PDA

View Full Version : Crippled by Their Culture



Alan D. Hyde
04-26-2005, 11:58 AM
Courtesy of www.opinionjournal.com (http://www.opinionjournal.com) :

THE GAP

Crippled by Their Culture
Race doesn't hold back America's "black rednecks." Nor does racism.

BY THOMAS SOWELL
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

For most of the history of this country, differences between the black and the white population--whether in income, IQ, crime rates, or whatever--have been attributed to either race or racism. For much of the first half of the 20th century, these differences were attributed to race--that is, to an assumption that blacks just did not have it in their genes to do as well as white people. The tide began to turn in the second half of the 20th century, when the assumption developed that black-white differences were due to racism on the part of whites.

Three decades of my own research lead me to believe that neither of those explanations will stand up under scrutiny of the facts. As one small example, a study published last year indicated that most of the black alumni of Harvard were from either the West Indies or Africa, or were the children of West Indian or African immigrants. These people are the same race as American blacks, who greatly outnumber either or both.

If this disparity is not due to race, it is equally hard to explain by racism. To a racist, one black is pretty much the same as another. But, even if a racist somehow let his racism stop at the water's edge, how could he tell which student was the son or daughter of someone born in the West Indies or in Africa, especially since their American-born offspring probably do not even have a foreign accent?

What then could explain such large disparities in demographic "representation" among these three groups of blacks? Perhaps they have different patterns of behavior and different cultures and values behind their behavior.

There have always been large disparities, even within the native black population of the U.S. Those blacks whose ancestors were "free persons of color" in 1850 have fared far better in income, occupation, and family stability than those blacks whose ancestors were freed in the next decade by Abraham Lincoln.

What is not nearly as widely known is that there were also very large disparities within the white population of the pre-Civil War South and the white population of the Northern states. Although Southern whites were only about one-third of the white population of the U.S., an absolute majority of all the illiterate whites in the country were in the South.

The North had four times as many schools as the South, attended by more than four times as many students. Children in Massachusetts spent more than twice as many years in school as children in Virginia. Such disparities obviously produce other disparities. Northern newspapers had more than four times the circulation of Southern newspapers. Only 8% of the patents issued in 1851 went to Southerners. Even though agriculture was the principal economic activity of the antebellum South at the time, the vast majority of the patents for agricultural inventions went to Northerners. Even the cotton gin was invented by a Northerner.

Disparities between Southern whites and Northern whites extended across the board from rates of violence to rates of illegitimacy. American writers from both the antebellum South and the North commented on the great differences between the white people in the two regions. So did famed French visitor Alexis de Tocqueville.

None of these disparities can be attributed to either race or racism. Many contemporary observers attributed these differences to the existence of slavery in the South, as many in later times would likewise attribute both the difference between Northern and Southern whites, and between blacks and whites nationwide, to slavery. But slavery doesn't stand up under scrutiny of historical facts any better than race or racism as explanations of North-South differences or black-white differences. The people who settled in the South came from different regions of Britain than the people who settled in the North--and they differed as radically on the other side of the Atlantic as they did here--that is, before they had ever seen a black slave.

Slavery also cannot explain the difference between American blacks and West Indian blacks living in the United States because the ancestors of both were enslaved. When race, racism, and slavery all fail the empirical test, what is left?

Culture is left.

The culture of the people who were called "rednecks" and "crackers" before they ever got on the boats to cross the Atlantic was a culture that produced far lower levels of intellectual and economic achievement, as well as far higher levels of violence and sexual promiscuity. That culture had its own way of talking, not only in the pronunciation of particular words but also in a loud, dramatic style of oratory with vivid imagery, repetitive phrases and repetitive cadences.

Although that style originated on the other side of the Atlantic in centuries past, it became for generations the style of both religious oratory and political oratory among Southern whites and among Southern blacks--not only in the South but in the Northern ghettos in which Southern blacks settled. It was a style used by Southern white politicians in the era of Jim Crow and later by black civil rights leaders fighting Jim Crow. Martin Luther King's famous speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 was a classic example of that style.

While a third of the white population of the U.S. lived within the redneck culture, more than 90% of the black population did. Although that culture eroded away over the generations, it did so at different rates in different places and among different people. It eroded away much faster in Britain than in the U.S. and somewhat faster among Southern whites than among Southern blacks, who had fewer opportunities for education or for the rewards that came with escape from that counterproductive culture.

