Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Immigration’

Here I go again.

Aside from correcting typos, this will be the last update of my flyer “Black People Are More Criminal Than White People.” You may notice that some figures have changed. This time, I used the NCVS demographic data, not the Census demographic data, when calculating crime rates from the NCVS crime data. This is the appropriate choice, and it reveals that I underestimated Black criminality in versions 1–3. Also, the crimes covered by the flyer are more specific; for example, simple assault is now separate from aggravated assault. (Aggravated assault shows a bigger Black-White crime gap; usually the gap increases with the violence of the crime, robbery being one notable exception.) In short, wherever version 4 disagrees with the other versions, version 4 should be considered accurate.

Version 4 is available in PDF format here and as a JPEG image here.

Read Full Post »

I have re-updated my flyer on race and crime. The newer and more improved Version 3 is available in PDF format here and as a JPEG image below (click for the full-size image).

Special thanks to commenters Leonard, Annie L., and Olave d’Estienne for their suggestions. Any mistakes and/or bad decisions are mine, of course.

Read Full Post »

I have updated my flyer on race and crime. The new and improved Version 2 is available in PDF format here and as a JPEG image below (click for the full-size image).

I encourage you to share this flyer with anyone, anywhere. Put them up around town. Leave them on benches or chairs or desks. Go nuts. And use this information to utterly destroy your debate opponents.

Let me know if you find any mistakes, or if you would prefer a version with a less outrageous title.

Read Full Post »

The word “racism” is now meaningless in Norwegian as well, reports a reader via email from the land of snipers and black metal. (What do you mean, I don’t have a thorough understanding of Norwegian history and culture?)

Norway!

Below is his translation of an article, “Chaudhry accuses FrP of racism,” from the Aftenposten (“Evening Post”), Norway’s largest newspaper. Note that the “FrP” is Norway’s “Progress Party,” which values individual rights, a free-market economy, small government, restricted immigration, and law and order. Since its inception, the FrP has resided on the political fringe because of its stance on immigration, i.e. its failure to recognize the wonderful, unspecified benefits of filling your country with the kind of people who build the kind of countries those same people are desperate to escape from. Since 2005, however, as Europe has begun to realize (and pay) the true cost of “diversity,” the FrP has flourished as Norway’s second largest party (currently the most popular among secondary school students).

Member of Parliament Akhtar Chaudhry (Socialist Left Party) accuses the Progress Party of racism after Per-Willy Amundsen said that Muslims have the lowest workforce participation rate.

“This borders on racism,” said Chaudhry to Dagsavisen.

Akhtar Chaudhry is a Pakistani immigrant and 4th Vice President of the Norwegian parliament.

Sniff sniff. "I think I smell some non-Dhimmis around here..."

He is also a whiny little bitch who seeks to undermine Norwegian values (like the separation of Church and State, women’s rights, and not stoning homosexuals) by shutting down debate and suppressing dissent with accusations of discrimination.

Chaudhry is distressed and concerned, and draws parallels to the growth of National Socialism in 1930s Germany. Amundsen’s comment is not in good taste.

Note the appeals to emotion: “distressed and concerned,” “not in good taste” — as if Chaudhry’s (fake) sense of propriety and (fake) distress define the limits of free speech.

“It’s completely borderline. [Note that completely almost racist is still not racist.] If you switch out ‘Muslims’ for ‘Jews’ in the criticism, you understand the importance of what is being said,” says Chaudhry.

He’s absolutely right: if you switch our “Muslims” for “Jews” in the criticism, and see that the result is a false statement, you will understand the importance of addressing Muslim immigration.

He is referring to Amundsen’s comment yesterday that Muslim immigrants have the lowest workforce participation rate. Minister of Labor Hanne Bjurstrøm (Labor Party), and Geir Bekkevold, political immigration speaker for the Christian Democratic Party, distanced themselves from the statement.

Cowards. Traitors.

Hardly in keeping with the proud Norwegian tradition of badassery.

Here’s why Amundsen is right, and also why he’s on Unamusement Park’s List of Cool Norwegians (along with Max Manus, Roald Amundsen (no relation?), all the Vikings, and of course anyone who reads this blog):

Amundsen is standing his ground and insists that he’s not racist.

“I disagree entirely. I am referring to public statistics. It’s clear that the immigrants in Norway with the lowest workforce participation rate are from countries in the Muslim world,” says Amundsen.

Amundsen is backed by the Central Bureau of Statistics. According to CBS, immigrants from Somalia have a workforce participation rate of 31.9 percent. In other words, almost seven of ten Somalians are unemployed. The next lowest countries on the list are Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Morocco, Turkey, Kosovo and Iran.

“The eight countries with the worst workforce participation rate are Muslim countries. That speaks for itself,” says Amundsen.

Remember: pattern recognition is racist.

Here is the actual ending of the article:

He also says that Islam’s view of women is a hindrance to their employment.

Here is my fantasy ending:

He also says: “Suck it, Chaudhry. If you and I had been born 70 years earlier, you’d be telling us how ‘distressed and concerned’ you are that I said Germans have the highest Holocaust participation rate. ‘It’s completely borderline! It’s not in good taste! Waaaaah!'”

At this point, Amundsen made an unprintably obscene gesture in the direction of Chaudhry’s seat in the Parliament Building, sang the national anthem with the voice of an angel and the raw power of a proud Norwegian muskox (bringing tears to this reporter’s eyes, and the eyes of every other true Norwegian within singing distance), performed a vigorous Norwegian folk dance, and declared the interview terminated.

Full disclosure: this reporter is now in love with Mr. Amundsen.

"And then he made us muck out his sheep. His proud Norwegian sheep."

News of Norway

From OzConservative to The Fourth Checkraise to Sofiastry (and also from Jewamongyou to Human Stupidity) to me to you: a video from Norwegian TV.

Norway is known for its news.

Yes, I follow the Norwegian news. Who doesn’t? (Google’s suggestion, based on my browser history: “Showing results for I hate all the Muslims and wish they would just go back to Johnny Arab land as soon as possible. Search instead for news of Norway.”)

FEMALE ANNOUNCER: In Oslo, all sexual assaults involving rape in the past year have been committed by males of non-Western background [meaning non-White]. This was the conclusion of a police report published today.

MALE ANNOUNCER: This means that in every single sexual assault in the last five years, where the rapist could be identified, he was a man of foreign origin [meaning non-White].

MALE REPORTER: The young girl we are about to meet was raped about two years ago. As she entered her apartment she was assaulted, and endured hours of threats, violence and rape by a [non-White] man unknown to her. She will be struggling with this experience for the rest of her life.

YOUNG GIRL: I have found it difficult to go out shopping on my own because I felt anxious. I was simply too afraid to go out the door, and had problems contacting and speaking to friends and family, and simply to live a normal life.

MALE REPORTER: In April, a few weeks ago four women were assaulted and raped on the same night [by non-White men]. None of the [non-White] perpetrators has yet been found.

Well, you can start with racial profiling. Call it “community policing” or something. Then round up all the young Muslim men for questioning.

Today Oslo police presented the total figures revealing how in the past year all sexual assault involving rape had been committed by men of non-Western background [meaning non-White].

FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: Many of the [non-White] perpetrators who commit these rapes on the edge of [White] society, often unemployed [i.e., too lazy to get a job; would rather live off White Norwegians’ tax dollars], arriving from traumatized countries [which, of course, excuses anything they do to their White oppressors — I mean, it’s not like it’s non-White people are the reason non-White countries are so “traumatized” (read: shitty).] In the past five years, it has often been asylum seekers.

“My country is mean to me! Waaaaah! Let me in to yours! I promise I won’t rape anyone! Waaaaah!”

MALE REPORTER: This girl was raped by a [non-White] man of Pakistani heritage. She is an ethnic Norwegian [i.e., White], as are almost all victims who are assaulted and then raped.

That sounds almost like discrimination.

YOUNG GIRL: He said that he had the right to do exactly as he wanted to a woman. [“Why?”] Because that is how it was in his religion. Women did not have rights or opinions. He was in charge.

Hey, who are we to judge?

Oh, right: we’re rational, moral human beings, whereas these people are objectively inferior savages. That’s who we are to judge.

FEMALE POLICE OFFICER: The way women are viewed [by non-Whites] is at least one of the questions we have to ask in order to understand the motive of the [non-White] perpetrators. …

The motive, incidentally, is sex. It’s just that they’re not decent-enough people to suppress their animal instincts.

… It should not stand on its own, as a stigma [meaning we should never incorporate race and religion into police work, no matter what the cost to real Norwegians], but it is an element we must have the courage to address.

Well, you could start by (a) calling them what they are (Muslims, non-Whites), and (b) not excusing them as “asylum seekers” from “traumatized countries.”

Your Mission, Should You Choose to Accept It

Here’s what I want you to do, you compassionate reactionaries: bring up this video in conversation. Real live conversation. Not on the Internet. You could wait until someone starts talking about Europe, or the Middle East, or immigration, or women (“speaking of which…”), or just start a conversation about it (“hey, did you know that…”).

"Hey kids, it's time to learn about Norwegian crime statistics!" "Sir, I'm going to have ask you to leave the playground."

