[Orange]

This week’s action alert asks readers to protest the biased portrayal of the “civil rights” movement in the History Channel’s documentary King. The documentary predictably reduced the complexities of the civil rights movement into a simple-minded fairy tale in which Martin Luther King represented “love” and the segregationists “hate.” Even though many segregationists were respected scholars who made reasoned arguments against racial integration, the only opponents of King that we saw in the documentary were Klan members, neo-Nazis, angry mobs, and ranting public officials.

In case you’re one of those backwards reactionaries who failed to worship at the shrine of King on Sunday night, the History Channel’s promotional material for King will give you an idea of what you missed. For more on King, see The Ugliest Day of the Year.

The History Channel welcomes viewer comments on its programs. To ask for an objective and impartial portrayal of the “civil rights” movement, send the e-mail below or one of your own composition to thc.viewerrelations@aetv.com.

Thanks for doing your part!

Subject: King was propaganda, not history!

Body:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Your documentary King was more propaganda than history.

The documentary reduced the complexities of history to a simple-minded fairy tale of good against evil, in which Martin Luther King and his followers represented “love” and those who opposed him represented “hate” and “man’s inhumanity to man.”

Of course, there was much irrationality and hatred on the segregationist side of the civil rights debate. However, casting these as the sole motives of the segregationists, as King did, is a grotesque caricature. There was much more to the segregationist movement than Klansmen, neo-Nazis, and “Bull” Connor’s snarling police dogs.

The segregationists counted many distinguished scholars and commentators among their ranks, including James E. Garrett, former president of the American Psychological Association, Ernest van den Haag, professor at New York University, and Carleton Putnam, author of Race and Reason. These men made reasonable and factual arguments against racial integration. Segregationist scholars offered scientific evidence that the genetic differences between whites and blacks were so large as to make integration impossible. They also defended segregation on the grounds of freedom of association, a basic human right. Furthermore, they made a persuasive case for the constitutionality of the “separate but equal” policy that governed American race relations before the civil rights era.

When I turn on the History Channel, I want to see history, not fairy tales. That means I want to see documentaries that present an impartial and objective account of the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of historical conflicts, not one-sided propaganda.

Sincerely,

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/act ... ry_on_mlk/

[Grunch]

Even though many segregationists were respected scholars who made reasoned arguments against racial integration

There is no reasonable argument against racial integration.

[Kapanda]

Either that or you still failed to show it. I hope it isn't a policy you advocate...

[Dr House]

There is no reasonable argument against racial integration.

QFT. I can say a thing or two about enforced integration, but being against integration itself is retarded.

[Lightman]

King wasn't perfect, but he did a hell of a lot of good, more so than the majority of people will ever do in their life, and for that he deserves admiration. Was the History Channel's portrayal of King biased? I don't believe so. It showed King as a great human being, and he was that.

On an unrelated note, going to the History Channel for facts these days is a risky proposition. The lot of the shows are about UFO freaks.

[Orange]

There is no reasonable argument against racial integration.

The integrationists made good arguments in favour of political equality. The segregationists argued that racial integration would be socially disruptive, particularly in the school environment. I think they also had a point. All I ask is for a more balanced perspective on American history.

[KurtFF8]

The views of King are usually presented very narrowly indeed: They leave out his later focus on economic inequalities and his calls for Socialism. They don't show that not everyone agreed with non-violence as the only option for resistance.

As for your reasons, the "presenting the segregationist view," well that's one of those few things that most people will look at and argue was just wrong. We don't present the fascist point of view in WWII documentaries, because fascism is just wrong by most people's standards. (*Waits for some anti-communist nonsense comment to follow*)

[Dan]

There is no reasonable argument against racial integration.

Actually there is.

The largest study to date, done by Putnam (who is a liberal, and is definitely not a segregationist), found that greater racial diversity of a neighborhood was correlated with lower social capital within that neighborhood. But the study also found that racial diversity was also correlated with increased economic growth.

There are other reasonable arguments that can be made. I might not agree with forced segregation, but to say there are nor reasonable arguments in favour of the position is just silly.