Nevertheless the process took a long time. As late as the First World War, white soldiers from Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky and Mississippi scored lower on mental tests than black soldiers from Ohio, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. Again, neither race nor racism can explain that--and neither can slavery.

The redneck culture proved to be a major handicap for both whites and blacks who absorbed it. Today, the last remnants of that culture can still be found in the worst of the black ghettos, whether in the North or the South, for the ghettos of the North were settled by blacks from the South. The counterproductive and self-destructive culture of black rednecks in today's ghettos is regarded by many as the only "authentic" black culture--and, for that reason, something not to be tampered with. Their talk, their attitudes, and their behavior are regarded as sacrosanct.

The people who take this view may think of themselves as friends of blacks. But they are the kinds of friends who can do more harm than enemies.

Mr. Sowell, the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, is author, most recently, of "Black Rednecks and White Liberals," published this week by Encounter Books.

***

Alan

WWheeler
04-26-2005, 12:20 PM
The culture of the people who were called "rednecks" and "crackers" before they ever got on the boats to cross the Atlantic was a culture that produced far lower levels of intellectual and economic achievement, The article draws some interesting parallels, but I think it would be a mistake on so many levels to define "redneck" as a culture, class or distinct society. For one thing, it's factually incorrect, and second it justifies a class-based society in the present day.

An alternative explanation was that the South was an agricultural-based economy that did not evolve beyond its 18th c. roots in England; many of the same institutions such as indentured servitude which lead to slavery were originally present in both North and South. In the North, because of different patterns of economic activity (such as industrialization) these institutions become outmoded much more quickly.

Meerkat
04-26-2005, 12:40 PM
If rednecks don't exist, how is it that Jeff Foxworthy can make a career out of parodying them? ;)

George Roberts
04-26-2005, 12:47 PM
Alan D. Hyde ---

So I don't have to read the whole article to find your "opinion", could you write one or two sentences about your opinion.

WWheeler
04-26-2005, 01:12 PM
or, to stoop to the usual level of this forum, I think it's a right-wing crock. Taking away people's culture is another way to disempower them.

... also. Observers have often noted the difference between Costa Rica and other Spanish-American societies. In Costa Rica, there were no native peoples to enslave, and therefore the Spanish actually had to work for a living. As a result, the country developed relatively robust democratic institutions, without the fractures present in other SA countries.

Alan D. Hyde
04-26-2005, 01:14 PM
George, if I could summarize that article fairly and honestly in one or two sentences, odds are I'd have a Nobel Prize by now. :D

I can't and I don't.

I am reminded by that article, though, of what an old black schoolteacher friend, Mattie Coney, liked to say: "Black culture is NOT slum culture." And so it's not. But slum culture has kept many poor individuals of many races from achieving the success they might otherwise have attained.

Alan

TomF
04-26-2005, 01:30 PM
Norman, that's precisely the argument that I've heard made in post-colonial or post-slavery discussions. The culture instilled through colonialism or slavery remains an impediment. Same argument regarding First Nations peoples.

As one prof said to me, post-colonialism doesn't mean "after colonialism." It means "living in the aftermath of ..."

t.

TomF
04-26-2005, 01:38 PM
Personally, Norman, I walk a middle line.

Post-colonialism and post-slavery discourses make sense to me, based on what I saw with native folks when I worked in Child Welfare.

Based on the same experience, I'd say that individuals - and ultimately cultures - have the capacity to eventually pull themselves out of the muck. But it's much harder than you or I would think.

t.

Alan D. Hyde
04-26-2005, 01:46 PM
There can be a massive gravitational pull to the ghetto, that often pulls people back--- and sometimes destroys them--- despite their talents, abilities, worldly successes, and determination to do better than their parents...

Alan

George.
04-26-2005, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by WWheeler:
or, to stoop to the usual level of this forum, I think it's a right-wing crock. Taking away people's culture is another way to disempower them.
And that is left-wing crock. Culture is not all good. Racism can be cultural. Macho posturing and resorting to violence can be cultural. Oppressing women can be cultural. Beating up children can be cultural. Valuing "street smarts" more than "book learning" can be cultural.

The fact is, some cultural elements stink, and should be eliminated by anyone who wants to get ahead in society. And not all cultural elements are deeply ingrained and impossible to change in the short term. Nazi ultra-nationalism, racism, and aggression were cultural elements that seemed to dominate a whole nation - but that were effectively eliminated from the German people (other than a small minority) within a generation.