After all, it’s just an interesting statistic you heard on the news. You don’t have to “defend” it. It’s not a political philosophy or a policy proposal — but see below.

Suppose you do bring it up, and someone says “so what?” Well, I tried having this conversation with myself, which is

  1. probably a sign of mental illness, and
  2. a good way to practice debating.

The following is a dialogue between a compassionate reactionary (CR) and a stupid, liberal, anti-white bigot (SLAWB), which I ranted to myself in real time, cleaned up, and annotated.

Warning: CR is compassionate, so he emphasizes the positive (crime prevention, women’s rights, preserving one’s culture), but of course he’s also a reactionary, so he probably goes much further than you’re comfortable with (outside the Internet). Consider him an upper bound on acceptable debate.

CR: Hey, so I saw this news report that says every rape in the capital of Norway in the last five years was by a non-White immigrant. Check it out.

SLAWB: So what?

CR: Excuse me? [I usually feign innocence (and confusion) after saying something provocative.]

SLAWB: What’s your point? We should just kick all the immigrants out of Norway?

CR: I didn’t make any suggestions for immigration policy. I just thought you’d like to known, ’cause you’re into, like, women’s rights and stuff. This is pretty much the number one way to identify rapists in Norway: they’re foreigners. Seems like women should be aware of that.

SLAWB: You can’t identify foreigners just by looking at them! How could you tell the difference between a Norwegian and a German?

CR: I wouldn’t be trying to tell the difference between a Norwegian and a German. [I try to shut down straw man arguments as quickly and directly as possible. “That’s not what we were talking about.”] If I were interested in avoiding rape, I would be trying to tell the difference between a Norwegian and a Turk. Or an Iranian. Or an Egyptian.

SLAWB: In other words, you want us to start using racial profiling to target Muslims!

CR: Oh, you’re saying all the rapists are Muslims? [If you deliberately avoid mentioning the problematic group you’re actually talking about, like Muslims in Europe or Blacks and Hispanics in the USA, it guarantees that your opponent will be the first to bring it up. Then it’s their idea, not yours, and you can just run with it:] Well, I guess that makes sense, considering what countries they come from.

Anyway, is this “racial profiling” anything like “sex profiling,” where you “target” men because they’re so much more likely to commit crime than women? Because that kind of profiling seems pretty reasonable: if one group of people is committing nearly all the crimes, then you should probably pay more attention to that group. Like men (sex profiling), young adults (age profiling), and Muslim immigrants (ethnic profiling). Or do you think we should be just as worried about an 80-year-old Norwegian grandmother committing rape, as we are about a 20-year-old Turkish man?

[Asking questions, even obviously rhetorical questions with only one sane answer, is weak: it gives your opponent the chance to answer you. That is why I never give anyone the chance to answer my rhetorical questions:] I don’t know about your idea of kicking them all out of the country, but maybe we could just deport the illegal immigrants and the ones with criminal records, then stop any new ones from coming in.

SLAWB: Most of those immigrants are poor refugees who just want to escape from injustice and lead a better life, the kind of life you were privileged enough to be born into.

CR: It seems to me that being poor and wanting a better life don’t excuse you from committing sexual assault. I’m no expert on fashion, but I always thought women kept their money in a purse, not in their vaginas. [I actually say stuff like this. Your mileage may vary.]

Anyway, it’s interesting you mentioned that they’re escaping from “injustice” in their home country: a country filled with people just like them. Same race, same ethnicity, same religion, same culture. People just like them are committing injustices against them. So they flee. They flee to a nice country like Norway, with nice people and a nice culture. And what’s the first thing they do there? Rape spree.

I mean, if they’re committing about 100% of the rapes, it stands to reason that the rate of sexual assault has gone up, like, infinity percent since they got there. Maybe the reason their home country is so bad is… it’s full of the same kind of people who are fleeing it and coming to Norway. Everyone wants a better life… especially the ones who don’t deserve it.

Based on this news report, it looks like these immigrants aren’t assimilating into the wonderful, privileged society of Norway. They’re not changing. They’re bringing their third-world problems with them. So as more and more of them pile into Norway, Norway is going to look more and more like a third-world country. Meanwhile, Afghanisatan and Pakistan are still going to be third-world countries, so rather than raising up the foreigners to our level, we’re letting them drag us down to theirs.

The Norwegians were leading a “better life” because they weren’t committing all these injustices against one another. Good for them. They’re entitled to keep living their privileged lives the way they’ve always lived them, with each other. They do have that right. Let the Muslim immigrants — especially the poor ones, the ones who get on welfare the moment they arrive, the ones who commit most of the crime — let them stay in their own country, with their own people, and fix it up so it’s as good as Norway. Don’t bring them to Norway, so they can drag it down until it’s as bad as… whatever. Syria, I guess.

SLAWB: [head explodes]

Try it yourself. Write a dialogue, or have a real one.

Imagine yourself as a proud Norwegian muskox, locking horns with an inferior Middle Eastern, er... goat.

For extra credit, re-read this post and identify all the signs of the Dark Triad in my writing. (That’s narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy: self-obsessed; deceitful and exploitative; and thrill-seeking and callous.)

Read Full Post »

Starlette McNeill of the Daily Race has stumbled across Unamusement Park’s secret hate laboratory in the course of her spiritual pilgrimage/intrepid sleuthing, just like in that Nancy Drew book. You know, Nancy Drew and the Secret of White Racial Consciousness?

Hypothetically speaking, would it be okay to say 'Nancy Drew is smoking hot and looks like she's up for anything'?

Fortunately, she — I mean Mrs. McNeill, not Miss Drew — hasn’t yet uncovered our secret bunker complex in Vermont. That, at least, is safe. For the moment.

1. Dialogue: FACILITATED

Regarding whiny black people, Mrs. McNeill writes

MRS. McNEILL: To describe this post as troubling is an understatement as it does nothing to further the discussion of your position however disagreeable it may be for me. I think that I am more disturbed at your handling of the matter and your redefining of its expression as “another whiny black.” Now, I’m not offended at the title because I don’t identify myself as either whiny or black. The comments that you approved for others to view are indicative of your goal. In my opinion, you would do more to facilitate constructive and meaningful dialogue if you were not so constrained in your vision by race.

I grant that this (“does nothing to further the discussion”) is a reasonable thing to say if you are unfamiliar with the ‘Park and its endless treatises on black people and their many idiosyncrasies. “Another whiny black” is, quite frankly, not much of a post, content-wise. Therefore I suggested more substantial material. “I don’t know what dialogue you think I’m trying to facilitate,” I further ventured, “but I’d settle for getting white people angry.” Followed by the irresistible: “Seriously? You don’t identify as black?” (She will accept “African-American.”)

Anyway, I thought her follow-up comment merited a post of its own.

MRS. McNEILL: Thanks for responding to my post and no, I don’t identify as a black person — seriously. I believe that a racialized life is an unexamined and unexperienced life. It is an identity given as I was told that I was black and I have a choice as to whether or not I want to accept it.

Aesthetically, I am not physically black so what does it mean when I am referred to as a black person? Black is a social condition not a human condition. Some books that have been very instrumental in strengthening my position include that of Race: The History of an Idea in America by Thomas Gossett, The Invention of the White Race by Theodore Allen and anything by David Roediger who said, “(Whiteness) is the empty and therefore terrifying attempt to build an identity based on what one isn’t and on whom one cannot hold back.” The reality of race has not been proven by any branch of science, philosophy or religion though employed by all to justify its oppressions and privileges. It is a cruel imagination in my opinion. To say that I live a raceless life is actually quite liberating. I stand in agreement with Albert Einstein who said once, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it” and DuBois who said that color is “the eternal world-wide mark of meanness.” You have to step outside of it in order to honestly critique it and reject it.

I should add that I do identify as an African American as black is not a country or a continent for that matter but a color.

This post is an open letter to Mrs. McNeill and anyone else who sympathizes with her ideas.

I will try to behave.

I have a bad track record of good behavior.

2. Like the police, I’m always telling black people to identify themselves (LOL jk)

If we’re going to have a productive dialogue, and not just play word games until one of us gets bored, then we need to establish some terminology. It doesn’t really matter what terms we use, as long as we both know what they refer to (language being defined by usage).

Yes, black is a color. No, Mrs. McNeill, you are not black in that sense. However, that is not what I mean by “black” in this context, and it is not what 99.9 percent of the English-speaking world means by it either. Forget the color black. It’s about as relevant to this conversation as the South Pole is to Polish people.

Human beings can be grouped into races (and subraces) according to ancestral geography. The black races are made up of people of recent Sub-Saharan African descent: those people whose ancestors, going back hundreds of generations and thousands of years, except possibly for the last few hundred years, were inhabitants of Sub-Saharan Africa. Obviously, there are also people who are 50 percent black, 90 percent black, 1 percent black, and so on, and the lines we draw to separate black from non- are necessarily blurry — but then so is the line between short and tall, yet height continues to exist.