[KurtFF8]

The largest study to date, done by Putnam (who is a liberal, and is definitely not a segregationist), found that greater racial diversity of a neighborhood was correlated with lower social capital within that neighborhood. But the study also found that racial diversity was also correlated with increased economic growth.

What exactly is meant here by "social capital"?

[Dan]

What exactly is meant here by "social capital"?

Social capital refers to the social networks -- whether friendships or religious congregations or neighborhood associations -- that he says are key indicators of civic well-being. When social capital is high, says Putnam, communities are better places to live. Neighborhoods are safer; people are healthier; and more citizens vote.

The results of his new study come from a survey Putnam directed among residents in 41 US communities, including Boston. Residents were sorted into the four principal categories used by the US Census: black, white, Hispanic, and Asian. They were asked how much they trusted their neighbors and those of each racial category, and questioned about a long list of civic attitudes and practices, including their views on local government, their involvement in community projects, and their friendships. What emerged in more diverse communities was a bleak picture of civic desolation, affecting everything from political engagement to the state of social ties.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

[Andres]

The largest study to date, done by Putnam (who is a liberal, and is definitely not a segregationist), found that greater racial diversity of a neighborhood was correlated with lower social capital within that neighborhood. But the study also found that racial diversity was also correlated with increased economic growth.

That is not an argument against racial integration, since a correlation does not imply a causation. You would need to show that the correlation was a result of integration in order to have an argument against it.

[Dan]

True, correlation does not necessarily imply causation, but...

From the article:

Putnam realized, for instance, that more diverse communities tended to be larger, have greater income ranges, higher crime rates, and more mobility among their residents -- all factors that could depress social capital independent of any impact ethnic diversity might have.

"People would say, 'I bet you forgot about X,'" Putnam says of the string of suggestions from colleagues. "There were 20 or 30 X's."

But even after statistically taking them all into account, the connection remained strong: Higher diversity meant lower social capital. In his findings, Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to "distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television."

Given that the correlation remained even after accounting for other possible causal factors it would seem proper to conclude that one of either racial diversity or lower social capital causes the other. Given that there seems to be no reason that low social capital would cause racial diversity, it would seem most rational to conclude that racial diversity causes lower social capital.

[jaakko]

that greater racial diversity of a neighborhood was correlated with lower social capital

How is that an argument against racial integration?

Racial integration =/= diversity

Instead, it can be argued that racial diversity is a sign of racial segregation.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Something else you have to be careful with in these studies is whether you're measuring the effects of racism or other effects of non-integration.

After all, if you measure the number of murders in a suburb of 100 Klan members and 100 black supremacists and compare that to a suburb of 200 Amish you might find that 'diverse' neighbourhoods are much more dangerous... If you then try to use such a study to justify 'keeping white neighbourhoods white' or some such idiocy, then all you're actually doing is promoting the very evil that lead to your poor study results in the first place.

Problems for people integrating should actually mean people being *more ready* to help new people to an area rather than be used as an argument to support increased racism or xenophobia.

[Dan]

How is that an argument against racial integration?

Racial integration =/= diversity

Instead, it can be argued that racial diversity is a sign of racial segregation.

How so?

A more racially integrated neighborhood would have greater racial diversity. A segregated neighborhood would be unlikely to have any diversity at all, as different races would be in different neighborhoods.

Something else you have to be careful with in these studies is whether you're measuring the effects of racism or other effects of non-integration.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America
...
Putnam, a liberal academic whose own values put him squarely in the pro-diversity camp
...
But even after statistically taking [all factors that could depress social capital independent of any impact ethnic diversity might have] all into account, the connection remained strong
...
Economists Matthew Kahn of UCLA and Dora Costa of MIT reviewed 15 recent studies in a 2003 paper, all of which linked diversity with lower levels of social capital. Greater ethnic diversity was linked, for example, to lower school funding, census response rates, and trust in others.