TomF
04-26-2005, 02:01 PM
To the extent that things are working in the First Nations world, the successes seem to be based on recognizing and promoting the real value of indigenous culture. Recognizing and valuing native successes, native wisdom, and native spirituality. If you think all your culture could come up with is garbage, then guess what you're inclined to present ...

On the flip side, some feel-good thinking goes way way over the top itself into flakiness and bigotry. It's important to keep a grip on reality!

... there was a fabulous satire radio show on CBC called the "Dead Dog Cafe," that had wonderfully flaky Native hosts helping you find your Spirit Vegetable, etc. Just the corrective the doctor ordered.

Alan D. Hyde
04-26-2005, 02:12 PM
Well said, George.

Thank you.

Alan

Cuyahoga Chuck
04-26-2005, 02:13 PM
Awful lot of "Wall Street Journal " C&P in these threads.
'You a wholly owned subsidiary of these folk,Al?
Charlie

Alan D. Hyde
04-26-2005, 02:18 PM
No, Charlie. :D

I just know a good thing when I see it.

BTW, I don't always agree with them, but we both tend to support free people in free markets.

Alan

The rivers of history push at our backs, and the rivers of history flow toward freedom.

TomF
04-26-2005, 02:31 PM
Good points, George.

Perhaps cultures change where there's sufficient inducement?

A counsellor I worked with once said that none of his clients changed until they experienced enough pain to prompt it. He'd look forward to a client truly grounding out, because that's when real stuff started to happen.

T.

John B
04-26-2005, 02:47 PM
"" The culture of the people who were called "rednecks" and "crackers" before they ever got on the boats to cross the Atlantic was a culture that produced far lower levels of intellectual and economic achievement,""

What culture does he mean when he says this? I only have a rudimentary knowledge of the how and the who settled the US in what order.

WWheeler
04-26-2005, 04:23 PM
And that is left-wing crock. Well George, in Canada there was a definite English/French split for many years with the French culture serving a distinct underclass role. There were many discussions like the author's about the disabilities introduced by French language, the Catholic Church etc.

With the "Quiet Revolution" of the 60's/70's, the French became "maitres chez nous" as they say, and Quebec culture was completely transformed without being absorbed by English Canadian society. The power of the church (and the size of families) but the use of French was completely revitalized. Suddenly the culture didn't seem quite so dysfunctional.

[ 04-26-2005, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: WWheeler ]

George.
04-26-2005, 04:36 PM
WW, what I mean is that it is not a question of "taking away people's culture." It is specific cultural elements that are bad, and deserve to be discouraged.

Germans didn't have to stop drinking beer and liking heavy philosophy in order to stop believing in militarism.

And Tom, I hear your point about "experiencing enough pain." People only seem to question elements of their culture when they have been well kicked in the arse because of them - see Germany, again, and individuals that we all know...

Jack Heinlen
04-26-2005, 05:15 PM
An unintended consequence, speaking of policy, was what American welfare policy did for thirty years. We enouraged a lack of family, and not just in black families. Young women who got pregnant were better off if they didn't get married, because the checks were bigger.

I'm all for helping people who are struggling, but to encourage them to not marry is just stupid. All studies show that a basic cause of anti-social behavior, in boys especially but in both sexes, is a lack of a father.

It's an interesting issue, and I agree with Sowell, it's cultural. The policies we adopt have tremendous influence.

Help people, but let's not encourage the destruction of one of the few things poor people have always had, family.

John B
04-26-2005, 05:18 PM
taboo question I gather.....

Jack Heinlen
04-26-2005, 05:23 PM
No John, not taboo. I was hoping Alan would respond, because he's been reading about this.

I think what he's referencing was a difference in the immigrant cultures that moved to the South, and those that moved to the North. The Puritans were highly structured, weathier, more cultured, the poor Scots and Irish who moved to Virginia were of a different social class and culture.

I'd never heard the term "redneck" applied to anyone but an American yahoo. I thought the term originated from the dirt farmers of the southern states, because their necks turned red in the sun. I think Sowell likely made a verbal leap with that.

km gresham
04-26-2005, 05:34 PM
Successful blacks and whites are those who have left the culture of ignorance behind. The difficulty for blacks who succeed through education and excellence is that they are hated and criticized by those blacks (and whites) who make their living off the ignorant and suspicious black population. (ie: black "leaders" and white politicians) It's easy to use people who are ignorant which is why it is so dangerous to the race baiters for increasing numbers of blacks to become educated and successful. Which explains why they fight so hard against anything which will greatly improve conditions and education for blacks. School vouchers come to mind. Black leaders, teachers unions and politicians are standing in the doorways of failing, dangerous schools and refusing to allow black children out.