There are five races of blacks (again, this is based on ancestral geography): the Khoid race (or Hottentot), the Sanid race (or Bushmen), the Central Congoid race, the Bambutid race (or Pygmies), and the Aethiopid race (hybridized with Caucasoids). In America, for well-known historical reasons, the majority of blacks belong to the Central Congoid race (“[g]eographic center and origin in the Congo river basin”). There’s just not a whole lot of Bushmen or Pygmies here.

It is important to remember that races are not defined by skin pigmentation, although in America dark skin is a convenient way to identify black people — hence the term “black”. (There’s not a whole lot of dark-skinned Australian Aborigines here either. Maybe they’re all hanging out with the Pygmies.)

The Central Congoid race has four subraces, two of which are particularly well known. West Africans (the Sudanid subrace) produce the world’s best sprinters. East Africans (the Kafrid or Bantid subrace), on the other hand, produce the best distance runners, but they don’t make good sprinters. According to Jon Entine’s book Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We Are Afraid to Talk About It, “no white, Asian or East African has broken ten seconds in the 100metres.”

How can this be? What does ancestral geography have to do with athletic ability? Well, the relevant equation here is:

geographical separation + time + evolution = genetic differences

That, at least, is what evolutionary biology teaches us to expect. Can we test this theory? In fact, this is what happens when you measure and plot three principal components of genetic variation (PC1, PC2, PC3) among black people:

Genetic variation in Africa. Source: "The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans."

If I had to choose just one conclusion to draw from that graph, “races don’t exist” wouldn’t be it. More on that later.

3. Positive ID

I think this addresses one part of Mrs. McNeill’s comment.

MRS. McNEILL: … I don’t identify as a black person… It is an identity given as I was told that I was black and I have a choice as to whether or not I want to accept it.

Aesthetically, I am not physically black so what does it mean when I am referred to as a black person? Black is a social condition not a human condition. …

I should add that I do identify as an African American as black is not a country or a continent for that matter but a color.

According to my definition (which happens to be a very popular one, as well as the only one that makes sense socially, genetically, and anthropologically), one cannot choose to be black or not, for exactly the same reason that one cannot choose one’s parents.

Americans are citizens of the United States of America; Africans come from Africa, or at least their ancestors do; African-Americans… well, you figure it out. But black is — okay, yes, a color, but also a way to describe ancient ancestry.

4. The reality of race

Now I’ll address the second part of Mrs. McNeill’s comment.

MRS. McNEILL: The reality of race has not been proven by any branch of science, philosophy or religion though employed by all to justify its oppressions and privileges. It is a cruel imagination in my opinion.

You’re in luck, because debunking the boldfaced statement is one of Unamusement Park’s specialties. I have written extensively on the subject:

  1. “Big Lies,” Big Lie #1 being that race doesn’t exist
  2. “The African Running Straw Man,” again, which addresses differences (genetic, athletic… er, peripatetic?) between black subraces
  3. “Income and IQ,” on race differences in intelligence
  4. “Your ideas are stupid and so are you (part 2),” rebutting a “rebuttal” of race differences in intelligence
  5. “‘Scientific racism’ is actually valid science” (part 1, part 2), on debunking race denialism — the (massive) part 2, in particular, has a lot of information about genetic race
  6. here are more and more and more posts debunking race denialism
  7. hey, I even wrote something about Hispanic people

Here are some of race realism’s greatest hits (race realism being the radical idea that races are real, as opposed to race denialism).

  1. An article in the American Journal of Human Genetics reports a 99.86 percent success rate in determining a person’s self-reported race (white, African-American, East Asian, or Hispanic) based solely on genetic clusters (i.e., patterns of DNA).
  2. According to Genome Biology, geneticists, medical doctors, and statisticians agree: medically speaking, race exists. That’s probably why acknowledging the reality of race can help doctors treat patients.
  3. Forensic anthropologists can determine a person’s race just from looking at his bones (CNN). Dr. George Gill can explain it better than I can.
  4. From the Department of Uncomfortable Truths: Richard Lynn’s Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis.
  5. We already saw a plot of genetic variation among black people. Here’s one of genetic variation among all the races — I mean, the so-called, fake, imaginary, non-existent races, of course:

    Genetic variation worldwide. Source: "The Genetic Structure and History of Africans and African Americans."

  6. Here are a couple of genetic maps from famous geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza’s magnum opus, The History and Geography of Human Genes — again, this is just genes:

    Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of the world. (Clearly, races do not exist.)

    Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of Africa. (Remember those five races and those four subraces?)

So… that’s it. That’s my case. Race is real, and it’s genetic.

Which is why Asian people have Asian babies.

5. ABC and 123… and 4

Finally, I will address the third part of Mrs. McNeill’s comment.

I believe that a racialized life is an unexamined and unexperienced life. …

… Some books that have been very instrumental in strengthening my position include that of Race: The History of an Idea in America by Thomas Gossett, The Invention of the White Race by Theodore Allen and anything by David Roediger who said, “(Whiteness) is the empty and therefore terrifying attempt to build an identity based on what one isn’t and on whom one cannot hold back.” …

… To say that I live a raceless life is actually quite liberating. I stand in agreement with Albert Einstein who said once, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it” and DuBois who said that color is “the eternal world-wide mark of meanness.” You have to step outside of it in order to honestly critique it and reject it.

Certainly one can put too much emphasis on race. Unfortunately, our problem is that we do not put nearly enough emphasis on race. We do not acknowledge its reality, its significance.

Here are four statements which are (a) true, and not even scientifically controversial, (b) crucial to understanding the world we live in, but nevertheless (c) totally unacceptable in mainstream, contemporary American society, for purely political reasons (as opposed to scientific or moral or… whatever).

  1. Black people are less intelligent on average than white people.
  2. Black people commit more crime on average than white people.
  3. It’s better to live in a white-majority nation than a black-majority nation.
  4. Most racial discrimination in the USA today is directed against white people.

I’ve tried to explain this to bla— I mean, African-American people before, with various degrees of compassion, which was difficult, because I am CONSUMED BY HATRED GRRRRRRR

Anyway, this blog is essentially all about the four statements above, so I won’t even address them in this post (well, maybe the third statement — see below). Instead, I want to talk about this excellent example of a racial slur: “[whiteness] is the empty and therefore terrifying attempt to build an identity based on what one isn’t and on whom one cannot hold back” (David Roediger).

6. White pride

What can a proud Caucasian say to such nonsense? (“Screw you, David Roediger” leaps to mind.) I’m supposed to take this clown’s word for it that whiteness is an attempt (an empty and therefore terrifying one, at that) to build an identity based on what one isn’t and on whom one cannot hold back? Gee, and all this time I’ve been operating under the assumption that whiteness is the quality of belonging to the white race, and that the white race (or races — see Caucasoid races E through J) is made up of people of recent European descent: those people whose ancestors, going back hundreds of generations and thousands of years, except possibly for the last few hundred years, were inhabitants of Europe. And Russia. And bits of North Africa — okay, it’s complicated, but that doesn’t mean it’s hard to tell Poles from Pakistanis (that is, Nordish Caucasoid from Indic Caucasoid). So that’s what white people are.

White people! Remember us? We built Western civilization? Invented just about everything worth inventing? Discovered just about everything worth discovering? Modern medicine? Man on the moon? Milk, pasteurization of?

Fine, I guess East Asians are pretty smart too.

You must have noticed that our countries — white-majority nations — are the best places in the world to live. America, Britain, Canada, Denmark, even Estonia for crying out loud (most internet freedom in the world!), France, Germany — why on Earth did I think this list was necessary? I mean, sure, there are good things about, er… Afghanistan, Botswana, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, um… French Polynesia is quite nice (even if they do hate the Chinese)… Ghana?

These are all perfectly obvious facts about the white race. About the worst thing that can be said about them is that focusing too much on them demonstrates an irrational or even unhealthy interest in whiteness. After all, I didn’t build Western civilization. I didn’t put a man on the moon (as far as I know). At best, my ancestors did. So why the race obsession?

— a question, incidentally, which only white people ever have to answer. If they hope to avoid being publicly disgraced, that is.

Why do I take pride in white accomplishments? Why do I bother to identify as white? Because in a world of whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Eskimos, Indians, Arabs, Jews, Pygmies, and a slew of other races and ethnicities, life is very dangerous for the one group that doesn’t look out for its own interests. The one group, in fact, that generally doesn’t allow anyone to look out for its interests.

7. I hope you’re ready, ’cause here’s the really racist part

White racial consciousness is essentially the radical idea that whites are people too; that their opinions count, even their opinions about race; and that they should look out for their own interests. The interests of the white race, that is: their big extended family. You know, the way every other race looks out for itself? (Sorry OneSTDV, I’m still working on the whole white moral autonomy thing.)

“White supremacy,” however you define it, really doesn’t enter into it. Nor does it enter into this:

White nationalism, or white separatism if you prefer, is essentially the radical idea that white people would be better off (in any way you’d care to name — and no, “diverseness” doesn’t count) in a white-majority nation (I listed some above), with a system of immigration and naturalization (i.e., assimilation) designed to keep it that way.

Well… wouldn’t they? Be better off, that is. You know, like the Japanese in Japan, with their strict immigration policies? Or, hell, like the Mexicans in Mexico, with their strict immigration policies?

