marriage = financial stability especially when it’s a generational pattern. It’s timeless undeniable truth.

        Unfortunately our census no longer is interested in gathering data on marital status b/c progressives see the core stabilizing structure of “traditional family” as irrelevant. Any random gathering of temporary boyfriends and short-term shared housing arrangements by lovers is now called “family” – making the economic data of long term committed husband/wife marriages virtually impossible to gather.

        One only need visit a penitentiary however to see the proof on the other end of the spectrum. Ask any hardened criminal in prison about his father and the answers will range from “never met him” to “he’s been in prison his whole life” with little deviation from variations of those answers. You could search a lifetime trying to find a hardened criminal who tells you, “my father always told me I’d go to jail and amount to nothing if I hung out with thugs…but I didn’t listen…he taught me better than this…”.

        • What is the future of Iceland?

          • I have no idea, but those in stable marriages will be far more likely to be at the top of the economic food chain of the nation while those in dysfunctional families will struggle at the bottom end.

          • I agree, but I suspect the effect will, for the most part, not be causal. The function of marriage in Western societies has changed drastically over the past half-century, making it more correlated with class than before.

  • John MacDonald

    I think Creationist make a leap of faith. Them pointing out that an “apparently contingent” universe would seem to imply a non contingent first cause/mover is just jumping from a gap in our knowledge to a dogmatic assertion just because no other materialistic alternatives are currently known.

    • Is this really the case? It is certainly a jump from “first cause” to “God as defined by my theological system.” But is it mere dogmatic assertion to posit that something must simply exist, and since not only the things in our universe but our universe itself all appear to be things that came into being at some point, these must ultimately trace their existence back to whatever simply exists?

      • John MacDonald

        I would argue that the dogmatic (theist or atheist) assertion comes from arbitrarily choosing to view “that which simply exists” from (a) a theological framework, or (b) an atheistic framework. We run into a similar problem when we speculate whether the origins of life are best viewed from (a) a theological framework, or (b) an atheistic framework.

        The human mind wants to trace a series of causes and effects back to it’s origin, but it is simply groundless dogmatic flight of fancy to arbitrarily choose to view that original point from (a) a theological framework, or (b) an atheistic framework.

        Agnosticism asks us to recognize the boundary beyond which reason can’t reach.

    • I understand your point, however I’m equally confounded by the atheist’s ability to observe a harmonious intricate creation and not wonder who is behind it.

      If I were to tell you that a harmoniously constructed and meticulously detailed art work had no artist or builder behind it, but it simply “was”, would you not be confused by my assertion and challenge it?

      • Why would it be a who? It’s begging the question. The universe doesn’t look like an artwork.

      • John MacDonald

        I agree. So, what we have in the discussion between atheists and theists is analogous with what we see between liberals and conservatives in politics. Liberals interpret the political landscape and vote according to their biases and assumptions, just as conservatives do (analogous to what goes on in Law with voting in the Supreme court). Theists and atheists have two mutually exclusive interpretations of the evidence, but both agree with the evidence. It is arbitrary to choose the atheist interpretation over the theist model, and vice versa. In the end we just really don’t know whether there is a natural, materialistic explanation for the birth of the universe, or if God did it.

        • The unnerving logical progression of the athiest argument however is that all universal standards of conduct are up for interpretation and constant redefinition. If not so, under what authority are they stable?

          Your “evil” is my “good” and vice versa without any justification to argue to the contrary because “who is to say you are right and I’m wrong” if you shoot me and take my stuff…or more realistically in the near future, those with the power to do so “do us all a favor” and terminate every fetus with a sub-par gene marker for intelligence.

          I choose to rest in the timeless moral truths that have built the greatest cultures ever established. Honesty, integrity, divine universal design in creation, respect for all life and the willing service of others to name a few. These and other similar virtuous pillars of our culture are the foundational truths given to us and established by the God of the bible and those who followed that God at the founding of our nation. They weren’t perfect people of course – living in a flawed world full of brutal evils worldwide, but the end results are hard to argue as we both sit comfortably in air conditioned homes with unimagined technology at our fingertips that never would have happened without these very universal laws having been embraced and this great nation of the US having been formed.

          • John MacDonald

            Why couldn’t a secular world ascribe to these same virtues?

          • Anyone can ascribe to any values they want of course – but that’s not the point.

            The point is, only the timeless values handed down from a higher authority can be imposed regardless of our agreement/disagreement on the merits of the virtues. Without a higher authority, any virtue you put forth to me can be shot down with a rebuttal of “maybe that virtue works for you, but it’s not for me because I believe the opposing virtue is preferable and more beneficial to me or to our culture etc.” – and there can never be a final agreement b/c of the endless preferences of man.

            Example:
            Who is to say that killing off everyone with a sub-par IQ wouldn’t help the planet? My set of virtues says God told us not to murder and it would be wrong. On what basis would an atheist defend not pursuing such a course of action however?

          • John MacDonald

            Wouldn’t virtue followed out of free will be more noble than virtue followed because there will be hell to pay if you don’t?

          • Oh if it were so!

            …but this isn’t about the afterlife. You are avoiding my question. Stated differently –

            Without God or a higher authority in the picture, my choice to lie for self advancement or kill the “stupid” is just as virtuous as your choice to tell the truth when it hurts you, or serve the weak. On what authority do you challenge my personal choice of virtues?

          • John MacDonald

            I’m a moral relativist, so I don’t disagree with what you say. Morality is absolute in that we are responsible for our actions (as opposed to, say, someone with a mental defect who is not responsible for his actions), but the “specific” system of virtues and vices we ascribe to is subjective and arbitrary. For instance, virtues for a Christian might include meekness and giving away your possessions, while a good life for someone a-religious might be the pursuit of wealth and power. Nietzsche made this point long ago.

          • We are responsible to who for our actions? What if I decide in my moral relativism that honesty is evil…and should be punished?

            And to be clear – you are cool with the plan to kill off the stupid people with me right? Not to do so would be a lack of virtue on our part – so when do we start?

            haha -this was fun. Thanks! Gotta get back to real life…

          • John MacDonald

            Accepting relativism means accepting there is no ground for our moral standpoints other than our personal biases, whims, and flights of fancy.

          • John MacDonald

            One way to think of it is that being a moral relativist is analogous to being a political relativist. A political relativist doesn’t think that liberals are “right,” any more than conservatives are “right.” Rather, liberalism and conservativism are just arbitrary biases that govern what people vote for, and what they vote against. In moral relativism, a person is not right or wrong in their behavior, just that their interpretation of right and wrong is held according to their arbitrary biases.

          • John MacDonald

            I don’t like the idea of terminating “every fetus with a sub-par gene marker for intelligence.” I also don’t like tomatoes on hamburgers. But why should my opinions on these issues matter? These are only just my arbitrary opinions.