There are a few voices in the wilderness speaking the truth - one is Bill Cosby, who has suddenly come under fire for sexual advances after decades of success as an entertainer - until he became a threat to the black leaders and white politicians who require ignorance among their constituants.

[ 04-26-2005, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

John B
04-26-2005, 06:35 PM
I thought Virginia was a penal colony ( filled largely by these "rednecks")and the closing of that colony due to some ... ahem, internal issues ;) ,caused the seeking of a new one. IE Botany bay.
Ahh I see.. its my geography astray. I thought of Virginia as North :confused: is it not ?

[ 04-26-2005, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: John B ]

WWheeler
04-27-2005, 07:42 AM
Successful blacks and whites are those who have left the culture of ignorance behind. ie. those who now vote Republican?

km gresham
04-27-2005, 08:11 AM
;) Could be. Actually, I see examples of Mr. Sowell's observation right in my own office building. The higher level jobs are held by educated, articulate, bright people - black, white, asian, etc. The lower level jobs are held by blacks and whites who are not well educated, not articulate (by choice in many cases) and not very interested in learning to be better than they are. Interestingly, lower level jobs are held by blacks and whites, but no asians. The asians are all in high level jobs.

Jack Heinlen
04-27-2005, 08:18 AM
John,

My reading of American history is imperfect at best, but I'm pretty sure there was never a formal prison colony here ala Botany Bay. As I understand it, sometimes English undesirables were given an option, prison or the Americas, but most came here of their own accord, both North and South. If you can call religious persecution, famine, and lack of opportunity "of their own accord." Many also arrived as indentured servants. And, of course, as slaves.

Hm, if you add up the convicts, the indentured servants and the slaves I wonder if most did come her of their own accord? I'll bet there is more than one Phd thesis on the topic.

And no, Virginia is definately SOUTH! Robert E. Lee and all that Civil War stuff. The Mason Dixon line, a boundary that is sorta the formal divide, is a hundred miles north of Virginny. :D

[ 04-27-2005, 09:25 AM: Message edited by: Jack Heinlen ]

Dan McCosh
04-27-2005, 08:23 AM
W.B. Shockley and books such as "The Bell Curve" made a good case that whites are genetically inferior. Regardless, it is the redneck culture that runs America today. The conclusion is that intelligence really doesn't mean much in the face of real power.

George Roberts
04-27-2005, 08:52 AM
Alan D. Hyde ---

There was a news article a couple days ago that compared the success of blacks in schools relative to where their ancestors came from.

I don't remember the details but West Indian blacks regardless of where they live in the US did better than neighboring African blacks.

Culture appears to have a lot to do with success.

I accept the blame for my ancestors holding back blacks in the US, but I think that blacks should accept some responsibility for their current status.

htom
04-27-2005, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by WWheeler:
or, to stoop to the usual level of this forum, I think it's a right-wing crock. Taking away people's culture is another way to disempower them. I thought that the point of the article was that "those people" were disempowering themselves with their culture. Sometimes the victim is responsible for his own woes, and in those cases it's not blaming the victim to point this out.

Alan D. Hyde
04-27-2005, 09:15 AM
Here is a point that Booker T. Washington, Malcolm X, Jesse Jackson, and Bill Cosby, to name just a few, have all agreed on--- slum culture is bad for the African-American people, just as it is bad for any people.

There is a relatively high and noble black culture, that has brought us timeless Spirituals, jazz, literature and poetry, memorable public speeches, substantial mathematical and scientific accomplishment, Congressional Medals of Honor--- much to be proud of.

All of these leaders, Bill Cosby most recently, have agreed that success will come from emulating the integrity and high achievement that characterizes the best in black culture, and not from glorifying hoodlums whose paths lead only to dissipation, to decadence, and to death.

Alan

Dan McCosh
04-27-2005, 09:20 AM
Re:Blacks from the Caribbean. Slavery ended first in the Caribbean, and was followed by some degree of self-government that eventually led to the establishment of something of a middle class in many islands in the Caribbean. In the U.S., disenfranchisement and Jim Crow laws kept Blacks isolated for generations. Also, I doubt Sowell was thinking about Haiti while he was making his point.