Consider Mexico. Look at the rate at which Mexicans are immigrating to California. Look at the slow but steady deterioration — destruction, really — of that once great state. Now look at the way Mexico already is. Well… what did you think would happen? California will turn into Mexico as soon as it is full of Mexicans. I am continually astonished that this is a controversial theory.

Consider a certain other continent — I’m not going to say which. Picture the following purely hypothetical scenario — better yet, don’t picture it, just read it. A fourteen-year-old boy, high on cocaine, forces a mother to watch as he decapitates her son with a machete. Next, he and dozen of his machete-wielding, cocaine-snorting chums will rape and murder her. In an adjacent country, maybe even an adjacent village, children are being tortured and killed for being “witches,” while albinos are being murdered and dismembered so that their body parts can be sold to “witches.” Oh yeah, and it’s the twenty-first goddamn century. Quick: what race are all these people?

Hint hint.

Follow-up question: how, exactly, is the evil legacy of colonialism, imperialism, and slavery causing this to happen? Or this, or this, or this, or this, or this, or this?

Here, have a shirt. Alllllll better.

Who cares about Africa, anyway? Seriously. Let’s bring it on home. What are the best places to live in America? Here are the top five.

  1. Eden Prairie, MN: 91% white, 5% Asian, 2% black.
  2. Ellicott City, MD: 78% white, 12% Asian, 7% black
  3. Newton, MA: 88% white, 8% Asian, 2% black
  4. Bellevue, WA: 74% white, 17% Asian, 2% black
  5. McKinney, TX: 78% white, 1% Asian, 7% black

And the worst, most dangerous, most drug- and crime-ridden cities?

  1. Cleveland, OH: 53% black, 36% non-Hispanic white
  2. Memphis, TN: 63% black, 30% non-Hispanic white
  3. Detroit, MI: 82% black, 12% white
  4. Flint, MI: 53% black, 41% white
  5. Miami, FL: 19% black, 70% Hispanic, only 12% non-Hispanic white

The list goes on. According to Hip-Hop Wired, of all places,

[o]ut of the top 10 list [of the most dangerous cities in America], African Americans are more than 50% of the population on 8 of the 10 cities listed.

Go on then. Tell me diversity’s been good for America. Tell me it’s been good for white people.

White nationalism: the best idea everybody’s ever hated.

Read Full Post »

Welcome back to Hatred, Unamusement Park’s five-part documentary on the War on Hate. In part one, we observed how anti-racists react when John Derbyshire pokes them with a stick, by which I mean: tells them about intelligence research that insufficiently flatters black people. In part two, with decidedly bigger fish to fry, we tiptoed up to the railroad tracks of gender feminism and slapped both hands on the third rail of rape responsibility — which, I suppose, would fry a very big metaphorical fish.

Today, there will be no frying of fish. Today, we take that big fish… and we grill it with salsa verde! Ay, caramba!

This picture made me so hungry, I stopped writing and went to a Mexican restaurant. After my meal, I had them all deported.

It’s a genetic epic: an Hispanic panic! Are they ethnic or organic? That third rail was galvanic.

I’m manic.

1. Definition, or: Hispanics — what are they and how do they work?

What are Hispanics, anyway? (Or should I say Latinos? Latino-Hispanics?) Are they a race? An ethnic group? What’s the difference? I thought races were social constructs anyway. Does that make ethnic groups super-social constructs? AAAAAAAH IT’S SO CONFUSING.

Let’s get the basics out of the way. (This is still much further than “anti”-racists ever get.) The term “Hispanic” has many meanings, of varying degrees of uselessness, complicated by the fact that no one can decide what term to use.

For now I’ll work with the most official definition of all, officially introduced by the US government in the official 1970 Census. (Back then, the term was “Hispanic.” By 2000, it had been updated to “Spanish/Hispanic/Latino.” Someone must have complained.) Currently, according to the US Office of Management and Budget, the term (actually, they use “Hispanic or Latino,” but let’s not quibble) means “a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.”

By this definition, “Hispanic” is not a race. Not one little bit. (Someone should really explain that to Hispanic gangs, so they stop warring with black gangs.) According to the very official US Census, it is an ethnicity. It’s also the only ethnicity: you are either “Hispanic or Latino” or “Non-Hispanic or Latino.” (Self-identifying as both, a logical contradiction, is neither explicitly allowed nor prohibited.)

So what’s an ethnicity? According to Wikipedia:

a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy. “…in general it is a highly biologically self-perpetuating group sharing an interest in a homeland connected with a specific geographical area, a common language and traditions, including food preferences, and a common religious faith.”

Other definitions are similar: “people of the same race or nationality who share a distinctive culture” (Free Dictionary); people “sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like” (Dictionary.com); a classification “according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). But we know better than to think ethnicity is racial.

2. Heritage, or: Once upon a time in Mexico

Unfortunately, people “of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin” do not share a common language, a common culture, or a common religion — distinctive or otherwise. Anyone who thinks they do is more racist than I’ll ever be.

This image represents the extent of my knowledge of Mexican culture.

What, then, is this “heritage” they share? Surely not a genetic heritage! Although that’s usually what a “common ancestry or endogamy” implies… and it would be “highly biologically self-perpetuating”…

Other people, especially Hispanics, are confused too — frustrated, even. From Time magazine (March 29, 2010):

Many, if not most, Hispanics in the U.S. think of their ethnicity (also known as Latino) not just in cultural terms but in a racial context as well. It’s why more than 40% of Hispanics, when asked on the Census form in 2000 to register white or black as their race, wrote in “Other” — and they represented 95% of all the 15.3 million people in the U.S. who did so.

An even larger share of Hispanics, including my Venezuelan-American wife, is expected to report “Other,” “Hispanic” or “Latino” in the race section of the 2010 census forms being mailed to U.S. homes this month. What makes it all the more confusing if not frustrating to them is that Washington continues to insist on those forms that “Hispanic origins are not races.” If the Census Bureau lists Filipino and even Samoan as distinct races, Hispanics wonder why they — the product of half a millennium of New World miscegenation — aren’t considered a race too.

Miscegenation… that’s got something to do with races, right? Must not be important, then. We’ll leave it until later.

3. Race, or: (d) None of the above

The Washington Post (July 14, 2003) reports the same curious phenomenon.

Nearly 50 percent of Latinos who filed a Census report said they were white, according to the center’s report.

The 2.7 percent of Latinos who described themselves as black, most of them from the Caribbean, had lower incomes and higher rates of poverty than the other groups — despite having a higher level of education.

Among Latinos who described themselves as “some other race,” earnings and levels of poverty and unemployment fell between black and white members of their ethnic group. About 47 percent of Latinos said on Census forms that they are “some other race,” according to the report.

“The point of the report,” said John R. Logan, the report’s lead researcher, “is that if we take seriously the way people talk about their race, and the reality of their lives, we find that there are real distinctions between white and black Latinos and Hispanics who say they are some other race.” …

In the average metropolitan neighborhood where white Hispanics live, there are hardly any residents who are black Hispanic, the study found. The same is true in neighborhoods populated by Hispanics who say they are neither white nor black.

Fascinating. Apparently, “if we take seriously the way people talk about their race, and the reality of their lives” (but who would want to do that?), “we find that there are real distinctions between white and black Latinos and Hispanics who say they are some other race.”

Ask Hispanics about their race, and you get one of three answers, almost 100 percent of the time: white, black, or other. I wonder… what should we name this other race of Hispanics?

4. Culture, or: Nobody expects an Hispanic inquisition

Frankly, “Hispanic” does not seem to be a particularly useful or natural way to categorize people. After all, a black child of black parents, born in Puerto Rico but raised in Philadelphia, is Hispanic by definition. So are

  • a half-white, half-Asian child living in Mexico and immersed in Mexican culture,
  • anyone — anyone at all — who partakes of any part of Puerto Rican or Cuban or Brazilian or Spanish culture, and is inclined to label themselves “Hispanic,”
  • the more than 11,000 migrants kidnapped by Mexican gangs during one six-month period in 2010, including the 72 massacred last August,
  • the Mexicans crossing into the United States to kidnap Americans for ransom, gun them down, or rape them by the hundreds of thousands — or just waiting until Spring Break, and
  • the entire population of Spain.

It’s not just who we include, it’s why we include them. If we insist on making “Hispanic” about culture, then we’ve mashed together the cultures, past and present, of Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, South America, Central America, and Spain; from soccer to bullfighting, from Rioplatense baroque architecture to ethnic cleansing. (Gang culture is culture too, you know.)

How is this a useful classification? Under this definition, what is the point of knowing whether or not someone is Hispanic? They could be talking about human sacrifice or invading England. It’s very confusing.

According to my browser history, "confused Hispanic doctor" is one of my most popular searches, right up there with "gratuitous French girl," "lazy black mugger," and "aroused Finnish rodeo clown."

Drop culture from the definition and it makes a little more sense: “a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Spanish… origin, regardless of race.” Now at least we’re talking about people with a real biological ancestral link to a real geographical location. (Geography isn’t racist, right? Oh good.) There’s still something out of place, though… and I can’t quite —

5. SPAIN, or: The rain in Spain stays mainly on Hispanics

Spain? I wasn’t expecting a sort of — oh, I already used that joke.