Given that the large size of the study it is extremely unlikely your Klan example would occur. Given the liberal bias of the person who did the study, it is extremely unlikely the study was designed in a way that would ensure these findings. Given the independence of the correlation from other possible causal factors it is unlikely that there was no cause and effect between the two variables. Given that other research supports this conclusion, it is likely the conclusion has merit.

then all you're actually doing is promoting the very evil that lead to your poor study results in the first place.

I object to the phrase poor-study results. This implies that the study should be value-driven rather than fact-driven.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Given that the large size of the study it is extremely unlikely your Klan example would occur

That wasn't my point. I'm not seriously suggesting the study would be of a community of 100% racists. I'm pointing out that if a community is actually operating 'less well' because of racism (as would be my example community), to have a study supporting non-integrationism/fear of the other on the basis of studying such a community is actually just proposing a course of action that would make the situation worse and giving unnecessary and unjustified succour to racists.

Given the liberal bias of the person who did the study, it is extremely unlikely the study was designed in a way that would ensure these findings. Given the independence of the correlation from other possible causal factors it is unlikely that there was no cause and effect between the two variables. Given that other research supports this conclusion, it is likely the conclusion has merit.

Ummm... no. You can keep on pretending that you can factor out all other variables, but I don't see any evidence that the xenophobia/racism of the community was actually established in this study, let alone 'factored out'.

This implies that the study should be value-driven rather than fact-driven.

It implies nothing of the sort. First, the phrase 'poor study results' was referring to my hypothetical study of 200 people and not the study you cited. Second, the 'poor' results was referring to the high crime rate found in the first hypothetical community. I don't think you object to saying a huge crime rate is a 'poor result', even if it involves injecting the 'value' that 'crime is bad'.


As I said, and the criticism remains, there is a problem with using such studies to call for segregation/homogeneity - because you can actually have the mere existence of racism being used as a false reason to perpetuate racism.

It's a bit like if you did a study of what happens if you inject 100 women into a corporation full of 100 misogynists. Of course you're likely to get discord in such a setting and that is a finding which has 'merit' even if it's obvious... but if you then try to use that finding to suggest 'women don't work well in the workforce and therefore should be kept out', that would be invalid and precisely perpetuating the issue that needs resolution - that is, the attitudinal problem of those already in the workforce.

If you're serious about making communities work, you should not attack the 'foreigners' in them - that only makes the communities even less likely to work.

[Andres]

Given that the correlation remained even after accounting for other possible causal factors it would seem proper to conclude that one of either racial diversity or lower social capital causes the other. Given that there seems to be no reason that low social capital would cause racial diversity, it would seem most rational to conclude that racial diversity causes lower social capital.

I would be more likely to conclude that xenophobia, however mild and regardless of whether it came from both sides, was the cause of lower social capital. Your conclusion is akin to saying that the reason a ball falls down when I let it go is because I dropped it, and ignore gravity altogether.

[Potemkin]

This week’s action alert asks readers to protest the biased portrayal of the “civil rights” movement in the History Channel’s documentary King. The documentary predictably reduced the complexities of the civil rights movement into a simple-minded fairy tale in which Martin Luther King represented “love” and the segregationists “hate.” Even though many segregationists were respected scholars who made reasoned arguments against racial integration, the only opponents of King that we saw in the documentary were Klan members, neo-Nazis, angry mobs, and ranting public officials.

Now you know what I feel like when I watch a 'documentary' about Communism on the History Channel.

Anyone who watches the Hitler Channel to learn the truth about history is a deluded fool.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Did you actually watch this documentary, Orange? Looking at TV schedules, it seems to have been shown on that date on the History Channel in the USA, not the UK. I hope you have watched the thing you're calling for 'direct action' on.

[Dan]

Both Max and Andres seem to be making the same point, so...

Racial diversity and lower social capital are correlated, and I would still argue that racial diversity causes lower social capital. "Xenophobia" would be part of the mechanism through which this causation occurs. It is natural for humans to be more comfortable with people like themselves and thus more likely to engage in activities increasing social capital with people more like themselves.

It implies nothing of the sort. First, the phrase 'poor study results' was referring to my hypothetical study of 200 people and not the study you cited.

Sorry. I thought you were referring to the larger study.