George.
04-27-2005, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Jack Heinlen:
An unintended consequence, speaking of policy, was what American welfare policy did for thirty years. We enouraged a lack of family, and not just in black families. Young women who got pregnant were better off if they didn't get married, because the checks were bigger.
Problem: in Brazil, we only started with that twisted sort of welfare recently, but the number of single-parent families in the slums has been skyrocketing for decades. It's the same in the slums of modern cities all over the world, welfare or not. So causalty is not so straightforward.

My theory - people constitute father-mother families if either:

a) they have to in order to successfully bring up offspring, because single mothers are unable to protect and provide for children; or

b) there is a legacy of property or skills to leave to the kids, which increases the likelyhood of their own success in being successful and reproducing (passing on the father's genes).

In a modern slum situation, a single mother is quite capable of raising children - not well, maybe, but they won't starve or be eaten by predators. And the men, being poor and uneducated, have no legacy to worry about. For the men it is a better reproductive strategy to spread their genes around as much as possible, and leave the women to worry about raising children, than to devote themselves to a single family for which they won't be able to do much anyway.

In other words, they become r-strategists instead of K-strategists, for perfectly good ecological reasons, regardless of welfare policies.

George.
04-27-2005, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Dan McCosh:
Slavery ended first in the Caribbean, and was followed by some degree of self-government ... In the U.S., disenfranchisement and Jim Crow laws kept Blacks isolated for generations. But Haiti is exactly the problem case. First country to abolish slavery, first to get self-government by blacks... and look at it.

Osborne Russel
04-27-2005, 12:11 PM
1. Crippled by their own culture, true. That's why its better to speak of "African Americans" rather than "blacks" because there is a huge difference. I went to college with black Africans who were graduates of European prep schools in Africa and Europe. They were not from the `hood, let me tell you. They frequently wanted me to explain African Americans to them.

2. One reason for the huge difference is history. American history teaches African Americans (and everyone else) to think of themselves as identified primarily by race. Thus there are relatively few black American role models in terms of people who succeeded playing by the rules, because the rules were discriminatory.

It's one thing to say, forget about history and get to work, and another for the effects of history to wear off.

Bottom line: are your excuses satisfactory, yes or no.

Gonzalo
04-27-2005, 01:38 PM
Alan D. Hyde wrote:


All of these leaders, Bill Cosby most recently, have agreed that success will come from emulating the integrity and high achievement that characterizes the best in black culture, and not from glorifying hoodlums whose paths lead only to dissipation, to decadence, and to death. It is of emormous value to be articulate in speech and writing. As the debate over "ebonics" pointed out, there is scant advantage to speaking a language/dialect/accent/slang that makes it hard to communicate with the members of the majority culture. Maybe this is just racial prejudice, but it is a fact, nonetheless.

And a preference for articulate speech doesn't apply just to races. Yesterday I met a young, white woman, a Duke graduate, who spoke unaccented English, but could hardly put two coherent sentences together in conversation. Rightly or wrongly, it was hard to take her seriously or even listen to her.

I read recently that black people living in the outer banks of NC spoke a dialect almost indistinguishable from the dialect of white people in the region. But lately the younger blacks have been picking up the American Black Dialect, deliberatly adopting a manner of speech that is likely to be less acceptable to the majority culture.

Gonzalo
04-27-2005, 01:54 PM
Osborn Russell wrote:


That's why its better to speak of "African Americans" rather than "blacks" because there is a huge difference. Not to disupte, but just as an aside: I recently heard an interview with a black historian who announced that he would no longer use the term "African American" to refer to himself. His reasoning was that the term is more properly applied to recent immigrants from Africa and their offspring than to decendents of slaves like himself. His lineage is so far removed from Africa that it simply has no part in his self identity, so he prefers to be called a black American than to be any part African.

Naturally, my memory being what it is, I can't remember his name. I just made a quick internet search to no avail. I think I heard it on NPR, but can't remember which show.

Dan McCosh
04-27-2005, 01:58 PM
"It is of emormous value to be articulate in speech and writing. As the debate over "ebonics" pointed out, there is scant advantage to speaking a language/dialect/accent/slang that makes it hard to communicate with the members of the majority culture."

--This, of course, doesn't seem to hurt our President.

htom
04-27-2005, 02:43 PM
I'd love to have him over for dinner for an evening after he's no longer President to see if the speech problem disappears in private. In other words, I wonder if it's something he's doing intentionally, both to attract mocking and to sound less like he's "talking down" to the general population. When I was active in debate we had a couple of vocal and physical "tricks" that we used as distractors, in an attempt to divert the opposition from our argument, which was primarily what the judges paid attention to. The tricks seemed to work well, although we were called on them a couple of times by the judges -- but we won the debates anyway.