Personally, I had never heard of the Spanish being Hispanic until now. Certainly a lot of people studying Hispanics prefer to differentiate between them and the Spanish — probably because the whole subject is confusing as hell (see above).

Queen Isabella II: quite clearly Hispanic.

There are about 25 million Spanish Americans, but that includes anyone “[t]racing their ancestry in Spain, including White Latin Americans of Spanish ancestry.” So it seems “Spanish American” means something like “white and Hispanic.” Of the 25 million “Spanish Americans,” only 350,000 are actually Spaniards; the rest are “White Hispanic or [White] Latino of Spanish ancestry.”

In America, then, we would be modifying the definition of “Hispanic” by less than two percent if we omitted the Spanish, reserving “Hispanic” for people of Latin American descent. (Of course, the change would be even tinier in Latin America.) Then our definition would at least match the Merriam-Webster’s definition of “Latino”: “a native or inhabitant of Latin America,” or “a person of Latin-American origin living in the United States.”

Now why would we want to omit the Spanish? Read on, sir or madam. Read on.

6. Miscegenation, or: “White girls, they’re pretty funny, sometimes they drive me mad./Black girls just wanna get fucked all night, I just don’t have that much jam”

(I considered calling it “Black Holes And Miscegenations” after my fourth favorite Muse album, but that’s just crass.)

What were those Hispanics complaining about in Time magazine, again? Someone ate their delicious tacos? No, that wasn’t it at all.

Hispanics wonder why they — the product of half a millennium of New World miscegenation — aren’t considered a race too.

Miscegenation means people of different races having children together. When you look at traits with strong genetic components in interracial (or mixed-race) children, you often find that the kids lie somewhere in between their parents. Skin color is one obvious example — look at Barack Obama (half white, half black). Intelligence is another (see Appendix A).

What does this have to do with Hispanics? That depends on which Hispanics we’re talking about. Who’s “the product of half a millennium of New World miscegenation”? Obviously not the Spanish Hispanics. Not the white or black or (almost nonexistent) Asian Hispanics, either. It’s those “none of the above” types who can’t figure out what race they are, but suspect it has something to do with Latin America.

The impeccably anti-racist Evergreen State College, in its celebration of National Hispanic Heritage Month, affirms that

[“Hispanic”] is not a racial identification. Hispanic is more of a regional identification like saying “North American.” What is a Hispanic? Hispanics come in all sizes and shapes. There are Jewish, Arab, Asian, Indian, Black and White Hispanics as well as brown.

I assume one of them is Jewish, one of them is Arab, one of them is Indian, and one of them is plain ol' brown?

Anyway, here is the relevant part:

What most Americans perceive as brown is actually a mix of Indian [i.e., Native (Central or South) American] and White. When Spanish explorers settled the Americas, they did not bring families with them like the English settlers did when they arrived in the U.S. The Spanish explorers were mostly soldiers and priests, etc. As a result, the soldiers intermarried with the Indian women they found in the countries they explored [quite a euphemism, that]. The result was a new racial identity known as mestizos. In time, mestizos became the middle class and the largest population.

White? Native American? Those sound suspiciously like races. A mix of the two? That sounds suspiciously sort of like a race.

7. Genetics, or: We meet again, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza — but this time, it’s personal

As I pointed out in section 2 of “‘Scientific racism’ is actually valid science (part 2),” race exists, and it is genetic. The brown Hispanic sort-of race is not an exception. (Neither are the white European sort-of subraces — see Appendix B.) The following genetic map of the Americas is from Cavalli-Sforza’s unabridged History and Geography of Human Genes (1994). Now imagine mixing some white people into the middle bit and the part at the bottom. Boom, there’s your new race.

Cavalli-Sforza's genetic map of the Americas.

Scientists are working away on the genetic makeup of Hispanics. Harry Ostrer, professor of Pediatrics, Pathology and Medicine and director of the Human Genetics Program at NYU Langone Medical Center, has co-authored a 2010 paper, “Genome-wide patterns of population structure and admixture among Hispanic/Latino populations”, in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America).

Hispanic/Latino populations possess a complex genetic structure that reflects recent admixture among and potentially ancient substructure within Native American, European, and West African source populations. …

Comparing autosomal, X and Y chromosome, and mtDNA variation, we find evidence of a significant sex bias in admixture proportions consistent with disproportionate contribution of European male and Native American female ancestry to present-day populations. …

Finally, using the locus-specific ancestry inference method LAMP, we reconstruct fine-scale chromosomal patterns of admixture. We document moderate power to differentiate among potential subcontinental source populations within the Native American, European, and African segments of the admixed Hispanic/Latino genomes.

Indeed, there is a lot of genetic variation in Latin America. A few centuries ago, some people were kind of obsessed with it.

From PNAS again (be careful with that acronym), “Admixture dynamics in Hispanics: A shift in the nuclear genetic ancestry of a South American population isolate” is a 2006 paper by the extremely racist and discriminatory anti-Hispanic scientists Gabriel Bedoya, Patricia Montoya, Jenny García, Ivan Soto, Stephane Bourgeois, Luis Carvajal, Damian Labuda, Victor Alvarez, Jorge Ospina, Philip W. Hedrick, and Andrés Ruiz-Linares, and edited by every race denialist’s favorite geneticist, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (who secretly thinks they’re all nuts — sssshhhh, it’s a big racist conspiracy!).

Although it is well established that Hispanics generally have a mixed Native American, African, and European ancestry [I thought it had something to do with Spanish culture?], the dynamics of admixture at the foundation of Hispanic populations is heterogeneous and poorly documented. Genetic analyses are potentially very informative for probing the early demographic history of these populations. [Genetic histories? Clearly, this is KKK propaganda.] Here we evaluate the genetic structure and admixture dynamics of a province in northwest Colombia (Antioquia), which prior analyses indicate was founded mostly by Spanish men and native women.

Fascinating stuff. Too bad for them a bunch of internet geniuses already decided that race isn’t genetic. Time to give it up, Bedoya and Montoya.

8. The Hispanic race, or: “Lucky that I love a foreign man for/The lucky fact of your existence”

The 47 percent of American Hispanics who don’t believe they belong to any race known to man aren’t crazy. They aren’t extraterrestrials, either. There is definitely some kind of race here somewhere.

We could call it brown, but we’re going to confuse the Egyptians and the Indians (from India). We could call it mestizo, but that’s about mixing races. Sure, that’s how it all started, but given that the Aztecs and Conquistadors aren’t kicking around Mexico City anymore, isn’t it time we came up with a more accurate name for this relatively stable group of people, with their common ancestry and their endogamy and their highly biologically self-perpetuating nature? Besides, mestizo already means a bunch of different things to different people.

Let’s try something crazy: let’s call this race “Hispanic.” We’ll call people from Latin American countries… um… “Latin Americans.” And we’ll just forget about culture for now, because it’s very complicated and subjective and it’s not genetic, either. Put race and nationality together, and you’ve got

  • white Latin Americans, including white Latin American immigrants to the USA, whose kids would be white Americans (see below),
  • black Latin Americans (ditto),
  • Hispanic Latin Americans — you know, the ones you can tell are “Hispanic” just by looking at them,
  • white Americans,
  • black Americans,
  • Hispanic Americans — you know, the 47 percent of “Hispanic” Americans who get confused when you ask them what race they are,

and so on.

Now, is this a useful way to classify people? Well, it’s based on genetic histories. Not on how strongly a person identifies herself with Latin American or Spanish culture. Not on having some ancestor from some country once colonized by Spain — oh, except for those Spanish colonies in Africa and the East Indies, to which the Spanish also brought their culture, especially their religion.

My crazy definition is socioculturally useful, too. Basically, it gives us a way to describe those brown-skinned people who live in Mexico and Cuba and Brazil and America and other places, and all seem to have something in common — no, not a common language or culture or religion. It’s something passed down from parents to children, generation after generation. Something based on a common ancestry. Something that makes this subset of “Hispanics” particularly highly biologically self-perpetuating.

9. Hispanic: It’s a race now. Sort of.

Try to make sense of our world with any other definition of “Hispanic.” I dare you.

  • From the Wall Street Journal: “Univision Communications Inc. plans to launch at least two new Spanish-language cable channels in the U.S. in the next year, as an increasing number of competitors rush to cash in on the growth of the country’s Hispanic population. … it hopes to roll out the first new channel, built around soapy dramas called telenovelas… as early as this year’s third quarter. A new sports channel called Univision Deportes, focused on Mexican league soccer, is being readied for the first half of 2012.”

    Are they targeting Spaniards, or perhaps black Puerto Ricans?

  • From the Daily Caller: “Colorado, a state where Democrats have seen numerous victories in recent years, could be ready for a swing in 2012. … According to James Nava, writing at The Americano, the key to winning over Colorado’s Hispanic electorate is to ‘encourage family values, education and employment opportunities that will promote stability for Hispanic families and drastically reduce . . . child poverty.'”

    What does this have to do with Cuban culture?