(Example: Male opponent gets up to speak for the first time. My partner, a georgeous blonde, leans over and whispers to me. I check my zipper. Speaker loses all focus as he tries NOT to check his zipper.)

Dan McCosh
04-27-2005, 02:50 PM
My theory is that Bush spent his teen years trying to be accepted by the kids on the street, hence the "good 'ol boy" speech habits. I think he started out faking it, and then it stuck. It still sounds odd, considering how his parents speak.

Wild Wassa
04-27-2005, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Jack Heinlen:
" ... ala Botany Bay."

So this place was a prison site or a penal settlement? This is news to me, how amazing. There was no water to be found at Botany Bay, even Captain Cook discovered that. I wondered how long anyone would have lasted at Botony Bay without fresh water ... three days? ... less?

Don't always believe the words you hear in an old folk song Brothers or be psudo experts on our culture.

Warren.

[ 04-27-2005, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

George.
04-27-2005, 03:09 PM
My theory is that it is daim bramage due to doo much trinking...

TomF
04-27-2005, 03:12 PM
Yup. Me good wife's family is solid Sydney stock. And the oldest families, according to her, proudly trace their lineages back to thieves and rogues.

None of her ancestors were transported for crimes rather than being hanged back in England ... but the original family member was a younger-son aristocrat who got a maid pregnant. Was sent off to the other side of the world in disgrace some 150 years ago, where he made a fortune, to the chagrin of his English relatives.

t.

Dan McCosh
04-27-2005, 03:14 PM
"But Haiti is exactly the problem case. First country to abolish slavery, first to get self-government by blacks... and look at it. "

I mentioned Haiti only to point out that Caribbean Blacks aren't necessarily over-achievers. In my opinion, this talk of a "culture" is nonsense. Poverty makes its own demands on people, and they often react accordingly.

Wild Wassa
04-27-2005, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by TomF:
"Me good wife's family is solid Sydney stock."

Me too, I mean my wife's husband is, but it is better being up in the mountains than Sydney ever was. We should have moved here even sooner. Sydney is clogged with congestion and generally sucks ... except to visit.

Australians call Botany Bay, 'Beirut on the Bay' ... there are more people living in the suburb of Botany and around Port Botany who can trace their origins back to Lebanon, than they can to the English, Irish or Scotish convicts.

"None of her ancestors were transported for crimes rather than being hanged back in England"

That was a tricky option? They must have just come for the views.

Warren.

[ 04-27-2005, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

John B
04-27-2005, 03:35 PM
Wassa, are you saying that Botany bay is not where the first convict fleet landed in Aus?

Wild Wassa
04-27-2005, 03:59 PM
The song says, "... bound for Botany Bay."

When they confirmed that there was no water I don't think that they even put ashore, except to plant a flag. They moved up the coast very quickly to Port Jackson. It was many years later that they returned to Botany and Ramsgate.

They, the First Fleet, had to go to Botany to claim the Continent under the treaty of Terra Nullius. The French and Russians also claimed Terra Australis. Botany was not a penal settlement.

We are re-writing our history and have been for decades. Most of our history was just straight out Imperialist bullship or propaganda used to scare people back in England into not meeting the same fate at the time, or to make the Gentry out here look good ... the first reports back to England talked of living amongst the canibals ... it is a shame that there is still no instances of canibalism by the first people but there sure are a few instances by the white invaders ... they left it up to people's imaginations as to who actually perpetrated genocide.

Look at the Settlement at the Tank Stream (Sydney Harbour) also Port Jackson and the Convict Settlement of the Newcastle and Dungog regions and the Settlement of Port Arthur (in Tassy). Also the Goulborne and Bathurst regions. That's a better look.

You may have also read that the The Blue Mountains (The Great Escarpment) were crossed by the explorers Lawson, Wentworth and Blacksland they were the Gentry ... but infact the mountains were first cross by a convict a decade earlier called Wilson but he doesn't count. As he was not a person of the 'right type'.

It is just misrepresentation of the facts by Imperialists that sets a burden on a culture, in the minds of others (back home in the old country especially) mostly ... cultures become stigmatized by those who know the least. People are not allowed out of the holes that have been dug for then by others especially when dug by governments ... the current plight of Australia's First People today is a perfect example of Imperialism.

Articles like 'that' above are a very subtle way of point scoaring ... by bigots ... not to mention freakin' white suprematists.

Warren.

[ 04-27-2005, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

Jack Heinlen
04-27-2005, 06:40 PM
"Botany Bay" is a phrase signifying the prison colony in Australia. I see it's more complex than I assumed, and also more electric in the Aussie mind. No offense was intended.

But convicts were sent to Australia, in a way they never were to the Americas. It was more formalized to Australia, by my read. I'm always open to correction.

Hell, my ancestors here are a mongrel bunch. I have Hugeonots, Jews, Germans, and a few Scot undesirables in there. :D

Con LanAdo
04-27-2005, 07:52 PM
Mr. Shockley did no such thing, just the opposite. But we need not worry as the present dominant generation desires to adapt the slum mentality.
Alan, i ponder these questions too & i think of all the posts Ish has it buttoned. We are only presently getting out from under well paid professionals who while exposing grand plans were making a healthy bit of change. Just like the War of Drugs makes billionairs but ultimatley fails the War on Poverty created a profession that destroyed multi generations.
I also don't swallow the bit of blacks from wherever being more determined. My experiances tell me that the average black male is so desireous of middle class American values that my head spins when i hear crackers. On the other hand non American blacks do bring allot of other cultural bagage along ie. the director of Economic Advancement for the Carribian explains that the best route for his peoples upward mobility is to stop having relations with their daughters (i don't make this s up). And i sure don't believe the tribes of Africa will do one damn thing for this new home of theirs & i would be the first to apologize if that weren't the case. As far as the grads from these countries - well thats a matter of economics too.
We really are in this boat 'cause we have bought a racist doctrine.

Jack Heinlen
04-27-2005, 09:13 PM
I heard Shockley lecture. His was a controversy back in 1976, but to Denison University's credit, he lectured.

Let's say, for sake of argument, that his stats are correct. The bell curves for IQ are skewed. Blacks are to the left of Caucasians, and Causcasians are to the left of Asians. On this IQ measure bell curve, mind you?

So fricken what?

It's made into an argument about affirmative action. I think affirmative action, based on race or sex, not need, ought to be eliminated. Affirmative action, based on deprivation, makes sense.

PatCox
04-27-2005, 09:55 PM
Alan, ever hear the expression "you broke it, you bought it?" Why is black american culture "broken?" Gee, its funny, your article which you have pronounced yourself unable to even synopsize through lack of intellect, points out that blacks who are not descended from slaves do better than blacks who are descended from slaves. Funny coincidence, isn't it? Of course, Milton Friedman (or any scholar annointed by Friedman) has not pointed out this fact to you, so of course it doesn't exist to you. But its there nonetheless.

Culture is not transmitted in utero, nor is it absorbed through the ether. It is transmitted through ones parents and the people immdiately surrounding one in early life. yes, black culture is indeed broken. But it is equally clear that it is not reasonable to presume that a young black person born into that culture has as easy a task as you or me, when it comes to breaking out of that culture. What to do? Just condemn the culture as broken and let the chidren born into it through no fault or choice of their own just rot? Is that what Friedman recomends?

You have, shockingly, defended slavery, on the grounds that slavery was better for blacks than the freedom they were unprepared for (don't make me go search for you words, you know what you said). Yet this article you post is actually supportive of the proposition that enslaving a race of people, ripping them from their own native culture, damages them, deprives them of a valid and workable culture, and that the effects are long lasting. Do you have any thoughts of your own on this complex topic, or can you do anything but slavishly follow the lead of Friedman and the friedmanites on this, as on every topic under the sun?

Jack Heinlen
04-27-2005, 11:21 PM
Okay, a different model.

Some say genetics is determinate. Is this true? It may be. I tend to give it much more weight than our current social thinkers do.

So blacks are genetically inferior, we better get used to it. They are an inferior expression of the species.

I'm poking, but not without some interest.

I've a brother who is a racist. He truly believes blacks are inferior. I always argue culture, but he's insistent: blacks are not suited to this culture. It worries me, but I listen and wait.

I actually think we are doing okay. The laws are in place, the shift from slave to realization is happening. Maybe not as fast as some would like, but it is happening.

And if there is a shift in the bell curves, so fricken what? I'm, statistically not as bright as the Japanese next to me. So be it, I've got the bull by the horns and statisticians can take a long hike off a short dock.