  • From Texas GOP Vote: “The lawsuit brought on by the MALC [Mexican American Legislative Caucus] claims that the census numbers should not be used in Texas redistricting because they say the census underestimates the Hispanic population in south Texas.”

    Good for them! I’m glad to see the Mexican American Legislative Caucus is looking out for Hispanics like Alexis Bledel and other white Argentinian Americans.

  • From the same article: “2001 Houston Hispanic Entrepreneur of the Year award winner, Alan Vera, emphasizes the concept that a Hispanic can be represented by a non-Hispanic, a black can be represented by a non-black, a white can be represented by a non white. He urges the members to consider creating three to five districts based upon community interests and not skin color.”

    Being an Hispanic, Alan Vera should really brush up on his Hispanic facts! (Hispanofacts?) It has nothing to do with race or skin color.

  • The Pew Hispanic Center doesn’t get it either: “Latinos are less likely than whites to access the internet, have a home broadband connection or own a cell phone… Hispanics, on average, have lower levels of education and earn less than whites. Controlling for these factors, the differences in internet use, home broadband access and cell phone use between Hispanics and whites disappear. In other words, Hispanics and whites who have similar socioeconomic characteristics have similar usage patterns for these technologies.”

    Since we all know “Latino” is not a race, these sentences are meaningless.

  • The Pew Hispanic Center drops the ball again: “By their own reckoning, Latinos living in the United States do not have a national leader. When asked in an open-ended question to name the person they consider ‘the most important Latino leader in the country today,’ nearly two-thirds (64%) of Hispanic respondents said they did not know. An additional 10% said ‘no one.'”

    Excuse me, but the President and First Lady love Mexican food, which is a part of Mexican culture, which makes them both part Hispanic. (I estimate their Hispanicity at 7 percent, according to my Hispanometer.) So. There.

  • Check out all the smiling faces at the Hispanic College Fund and the Hispanic Scholarship Fund. It’s not like those kids generally have similar hair and skin, or anything.
  • Hispanic Magazine‘s list of Latino icons is great, but it should really make an effort to include more white and black people. Otherwise it’s discriminating against a majority of American Hispanics. (Not to mention 100 percent of Spanish Hispanics.)
  • Don’t even get me started on La Raza. Someone should remind these so-called Hispanics they’re not a race! Sheesh.

Hispanic: It’s a race now. Sort of. That seems to be what the brown “Hispanics” want anyway. Who am I or you to deny them it?

Appendix A: Interracial High-School [genetic inter]Action!

Consider, if you will, the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, published in 1976 by Sandra Scarr and Richard A. Weinberg. They devised an experiment to see if the IQ gap between black and white children was genetic or environmental (i.e., caused by some combination of white racism and the lousy neighborhoods, schools, and homes of the poorer black children) or genetic. (They favored the environmental explanation.)

A number of upper-middle-class white parents in Minnesota with above-average IQs had adopted children of various races. There were adopted kids with two white parents (we’ll call those children “white”), two black parents (“black”), and one white and one black parent (“interracial”). When the researchers tested the adopted children’s IQs at age 7, the white children scored 112, on average; the interracial children, 109; and the black children, 97. That’s the same 15-point IQ gap between whites and blacks you observe today, with the interracial children scoring somewhere in the middle. Most of the adopted children were tested again at age 17. Their IQ scores, their GPAs, their class ranks, and their school aptitudes showed the same order: white > interracial > black. Correcting for the Flynn effect only makes the gaps larger, without changing the order. That’s exactly what we would expect if IQ depended more on genes than on shared (or family) environment.

It’s not the only transracial adoption study, of course. Dr. J. Philippe Rushton, a psychologist at the University of Western Ontario and an expert on race and intelligence, put together a lot of different results in his book Race, Evolution, and Behavior.

This is what a hereditary trait looks like.

But surely we can find some way to blame the environment for this. Maybe the black children were treated differently at school, and that accounts for their lower scores? Well, in that case, an interracial child identified and raised as black should score like a black child (they experience similar discrimination), and not as an interracial child raised as interracial (they have similar genes). Luckily for us, some of the parents did mistakenly believe they were raising black children. Those children’s scores were not significantly different from the other interracial children. Even their own parents couldn’t tell they were half white all along, yet they performed like all the other half-white children.

It’s pretty convincing stuff, but because these findings aren’t flattering to black people, Rushton has been called a racist and a white supremacist, among other nasty (and obviously false) things.

He has also been called “an honest and capable researcher” (E.O. Wilson, father of sociobiology), “widely known and respected for the unusual combination of rigour and originality in his work” (Hans Eysenck, Rushton’s doctoral supervisor and the most cited living psychologist at the time of his death). In Rushton’s own words: “from an evolutionary point of view, superiority can only mean adaptive value — if it even means this. And we’ve got to realize that each of these populations [races] is perfectly, beautifully adapted to their own ancestral environments.” That would make all races equally superior. Hurray!

Would these findings be controversial if we were discussing interracial pea plants? We can only speculate.

Are you racist against peas? Consult this helpful chart.

Appendix B: EuroTrip

Check out this Gene Expression article, “Genetic map of Europe; genes vary as a function of distance.” It’s talking about this 2008 paper in Nature (arguably the most prestigious science journal in the world). From the paper:

Despite low average levels of genetic differentiation among Europeans, we find a close correspondence between genetic and geographic distances; indeed, a geographical map of Europe arises naturally as an efficient two-dimensional summary of genetic variation in Europeans. The results emphasize that when mapping the genetic basis of a disease phenotype, spurious associations can arise if genetic structure is not properly accounted for. In addition, the results are relevant to the prospects of genetic ancestry testing; an individual’s DNA can be used to infer their geographic origin with surprising accuracy–often to within a few hundred kilometres.

Don’t believe me? This is what you get if you plot the genetic variation between people from different countries, represented by colors. The axes have nothing to do with geography; they represent only the two largest components of genetic variation. Yet it looks quite like a map of Europe…

Plotting the two biggest independent dimensions of genetic variation.

And this is what you get when you take the data on genetic variation and project it back onto a map of Europe. You can predict geographic origin very accurately.

Projecting European genetic variation onto a map of Europe.

Read Full Post »

Today, Unamusement Park’s special two-month anniversary commemorative series on stupid ideas and the stupid people who have them continues from where we left off: insulting those people and demolishing their cherished beliefs.

We are lucky to have the field reports on which this series is based, as my crack squad of Research Assistants is prone to drinking, dancing, gambling, whoring, petting small furry animals, and falling into rock quarries. They are, however, astonishingly good at listening, with glazed eyes and blank expressions, to hour after hour of droning racial polemic with neither food nor water to sustain them, as my experiments have shown. This makes them ideal candidates for today’s mission: infiltrate that notable bastion of left-wing “anti-racist” stupidity, Colorlines!

3. All the news that’s fit to spew, if you do not have a clue (and other stories by Dr. Seuss)

Colorlines (“News for Action”) describes itself as “a daily news site offering award-winning reporting, analysis, and solutions to today’s racial justice issues.” However, a more accurate description would be: a daily left-wing propaganda machine offering hopelessly biased reporting, totally uncritical analysis, and solutions to whatever mythical problems today’s minorities are whining about, especially if it’s something white people are doing (like staying in school, getting good grades, not doing drugs, keeping out of jail, succeeding in life without government handouts, and so on).

Its proudly multiracial staff includes

So what constitutes a racial justice issue? Why, whatever Colorlines is bitching about, of course! Perhaps the finest example of a stupid idea from these stupid people is Drop the I-Word, their campaign to ban the use of the word “illegal” to describe illegal aliens (i.e., people who are in this country illegally). In honor of their campaign against good sense, today I am going to use the word “illegal” as much as possible.

People are not “illegals” [even the illegal ones]. Pledge to drop the i-word [illegal] and ask [you mean “racially blackmail”?] media to do the same.

“I am not an illegal,” declares a parade of photogenic illegals and their pals (plus one downright sinister Sikh). “You wouldn’t call someone a [wetback], or [a nigger].” Clearly, sir, you underestimate me! “Saying ‘illegals’ is just as bad.” Well, first, that just makes it more fun to say! And second, why?

Why can’t we call illegals “illegals”?

Let’s find out. “The I-Word creates an environment of hate” — this is a statement without any meaning — “by exploiting racial fear and economic anxiety” — fear and anxiety based on the realities of illegal immigration — “creating an easy scapegoat for complex issues” — complex issues on which you must agree with their simplistic analysis, or else it’s just hate speech — “and OK-ing violence against those labeled with the word.” Again, they’re talking about the word “illegal” doing all this.

The aforementioned photogenic illegals and their pals (plus that one Sikh guy who can’t help looking like he’d rather be out beheading journalists than posing for their photographers) have their own reasons for rejecting the term:

  • We [illegal aliens] Have Too Much Love To Accept the I-Word:

    They love themselves too much to accept being called criminals,

    despite the fact that they are criminals by definition.

  • I Am… Undocumented (and therefore illegal):

    My name is Him Ranjit and I am undocumented.

    Well, hopefully now that you’ve admitted you have no visa, you will be documented, then deported.

    Colorlines asks: “Do some families have the right to be together more than others?” To that, I can only say:

    Get the fuck out of my country, Ranjit.