Gonzalo
04-28-2005, 08:36 AM
In the mid '80s, Stephen Jay Gould wrote a book called "The Mismeasure of Man," about the history of intelligence testing, from skull measurements to the Stanford-Binet IQ tests.

In it, he covers a lot of bad science--especially in the design of experiments to confirm the prejudices of the scientists. Those prejudices were often that educated, city-dwelling, white men were the most intelligent beings on the planet, and that country-living people of color were the least intelligent. Gould analyzes the original raw data using modern statistics and shows how those prejudices were built into the design of the experiments and interpretation of the data. These prejudices, he claims, include the Stanford-Binet.

Gould re-released this book after the stink over "The Bell Curve," and shows how those data were massaged to deliver the pre-judged conclusion about the mental abilities of various races.

It's good reading, and very instructive.

Dan McCosh
04-28-2005, 08:50 AM
Having studied IQ measurement a bit in college, I've always been interested in these "studies". I mentioned Shockley and the Bell Curve thing only to point out that both clearly show that whites are an inferior group. The next question is how they came to dominate much of the world, despite this measurable inferiority. I've always found it interesting to note how many whites latch onto the black-white part of the equation while ignoring the asian-white scenario.
In fact, these test-based analysis aren't even measuring genetic predisposition to begin with, only the ability to solve certain acadamic problems. That is what an IQ score is--an attempt at predicting how well one would succeed in a specific academic environment. Oddly enough, it doesn't even do that very well.

Alan D. Hyde
04-28-2005, 11:08 AM
http://www.tsowell.com/images/tom_4b.jpg

Thomas Sowell

Here's a brief CV:

ADDRESS: The Hoover Institution

Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
(650) 723-3303

PERSONAL: U.S. Citizen, born June 30, 1930

EDUCATION:
Ph.D. in Economics, University of Chicago, 1968
A.M. in Economics, Columbia University, 1959
A.B. in Economics, magna cum laude, Harvard College, 1958

EXPERIENCE:
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, September 1980 - present
Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A., July 1974 - June 1980
Visiting Professor of Economics, Amherst College, September- December 1977
Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, April- August 1977
Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, July 1976 - March 1977
Project Director, The Urban Institute, August 1972 - July 1974
Associate Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A., September 1970 - June 1972
Associate Professor of Economics, Brandeis University, September 1969 - June 1970
Assistant Professor of Economics, Cornell University, September 1965 - June 1969
Economic Analyst, American Telephone & TelegraphCo., June 1964 - August 1965
Lecturer in Economics, Howard University, September 1963 - June 1964
Instructor in Economics, Douglass College, September 1962 - June 1963
Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor, June 1961 - August 1962

PRINCIPAL PUBLICATIONS:
Black Rednecks and White Liberals (Encounter Books, 2005)
The Quest for Cosmic Justice (Free Press,1999)
Conquests and Cultures (Basic Books, 1998)
Migrations and Cultures (Basic Books, 1996)
The Vision of the Anointed (Basic Books, 1995)
Race and Culture: A World View ( Basic Books,1994 )
A Conflict of Visions (William Morrow, 1987)
Ethnic America (Basic Books, 1981)
Knowedge and Decisions (Basic Books, 1980)
Classical Economics Reconsidered (Princeton University Press, 1974)
Say's Law: An Historical Analysis (Princeton Univ.Press, 1972)

***

His website, well worth a visit, is at---

www.tsowell.com (http://www.tsowell.com)

Dr. Sowell scarcely needs me to defend him. He is well capable of defending himself.

As far as defending myself, Pat Cox has long misunderstood (I will assume sincerely) a comment I made several years ago, and I will explain that comment one last time, in the hope that he may comprehend what I am saying, which happens to be factually accurate and historically true.

First, I have NEVER defended slavery. Abraham Lincoln said--- As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. I think that says it all...

Secondly, what I DID say, is that older slaves, at the end of their working lives, were often seen by their "masters" as a net loss--- they cost more to feed and keep than they produced.

This being the case, some were "freed" to essentially starve, or to be victimized, hounded and abused by local racist whites, once they were no longer the "property" of a powerful landowner with an economic incentive to protect them.

So, given the facts in an admittedly unjust society, some slaves, as a matter of historic fact, preferred the protection afforded by a "good" master to the lack of protection afforded to the "free" but still oppressed blacks in parts of the ante bellum United States.

Our white ancestors who, many of them, swore allegiance as vassals in feudal Britain or Europe, to come under the protection of more powerful men, as their lords, once made a somewhat similar trade-off.

Alan

[ 04-28-2005, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]