  • I am… [an illegal] Witness to History:

    When Christopher Columbus came to what we call America, Native Americans were already here. … People want to continue a legacy of hate and call immigrants ‘illegals.’ By this logic, Native Americans could call the first settlers ‘illegals.’

    Your logic notwithstanding, in order to be an illegal immigrant, you must be breaking the law, which means you must be in a country with laws, rather than creating one out of a wilderness sparsely populated by extremely violent* hunter-gatherers, as the settlers did.

  • I Am… [an illegal] Mother [of illegal alien babies]:

    The children [i.e., illegal immigrant anchor babies?] of this country are our future and when they hear the i-word [I forget, is it “illegal”?], they are receiving the message that they don’t belong —

    No, clearly they are not receiving the message, because they are still here. Allow me to clarify:

    YOU DON’T BELONG.

*Read about violence in hunter-gatherer societies here, here, and here.

Issues (Think About It)

What’s most offensively stupid about Drop the I-Word is not its assault on free speech, nor its surprise early-morning raid against “using words to accurately describe objective reality” (which isn’t a Constitutional right, but maybe it ought to be). What’s most offensively stupid is that these people really believe this is an important issue. Please allow me to illustrate.

I don’t really need your permission, so I’m going to illustrate anyway.

Here is one example of an actual immigration issue: an unusually high percentage of illegal aliens are violent sex offenders. I guess they had so much love for themselves, it just sort of spilled out onto a bunch of American women and children.

Okay, that might have gone too far.

Anyway, from The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration (emphasis in original):

Researcher Deborah Schurman-Kauflin Ph.D. of the Violent Crimes Institute, reports on the analysis of 1,500 violent crimes from January 1999 through April 2006 that included serial rapes, serial murders, sexual homicides and child molestation committed by illegal aliens. The data is found in her report, The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the United States, which notes that, based on a figure of 12 million illegal immigrants and the fact that more of this population is male than average, sex offenders among illegal aliens are a higher percentage than sex offenders in the general population.

… In 82% of [child molestation] cases the victims were known to their attackers. “In those instances, the illegal immigrants typically gained access to the victims after having worked as a day laborer at or near the victims’ homes,” she says. “Victims ranged in age from 1 year old to 13 years old, with the average age being 6.”

Schurman-Kauflin states that the illegal alien population includes 240,000 sex offenders – a “conservative estimate,” she says. She goes on to say, “This translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day.” She points out the 1,500 offenders in her study had a total of 5,999 victims, an average of four victims for each sex offender and says, “This places the estimate for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this study.”

… The Schurman-Kauflin study noted that “Nearly 63% of the offenders had been deported on another offense prior to the sex crime.”

By comparison, here is the most important thing Colorlines had to say about illegal aliens on Friday, March 25, 2011: Georgia 3rd Graders Asked What U.S. Does to ‘Illegal Aliens.’ As usual, emphasis mine, stupidity theirs.

Here’s a frightening report from Atlanta’s local NBC affiliate WXIA. Kelly Avalos, interviewed in the video that’s above, was alarmed that her brother and his entire 3rd grade class at Chesney was sent home with a homework assignment about “illegal aliens” [note the scare quotes, as if they weren’t really here illegally] that includes the following awful question:

What does the U.S. do with illegal aliens?

A. The U.S. puts them to work in the army.

B. The U.S. shoots them into outer space.

C. The U.S. puts them to death.

D. The U.S. sends them back where they came from.

It seems to me that the question was intended to explain that the United States does not horribly mistreat the people (illegals) who invade it (illegally), and instead treats them like human beings, despite the rising racial paranoia of organizations like Colorlines, and unlike some other places I could mention.

They disagree. At length.

Hate speech ain’t what it used to be

It’s outrageous that this website for educators provides such insidious anti-immigrant messages… As harmful as it is for children to indirectly imbibe hate speech… it is much more atrocious and harmful when that hate speech is being provided to them under the guise of education… racial slurs and hate-filled messagesi-word hate speech… the racist worksheet… take down the racist material… catch similar horrors in your local news…

Alright, look. I didn’t want to do this, but I guess I have to. This is not hate speech. It would be hate speech if the question read, say:

Why are Mexicans so bad?

A. They’re Mexicans.

B. They’re all criminals.

C. They steal our jobs.

D. They eat all the nachos.

E. They smell bad.

F. All of the above.

And how, exactly, does the dreaded “I-word” (illegal) tie into this? “The i-word… teaches [non-illegal students] that it’s ok to evoke violence against other human beings…”. This literally means: the word “illegal” teaches kids that it’s okay to mention violence. I guess they exhausted their supply of shitty arguments and now they’ve got no arguments left at all.

We also learn that the word (illegal) also teaches illegal students “to feel worthless if they are on the receiving end.” Gee, it would be a real shame if my constant use of the word “illegal” made them feel so worthless that they (the illegals) went back to their own damn country.

Illegals illegals illegals illegals illegals illegals illegals!

Meanwhile, in the real world, Steve Sailer is addressing real issues of immigration.

Dazed and Confused: The Continuing Saga of Tim Wise

Oh, Tim Wise. You so crazy.

In his sole article at Colorlines.com, Wise — proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that white people can be stupid too — declares that the “twisting” and “besmirching” of Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy by “(mostly white) reactionaries” and “conservatives” (Wise’s codeword for white people) is causing the following “injustice and suffering”:

  1. opposition to affirmative action
  2. the “subprime mortgage crisis” — and note that although “[p]redatory lending aimed at racially segregated minority neighborhoods [by evil white people]… fueled the housing crisis” (Reuters) —

    — at the same time, “the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which encourages [i.e., forces] banks to make loans in the low- and moderate-income [i.e., black and Hispanic] areas where they operate… had little impact on the crisis” (emPower Magazine). Hmm.

  3. “double-digit unemployment”
  4. “white folks running around, speaking against health care reforms from which they would personally gain, all because of a fear that some of the benefits might go to ‘undeserving’ immigrants of color, or lazy folks (typically perceived as black and brown) who don’t want to pay for their own care” — surely a fair and balanced way to describe anyone not on board the ObamaCare express train to crushing debt!

As a result, Wise hallucinates, “we compartmentalize [King’s] non-violence message [as well as his socialist income redistribution message and his discriminatory affirmative action message…], much as we compartmentalize books about King and the movement in that section of the bookstore established for African-American history; much as we have compartmentalized those streets named for the man, locating them only in the blackest and often poorest parts of town.”

In the real world, the part of town with a street named after Martin Luther King Jr. (a Republican) is also the poorest part of town for the exact same reason it has that street: because it’s full of black people, with lower-than-average IQs and higher-than-average crime rates. In Tim Wise’s fantasy world, evil white conservatives will only allow streets in the “blackest” part of town to be named after Martin Luther King Jr., while at the same time forcing the people who live there into poverty, through the Godlike power of “institutional racism,” and all of this can be tied to the way bookstores discriminate against the poor, helpless, innocent black folks… by giving them a whole goddamn section of their own.

Crazy shit Tim Wise believes

I really should add all this crazy shit to my big list, which started here and continued here:

  • Race isn’t biological, despite the fact that Asian people stubbornly insist on having Asian kids.
  • People of all races, ethnicities and nationalities should put aside their differences and come together to fuck their cousins and kick the shit out of short, slow, weak people. Evolutionarily speaking, that is.
  • Only white people can be racist. Conversely, all white people are racist.
  • The white race does not exist. If you think it does, then you’re a white nationalist.
  • The family is a social construct, and if you disagree, then it’s straight to bed with no dessert, mister, and you don’t get to fuck your hot cousin. Plus, you’ll have no free will.
  • We should embrace racial diversity (as well as our hot cousins), because it’s possible to have wars without it.
  • Parents only care for their children because they are legally obligated to do so. That explains so much about my childhood.
  • If white people were in charge — this is during one of his (psychotic?) episodes when, for convenience, he forgets that he believes they are in charge — if they were in charge, they would all decide they want to live in the ghetto, and kick all the black people out.
  • etc.

This is the same man whose website describes him, in the words of Dr. Molefi Kete Asante*, as “one of the brilliant voices of our time.”

[*Radical Afrocentrist and Professor Extraordinarius of African American Studies. I’m not making this up.]

Variations on a stupid theme

The same theme frequently recurs in this kind of mindless pro-black “analysis”: blame white people for not doing enough, or blame white people for doing too much, but either way make sure you blame white people for everything that goes wrong.

Minorities complained about banks racially discriminating against them. In reality, banks were “discriminating” against poor people who couldn’t be trusted with loans, but no matter. They got their Community Reinvestment Act. Now minorities are defaulting on their mortgages, because as it turns out, they were poor and couldn’t be trusted with loans. So, of course, they blame the banks for lending to them!

According to this thinking, minorities are the nanny state’s helpless wards, unable to survive on their own without constant handouts — because of white people being such awful racists, of course. I can’t believe I’m going to say this, but…

I have a higher opinion of both white and non-white people than so-called anti-racists like Tim Wise.

Read Full Post »

I apologize (well, not really) for the lack of substantial content and sheer tedium of the following non-debate, but that’s really my point. You’ll see.

Privyleged is a new blogger who describes himself as

a graduate student who studies the sociocultural elements of sport. I am primarily interested in using critical race theory, critical white studies, poststructuralist, and postcolonial theories to examine issues of whiteness, racism, identity, citizenship, representation, and historiography as they pertain to the politics of sport, pop culture, and beyond [emphasis mine].

With that background, I imagine he, of all people, on a blog with the stated objective of “unconcealing [sic] whiteness, power, and privilege in the ‘post-racial’ era”, should be able to make a pretty strong case for the existence of white privilege and the suffering of racial minorities. Imagine my disappointment on reading his very first post, which complains (and complains, and complains) about how Indiana’s predominantly white union thugs—I mean, workers—sat in and blocked their state Senate, but wouldn’t lift a finger to block the recent fair and reasonable (i.e., “racist”) Senate immigration bill.

By now, most are familiar with the thousands of protesters from Madison, WI and Columbus, OH who continue to stand up for worker’s rights in the face of greedy, economically-driven plutocrats. . . . An issue affecting Indiana’s large, relatively homogeneous and predominantly white middle class populace – “hoosiers” [that’s not what that means] were quick to assemble and voice their dissent to state representatives. . . . which begs the question: Where have they been in lieu [it’s “in light”] of the racist immigration bill passed by the Indiana senate? . . . the same “hoosiers” who protested so vociferously against unjust measures (affecting them) are nowhere to be found.

. . . Meanwhile, racial minorities continue to experience oppression with the passing of this bill. [Evidence of oppression?] And the deafening silence portrayed by “hoosiers” – the same people who loudly and successfully voiced their dissent just days before – has become an even louder articulation of white supremacy throughout what is truly “the hoosier state”. [Evidence of white supremacy?]

Injustice is injustice. At least it should be. Yet we begin to understand how privileged definitions of injustice, inequality, and oppression are legitimized, disseminated and experienced within this set of “hoosier” politics. [The experience of privileged definitions? What.]

. . . Racial minorities are seemingly left to fend on their own; as outsiders to the “hoosier” populace. . . . those “different” [what on Earth are scare quotes doing here?] faces in the already-overwhelmingly white population of Indiana are subjected to further discrimination . . . a feeling of unwantedness [sic] in their own backyard. [Yes, hurt feelings are discrimination now.] . . . Which leaves Indiana’s minority population feeling marginalized; invalidated; displaced and alone in their constant fight for racial equality. [A constant fight for equality! Good grief. What century is this, again?]

Alright, so maybe he just couldn’t be bothered to give examples of this rampant discrimination. Let’s give him a fair chance.

ME: I see a lot of whining about how minorities are being oppressed, but not one piece of evidence.

Also, hoosier is not a racial term.

PRIVYLEGED: Please enlighten us with the privileged, “real” and “evidence-based” definition of racism that I’ve somehow managed to oversee [he means “overlook”].

It seems that because I’m white, any definitions I use (and presumably any arguments I make with them) are automatically privileged, and can be safely dismissed. (I enjoyed the scare quotes around “real” and “evidence-based.”)

ME: . . . How about instead of trying to decipher your incoherent request, I just repeat mine? Please provide some evidence—any evidence—to back up the following wild, paranoid accusations (all quotes from your post):

  1. The Indiana Senate’s immigration bill is “racist,” and “racial minorities continue to experience oppression with the passing of this bill.”
  2. There is “white supremacy throughout what is truly ‘the hoosier state’ ”
  3. “. . . privileged definitions of injustice, inequality, and oppression are legitimized, disseminated and experienced.” (You’ll have to show that the definitions of these words are somehow “privileged” and being “experienced.”)
  4. “Which leaves Indiana’s minority population feeling marginalized; invalidated; displaced and alone in their constant fight for racial equality.” (You’ll have to show Indiana’s minorities are still constantly fighting for equal treatment under the law.)

Not unreasonable, is it? Four specific claims, for which I would like to see the evidence. I’m keeping an open mind here.

PRIVYLEGED [emphasis mine]: Based on the writings of your own blog, I’m not sure there is anything I could say that would be worth the time. And when someone has to legitimately ask how immigration policies such as these are racist, it’s concerning. I would ask that you look closely at the immigration bill and others like it, and not just read…but to try and experience what that legislation would feel like from a different perspective other than your own. Of course, this would also require that you at least try to read histories of oppressed people’s – understand that experience first.

There is one thing he could say that would be worth the time: the evidence.

ME: So . . . that’s no evidence at all, then? Just your declaration that Indiana white supremacy is alive and well, and life a constant struggle for those poor helpless minorities. In 2011. Almost fifty years after the Civil Rights Act. Just three years after the same state voted in a black president.

Now, it’s been kindly suggested that I look at the immigration bill (but obviously, as a white person, I lack the racial credentials to understand issues like illegal immigration and racial discrimination and, uh, American history). So I did just that.

The measure, passed on Tuesday night by a vote of 31-18, would allow state and local police to ask a person stopped for infractions like traffic violations for proof of legal residency if the officer has a ‘reasonable suspicion’ they may be in the country illegally.

So: the police have already stopped you for a real infraction, and they have a reasonable suspicion you’re an illegal immigrant (like: you have no ID and can’t speak English). The bill allows them to ask you for proof of legal residency—because illegally immigrating to this country is a crime, which the police are supposed to stop, right? And that’s all?

Those NAZIS.

Another provision would call for, with some exceptions, the use of English only in public meetings, on Web sites and in documents.

OH MY GOD NO. What about those poor illegal immigrants who never bothered to learn our country’s language? Think of their endless children flooding our schools and hospitals, unable to understand the minutes of city council meetings! (Our prisons too: see here and here and here and about seven hundred thousand other places.)

ME (CONTINUED): Yes, I am legitimately asking how this immigration policy is racist. Basic logic: just because it will affect more Hispanics than whites (or Asians), does not make it so. In case you haven’t noticed, most of the illegal immigrants to our country—who are all criminals, by definition—are Hispanic. So upholding the law of the United States requires a disparate racial impact, in this case.

This is the good part.

PRIVYLEGED: You’re asking me to engage in a debate to which you already know the answer? This is what I suspected – so I apologize but I just don’t have that kind of time.

I invite the reader to find where I suggested that I “already know the answer.” Seems to me I was asking him to support his claims—any one of his claims—with evidence. Any evidence.

PRIVYLEGED (CONTINUED): Furthermore, I take offense to almost everything you said. I could go into explaining why it is offensive to me and many others…but don’t want to hear the “stop being overly sensitive” remarks that are sure to stem from it.

I further invite the reader to find the offensive content in my comments. Is it when I asked for evidence? When I pointed out that Indiana voted for a black president? When I quoted the “racist” immigration bill? When I cited sources showing the impact of illegal aliens on our education and health care systems? When I dared to mention that most illegal aliens are Hispanic? And that they’re all criminals?

Yes, thank God he shut down the debate before I could tell him to stop being overly sensitive. That surely would have crushed his fragile soul. Not even white privilege could have saved him from that.

PRIVYLEGED (CONTINUED): And at this point, you’re probably saying “Well, I take offense to the claims you’ve made.” Fair enough. You’ve made it clear that you are desperately committed to holding onto your power. I’m afraid I’ll have to stop responding to your posts here. I gave you a fair shot. Others can chime in if they’d like, but I don’t have the time. Thanks for reading.

The truth is, I find this mostly sad and funny. Only two things about it actually offend me:

  1. that bullshit nonsense gibberish like “critical race theory” and “critical white studies” are considered legitimate fields of research, and
  2. that the graduate students who study them seem to think evidence is optional as long as your opinions are sufficiently anti-white (i.e., politically correct).

Of course I would say that—I’m just another white man desperately clinging to power! Seriously, where is he getting this stuff? Now, I know it’s kind of mean to keep pointing out the errors in his writing, but that’s not what it means to give someone a “fair shot.” See, a “fair shot” would involve reading what I write, and addressing my one point, which is that he has no evidence whatsoever for any of his claims.

So here’s the point of this post: to show you what passes for argumentation among graduate students studying “critical race theory, critical white studies,” and “issues of whiteness.” I think I’ve mentioned these before:

  • insulting their opponents (“You’ve made it clear that you are desperately committed to holding onto your power.”),
  • appeals to emotion (“I take offense to almost everything you said. I could go into explaining why it is offensive to me . . .”),
  • appeals to popularity (“. . . and many others . . .”),
  • lies, ignorance, and bias (take your pick, really—anything unsubstantiated by evidence probably qualifies), and of course
  • shutting down the debate (“I’m afraid I’ll have to stop responding to your posts here. I gave you a fair shot.”).

You’re welcome, Privyleged. And thanks for failing to respond to anything I’ve said; for consistently putting words in my mouth; for getting offended instead of providing counter-arguments; for spouting some racialist garbage about whites clinging to their mythical power; and, most of all, for shutting down the discussion without mentioning a single piece of evidence to support any of your claims. Best of luck in graduate school.

PS People like you are, quite literally, destroying Western civilization. But I guess that was your goal all along.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: