[Zyx]

To start, here is a paradigm of evaluation: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/Class-Counts-chapter-1.pdf Go to page 13 of the PDF and start from "In contemporary advanced capitalism . . ." and end at "in which the underclass lives." In short, it explains that the bourgeoisie, unable to kill people in our moral/political climate, choose to exterminate Blacks imprisoning and cordoning them.

Here is the study that looks into the means through which they do as much. http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-ctcp-hrg.092507.Rojecki-testimony.pdf

Is this how we view race, and can the latter document be interpreted as anything beside from a supporting document of the earlier theory expressed by Eric Olin Wright?

[Dave]

Summarize, no one is going to read those.

I think minorities tend to view race normally and display high levels of group loyalty. White people are extremely hypocritical about race. They claim to be for multiracialism, diversity, etc. but in practice prefer to live in white neighborhoods and send their kids to white schools, even in the rare cases where minority heavy schools aren't horrible.

[Thunderhawk]

They claim to be for multiracialism, diversity, etc. but in practice prefer to live in white neighborhoods and send their kids to white schools, even in the rare cases where minority heavy schools aren't horrible.

Perhaps a better choice of words is needed. I know a couple people who would not have placed their children in schools with a lot of blacks, but were generally indifferent towards Orientals and Indians. People with such views are a minority, but I would say a large minority, especially amoungst E.Euro immigrants.

Are those people racist for disliking blacks, or mutliracial for not discriminating against, and some times for integration with, Indians and Orientals ?

[Dave]

Evidence has shown that white parents will ALSO try to keep their kids out of majority East Asian schools, even those these are better than majority white schools on average.

People are still of course, on average, more comfortable with Indians and East Asians, for the likely reason that these groups are more like whites in terms of things like crime and economic performance.

[NoRapture]

I think minorities tend to view race normally and display high levels of group loyalty. White people are extremely hypocritical about race.

Personally, I don't go around making big broad statements and assumptions like these about race. And I find that those who do usually harbor racist ideas pertaining to the superiority of their own "race" in some context. I mean, minorities tend to do one thing and "white" people tend to do another? We're already in stoopidville and no-one has even said anything yet.

[Dave]

That's probably because you haven't studied the subject. Racial groups show a high degree of self-segregation, even when attempts are made to forcibly integrate them, and this pattern exists even in early childhood. That doesn't mean that people of different races are predestined to hate people of other races or that racial mixing does not occur or is "unnatural", merely that these tendencies are observed. These tendencies are explained by genetic similarity theory.

[Zyx]

Summarize, no one is going to read those.

For the most part, ignoring the OP and writing out of your ass is terribly stupid. I would much more prefer no posts over irrelevant posts. Yours was an irrelevant post.

Here is the initial article (much more intelligent than your tripe.)

[Indent ]In contemporary advanced capitalism, the key resource which defines the predicament of the underclass is labor power itself. This might seem like an odd statement since in capitalism, at least since the abolition of slavery, everyone supposedly owns one "unit" of labor power, him- or herself. The point is that some people do not in fact own productively saleable labor power. The situation is similar to a capitalist owning outmoded machines. While the capitalist physically controls these pieces of machinery, they cease to be "capital"--a capitalistically productive asset--if they cannot be deployed within a capitalist production process profitably. In the case of labor power, a person can physically control his or her own laboring capacity, but that capacity can cease to have economic value in capitalism if it cannot be sold on a labor market and deployed productively. This is hte essential condition of the "underclass." They are oppressed because they are denied access to various kinds of productive resources, above all the necessary means to acquire the skills needed to make their labor power saleable. as a result, they are not consistently exploited.

[Indent ]Understood in this way, the underclass consists of human beings who are largely expendable from the point of view of the logic of capitalism. Like Native Americans who became a landless underclass in the nineteenth century, repression rather than incorporation is the central mode of social control directed towards them. Capitalism does not need the labor power of unemployed inner city youth. The material interests of the wealthy and privileged segments of American society would be better served if these people simply disappeared. However, unlike in the nineteenth century, the moral and political forces are such that direct genocide is no longer a viable strategy. The alternative, then, is to build prisons and to cordon off the zones of cities in which the underclass lives." (Wright 2000, p24)

"Inner city youth" here can be considered Blacks.


The second article brings up a series of research that backs the idea from social cognition that simplified images of Blacks is responsible for modern discrimination as seen in studies.

In one study (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004) researchers sent resumes, identical except for stereotypically white or black names to employers and found that the Greg or Emily were 50 percent more likely to get callbacks than Jamal or Lakisha.

Taking into account social cognition and the appeal of hip hop, the paper concludes this.

The question this panel needs to address is whether the stream of imagery and language in gangster rap is more or less likely to get Lakisha and Jamal a callback.

I relate this with Wright's quote by looking into who is most disadvantaged by gangster rap, addressed in the second article (5 page double-spaced) to be Blacks, who most consumes it, Whites, and what this means for the future of the Black race, extermination as per Wright's belief.

I think minorities tend to view race normally and display high levels of group loyalty. White people are extremely hypocritical about race. They claim to be for multiracialism, diversity, etc. but in practice prefer to live in white neighborhoods and send their kids to white schools, even in the rare cases where minority heavy schools aren't horrible.

This is not actually a bad opinion, but addressed in the second article. It relates with social cognition and how Whites, lacking intimate relationships with Blacks, develop their views of negativity from Black culture as supported by White money and thereby view Blacks as inferior despite knowing few. Just like how we normally see Africa as bad even though many of us have never been. Not to say that there are not bad elements in Blacks or Africa, but that the selective media makes for us to interpret it as wholly bad.

Are those people racist for disliking blacks, or mutliracial for not discriminating against, and some times for integration with, Indians and Orientals ?

Ignorant is the word. Ignorant of social cognition theory that states that these people should be made aware of the fact that the media plays a role in manipulating their perceptions negatively against Blacks and that only their active engagement against as much will lead to any progressive change. You display some ignorance too but not living up to the fact that Blacks are a unique race in American history. That people do not discriminate against other races is unimportant, it's like pointing out Iran's lax policies on Buddhist for evidence of its kindness (a non-issue--note, I do not know Iran's policies on Buddhists.)

People are still of course, on average, more comfortable with Indians and East Asians, for the likely reason that these groups are more like whites in terms of things like crime and economic performance.

Read the five pages, you'll probably like it. Blacks and Whites are affected by White media's image of Blacks, thus Blacks adapt bad behavior and Whites assume as much from Blacks. The Asians are different than the Blacks in that White media is not actively harming them.

Personally, I don't go around making big broad statements and assumptions like these about race. And I find that those who do usually harbor racist ideas pertaining to the superiority of their own "race" in some context. I mean, minorities tend to do one thing and "white" people tend to do another? We're already in stoopidville and no-one has even said anything yet.

Agreed. Dave's comments were incredibly stupid especially since he used the vague term 'normal' to define something that doesn't exist. Blacks and Whites actually do not interpret the world very differently on average since our interpretative skills are derived from our cultures and Black and Whites share a similar culture mostly because Black culture is endosymbiotic to White culture being that it is a derivative thereof. It'd be interesting to explore the endosymbiotic relationship, but as for now, I justify the claim with the sociological evidence that whereas Whites do not know the television shows of Blacks, Blacks know the television shows of Whites, and there is theory of the gaze and the mythical norm which suggests Whiteness as normality and it is consistent in Black media and, naturally, White media. The earlier evidence (on television) is interesting because it means that Blacks are a cultural niche within White culture, therefore their interpretative skills are as "White" as White's are since Black culture does not subtract from White culture but adds to it albeit badly.

These tendencies are explained by genetic similarity theory.

Link this much. How would you explain the intermarriages of royalty in ancient societies that were race-blind? Dave, you're full of shit.

[Dave]

For the most part, ignoring the OP and writing out of your ass is terribly stupid. I would much more prefer no posts over irrelevant posts. Yours was an irrelevant post.

Then why do you post?

Here is the initial article (much more intelligent than your tripe.)

looks like marxoid babbling

In one study (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004) researchers sent resumes, identical except for stereotypically white or black names to employers and found that the Greg or Emily were 50 percent more likely to get callbacks than Jamal or Lakisha.

Why on Earth would you hire someone named "Jamal" or "Lakisha"? These aren't even real names! Parents who would give their kids such unfortunate names can be assumed to be stupider than those who give their kids normal names, and it's therefore safe to assume that the kids themselves are stupid. I wouldn't call back someone with the "name" Lakisha if I was in HR.

This is not actually a bad opinion, but addressed in the second article. It relates with social cognition and how Whites, lacking intimate relationships with Blacks, develop their views of negativity from Black culture as supported by White money and thereby view Blacks as inferior despite knowing few. Just like how we normally see Africa as bad even though many of us have never been. Not to say that there are not bad elements in Blacks or Africa, but that the selective media makes for us to interpret it as wholly bad.

This doesn't relate entirely to bad stereotypes about blacks, although those certainly play a part. The same phenomenon is found with Asians, whom stereotypes of are positive.

And it's not like stereotypes about blacks are completely unwarranted. According to the DoJ blacks have a violent crime rate seven times the national level and a homicide rate eight times the national level.

Read the five pages, you'll probably like it. Blacks and Whites are affected by White media's image of Blacks, thus Blacks adapt bad behavior and Whites assume as much from Blacks. The Asians are different than the Blacks in that White media is not actively harming them.

Have you not seen Sinophobic propaganda from decades past? The idea that blacks are behaving badly because of negative media images is certainly not parsimonious and implies that blacks do not have autonomy.

Agreed. Dave's comments were incredibly stupid especially since he used the vague term 'normal' to define something that doesn't exist. Blacks and Whites actually do not interpret the world very differently on average since our interpretative skills are derived from our cultures and Black and Whites share a similar culture mostly because Black culture is endosymbiotic to White culture being that it is a derivative thereof. It'd be interesting to explore the endosymbiotic relationship, but as for now, I justify the claim with the sociological evidence that whereas Whites do not know the television shows of Blacks, Blacks know the television shows of Whites, and there is theory of the gaze and the mythical norm which suggests Whiteness as normality and it is consistent in Black media and, naturally, White media. The earlier evidence (on television) is interesting because it means that Blacks are a cultural niche within White culture, therefore their interpretative skills are as "White" as White's are since Black culture does not subtract from White culture but adds to it albeit badly.

oh come off of it

Link this much. How would you explain the intermarriages of royalty in ancient societies that were race-blind? Dave, you're full of shit.

Ancient societies were not race blind, and the Egyptian pharaohs from time to time barred blacks from entering Egypt.

[Zyx]

Why on Earth would you hire someone named "Jamal" or "Lakisha"? These aren't even real names! Parents who would give their kids such unfortunate names can be assumed to be stupider than those who give their kids normal names, and it's therefore safe to assume that the kids themselves are stupid. I wouldn't call back someone with the "name" Lakisha if I was in HR.

You are very smart.

Seriously, if I wanted to joke around, I'd joke around. Stupid posts like "Why would you . . . normal . . ." are a waste of bandwith. Besides, since when did a name mean whether someone could get a job or not?

Edit: Actually, you should just concede that your argument is entirely racist. Even if I believed such things as 'normal' names and names being more indicative of an application than the bloody resume sent, why is it that the ridiculous name Julius or Sergio would not be discriminated against Greg or Emily? You should just admit the ethnic bias (maybe those names would be discriminated against, but that's not important, what is important is what reason they are discriminated against for . . . it's not that Lakisha is worst than Michelle, but that Lakisha is Black.) Admit that much and let's move on.

And it's not like stereotypes about blacks are completely unwarranted. According to the DoJ blacks have a violent crime rate seven times the national level and a homicide rate eight times the national level.

Explainable through social cognition theory. It is very reasonable that a people would be violent after being defined as a violent people. Just like how an enslaved person, who only learns that they are a slave, would behave like a slave unless told otherwise. Hence the famous line in African-American history that was said during slavery and during the civil rights movement, "there was no problem until you came along and said something."

Have you not seen Sinophobic propaganda from decades past?

It's decades past. Plus, Asians have a separate paradigm to reflect on: many Asians would cite how in Asia their treatment is different. Blacks lack a history as a people, thus they are more easily manipulated. Your history is important to you, innit?

implies that blacks do not have autonomy.

Autonomy from? I would never claim that anyone was born with full autonomy. We are all children.

oh come off of it

Oh, but it feels so goodsa massah!

What does 'come off of it' even mean? Is that a sexual reference to me being on your lap or something? Why would you use that?

Ancient societies were not race blind, and the Egyptian pharaohs from time to time barred blacks from entering Egypt.

Dave, again, you are full of shit.

Linking something means linking something, not making up other fallacious tripe.

Next you'll tell me, "When I was in Ancient Aksum, I noticed that all of the people were White."

Give some links, please.

[Dave]

Seriously, if I wanted to joke around, I'd joke around. Stupid posts like "Why would you . . . normal . . ." are a waste of bandwith. Besides, since when did a name mean whether someone could get a job or not?

I'm not joking at all.

Explainable through social cognition theory. It is very reasonable that a people would be violent after being defined as a violent people. Just like how an enslaved person, who only learns that they are a slave, would behave like a slave unless told otherwise. Hence the famous line in African-American history that was said during slavery and during the civil rights movement, "there was no problem until you came along and said something."

Blank slate nonsense.

It's decades past. Plus, Asians have a separate paradigm to reflect on: many Asians would cite how in Asia their treatment is different. Blacks lack a history as a people, thus they are more easily manipulated. Your history is important to you, innit?

Why did negative Asian stereotyping stop, but not black stereotyping?

Autonomy from? I would never claim that anyone was born with full autonomy. We are all children.

Fair enough, you're consistent then. And I don't agree with free will either, but rather with constrained choice.

Oh, but it feels so goodsa massah!

What does 'come off of it' even mean? Is that a sexual reference to me being on your lap or something? Why would you use that?

How do you not know what come off of it means? Are you a foreigner?

Dave, again, you are full of shit.

Linking something means linking something, not making up other fallacious tripe.

Next you'll tell me, "When I was in Ancient Aksum, I noticed that all of the people were White."

Give some links, please.

Pharaoh Senusret III in the 19th century B.C. set up a stone marker at the headwaters of the Nile, barring blacks from Egypt.
http://www.aldokkan.com/art/black.htm

[Zyx]

Pharaoh Senusret III in the 19th century B.C. set up a stone marker at the headwaters of the Nile, barring blacks from Egypt.
http://www.aldokkan.com/art/black.htm

Comment on that site, "This is typical colonization of historical facts by European men who have no ancient history worth mentioning other than death and distruction [sic] to all civilizations that they have encounterd [sic] since their emergence from the(their)dark ages."

The Egyptians were for all intents and purposes Black. The edict that you cite is very likely a mistranslation for the word "Kushite" or "Nubian."

In fact:

In the early Middle Kingdom there are attested struggles against Nubia, which led to the conquest of parts of the country (mainly Lower Nubia - the region from the First to the Second Cataract). Under Senusret I (about 1956-1911/10 BC) fortifications were built (Buhen). Several new fortifications were built under Senusret III (about 1872-1853 BC) to secure a slightly more southerly border at Semna in the Second Cataract; the king headed several campaigns against Nubia. Egypt's immediate interest in Nubia would have been its wealth in raw materials, such as gold and copper. Other materials desired by the Egyptians, such as hard wood and ivory, were traded through the region. Control over Nubia was lost within the Second Intermediate Period. In the Second Intermediate Period Lower Nubia was ruled by the kings of Kerma, and there is good evidence for Nubians living in Egypt.

Granted, knowing you not to be a scholar of any sort, I wouldn't expect you to question the convenience of the modern terminologies in your commercial (.com) sources, but given that this is a forum of respect, I'll respectfully point you to Ancient History to not only inform you that Egypt was Black, but also that to Egypt's South, Pre-Grecian World, were three Black kingdom, Nubia, Kush and Aksum (much more actually, but I'm actually only learning this now myself ). Not that Black meant all three, but more like Black meant Nubia (I just wanted you to know that there was more than Egypt in Africa at the time) as evidenced from that Pharaoh's history and reputation.



That is Senusret.

Important king of the Twelfth Dynasty. He led many campaigns against Nubia, and built a chain of forts to secure a new fixed southern border at the Second Cataract around Semna.

That is the socio-political background that you ignore due to your profound pride in ignorance: Senusret may well have been "Black" himself.

---

Blank slate nonsense.

What disproves the Blank Slate?

Why did negative Asian stereotyping stop, but not black stereotyping?

Probably Nixon . . ..

Fair enough, you're consistent then. And I don't agree with free will either, but rather with constrained choice.

Do I seem inconsistent? Anywho, constrained choice is a denial of autonomy, too.

How do you not know what come off of it means? Are you a foreigner?

I've heard the phrase "Get off my dick," is it the same as that? I don't talk much with people or try to adapt their slang.

I'm not joking at all.

Did you catch my edit?

Edit: Actually, you should just concede that your argument is entirely racist. Even if I believed such things as 'normal' names and names being more indicative of an application than the bloody resume sent, why is it that the ridiculous name Julius or Sergio would not be discriminated against Greg or Emily? You should just admit the ethnic bias (maybe those names would be discriminated against, but that's not important, what is important is what reason they are discriminated against for . . . it's not that Lakisha is worst than Michelle, but that Lakisha is Black.) Admit that much and let's move on.

[Dave]

Comment on that site, "This is typical colonization of historical facts by European men who have no ancient history worth mentioning other than death and distruction to all civilizations that they have encounterd since their emergence from the(their)dark ages."

The Egyptians were for all intents and purposes Black. The edict that you cite is very likely a mistranslation for the word "Kushite" or "Nubian."

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingne ... e_id=90699
Egypt's head of antiquities doesn't seem to agree that ancient Egyptians were black. I know Nubian Pharaohs ruled Egypt for 75 years, but do you have any evidence to prove that Egyptians were black? The current population certainly isn't black, nor is anyone else in the Mediterranean Basin.

Granted, knowing you not to be a scholar of any sort, I wouldn't expect you to question the convenience of the modern terminologies in your commercial (.com) sources, but given that this is a forum of respect, I'll respectfully point you to Ancient History to not only inform you that Egypt was Black, but also that to Egypt's South, Pre-Grecian World, were three Black kingdom, Nubia, Kush and Aksum (much more actually, but I'm actually only learning this now myself ). Not that Black meant all three, but more like Black meant Nubia (I just wanted you to know that there was more than Egypt in Africa at the time.)

I am familiar with Nubia, Kush, Axum, and Punt. How does this prove Eygptians were black? And look at King Tut's death mask:


That is clearly a caucasoid face.

This is Senusret

The statuary isn't consistent. A quick search found this:

That man is not black.

It also found this:

That man doesn't appear black or caucasian!


Similar to the previous one.


Somewhat similar to the previous tour, and definitely not black.

That is the socio-political background that you ignore due to your profound pride in ignorance: Senusret may well have been "Black" himself.

I have not denied that Egypt ever had black Pharaohs. I merely presented evidence that blacks were barred from Egypt at one point in time, indicating knowledge of race and existence of "racism". Most Americans aren't black, but we have a black President.

What disproves the Blank Slate?

Steven Pinker wrote a book about it: http://books.google.com/books?id=7rJ5gI ... lt#PPP1,M1

Probably Nixon . . ..

Do I seem inconsistent?

No, but most people who talk about social cognition are.

Anywho, constrained choice is a denial of autonomy, too.

A partial denial.

I've heard the phrase "Get off my dick," is it the same as that? I don't talk much with people or try to adapt their slang.

Similar in meaning, but it originates in the the expression "high horse", as in "come off your high horse."

Edit: Actually, you should just concede that your argument is entirely racist. Even if I believed such things as 'normal' names and names being more indicative of an application than the bloody resume sent, why is it that the ridiculous name Julius or Sergio would not be discriminated against Greg or Emily? You should just admit the ethnic bias (maybe those names would be discriminated against, but that's not important, what is important is what reason they are discriminated against for . . . it's not that Lakisha is worst than Michelle, but that Lakisha is Black.) Admit that much and let's move on.

I fully admit my ethnic bias, but the ethnic bias is reasonable. Black people perform worse on IQ tests, SAT tests, graduate in lower ranks in high schools and college, drop out of high school far more, earn less money, have higher unemployment, etc.

Even if you argue that all of this is the result of socially constructued blackness or whatever it doesn't change the fact that ethnic bias in this instance is reasonable.

[Zyx]

Egypt's head of antiquities doesn't seem to agree that ancient Egyptians were black. I know Nubian Pharaohs ruled Egypt for 75 years, but do you have any evidence to prove that Egyptians were black? The current population certainly isn't black, nor is anyone else in the Mediterranean Basin.

Your citation was inquirer.net? How horribly uneducated of you. Where are the objective scholar's opinions?

Anyway, tell me what is wrong with this documentary, if anything, or shut up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u14EP9hKdtM&feature=related

I am familiar with Nubia, Kush, Axum, and Punt. How does this prove Eygptians were black? And look at King Tut's death mask:

I see no image link. Relink, but it's not important.

The Egyptians were a conglomerate but predominately Black. Hence why I cited it for race blindness. It is the racial impurity that backs that claim.

The statuary isn't consistent. A quick search found this:

Consistency is a non-issue, especially since we are looking outside of the cultural context. Beside from my skepticism as to whether you have the right image (since I clearly do,) there is no telling whether precision was the aim in images of Pharoahs. It's like saying that one picture of Napoleon is not a picture of Napoleon because he looks better in one over the other. These are not photographs is what I am trying to tell you.

I have not denied that Egypt ever had black Pharaohs. I merely presented evidence that blacks were barred from Egypt at one point in time, indicating knowledge of race and existence of "racism". Most Americans aren't black, but we have a black President.

An idiotic statement if any. Why don't you just concede that you are wrong? The Pharaoh set up a pillar against Nubians. Whereas Nubians were Black, Nubian is not Black.

Steven Pinker wrote a book about it:

Alright, what does it say? Writing a book on something doesn't disprove it . . ..

:?:

The Chinese are an ally. Negatively stereotyping them is not in the U.S.'s interest any longer. When they were Commies it was.

A partial denial.

A type of something is that something, sir.

Even if you argue that all of this is the result of socially constructued blackness or whatever it doesn't change the fact that ethnic bias in this instance is reasonable.

Identical resumes? Don't be a dolt, sir.

Furthermore, consistent with my idea was another study from the second article.

In one condition students were told the tests would assess intelligence; in the other students were told the tests would measure a lab problem-solving task. Blacks performed identically in the latter condition but did more poorly when they were told the test measured intelligence (Steele, 1997). In other words, blacks may unconsciously hold same stereotypes as whites and behave accordingly.

Your IQ citations are explainable thus. I imagine that if someone had high confidence for a test, they'd do better than someone with low confidence, and if intelligence confidence is created by social stimuli then this average IQ that you cite is perfectly reasonable. Especially since on blind tests, Blacks perform identically.

Maybe you have racial privilege that blinds you from the pyschological impact of intelligence testing after someone degrades you.

I can create a scenario that you'd better understand. Well, actually another one comes to mind! The ranking of a chess player can affect the mentality of their opponent, right? That is what IQ testing is like (at least for Black America.) The example that I wanted to write, though, is if you can imagine being told that you read slow, then being timed for reading a book and having your mind constantly go on the degrading comments that suggest that you read slow and unclearly and thus you make blunders or stall because of it compared with if you just read the text without the degradation. (sorry for language, getting real hungry.) Do you get what I mean?

[Dave]

Your citation was inquirer.net? How horribly uneducated of you. Where are the objective scholar's opinions?

Do you have a problem with The Inquirer?

Anyway, tell me what is wrong with this documentary, if anything, or shut up.

No sound, please summarize.

I see no image link. Relink, but it's not important.

Refresh.

The Egyptians were a conglomerate but predominately Black. Hence why I cited it for race blindness. It is the racial impurity that backs that claim.

Evidence?

Consistency is a non-issue, especially since we are looking outside of the cultural context. Beside from my skepticism as to whether you have the right image (since I clearly do,) there is no telling whether precision was the aim in images of Pharoahs. It's like saying that one picture of Napoleon is not a picture of Napoleon because he looks better in one over the other. These are not photographs is what I am trying to tell you.

How do I know you have the right image? And secondly, how could we possibly even know if that is an accurate depiction of the man?

An idiotic statement if any. Why don't you just concede that you are wrong?

You have presented no evidence that I am.

The Pharaoh set up a pillar against Nubians. Whereas Nubians were Black, Nubian is not Black.

How do you know it was exclusively against Nubians and not blacks?

Alright, what does it say? Writing a book on something doesn't disprove it . . ..

It says the blank slate is bogus.
Here is a shorter 8 page article by Dr. Pinker: http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/ ... logist.pdf

The Chinese are an ally. Negatively stereotyping them is not in the U.S.'s interest any longer. When they were Commies it was.

The Chinese are not an ally, and furthermore can you present that negative stereotyping disappeared as a result of Nixon's visit to China? Or that it even disappeared at that time?

Identical resumes? Don't be a dolt, sir.

Furthermore, consistent with my idea was another study from the second article.

Given that black people are promoted beyond their abilities in the name of diversity, I would not trust identical resumes at all.

Page 3/7 of the Second PDF wrote:
In one condition students were told the tests would assess intelligence; in the other students were told the tests would measure a lab problem-solving task. Blacks performed identically in the latter condition but did more poorly when they were told the test measured intelligence (Steele, 1997). In other words, blacks may unconsciously hold same stereotypes as whites and behave accordingly.

Steele's students demonstated for him what he wanted them to show. His research was attacked in a 2004 issue of American Psychologist (the journal of the APA), by Doctors Paul R. Sackett, Chaitra M. Hardison, and Michael J. Cullen.

"[R]ather than showing that eliminating threat eliminates the large score gap on standardized tests, the research actually shows something very different. Specifically, absent stereotype threat, the African American–White difference is just what one would expect based on the African American–White difference in SAT scores, whereas in the presence of stereotype threat, the difference is larger than would be expected based on the difference in SAT scores."

http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/studies ... n_2004.pdf

Steele's methodology was dishonest, as he adjusted for his students' SAT scores. Bizarrely, in an experiment meant to show that standardized testing was affected by stereotypes, Steele used standardized testing get a population of blacks and whites with similar SAT scores, which is not at all how the general populations relate.

From the same paper:

C. M. Steele and J. Aronson (1995) showed that making race salient when taking a difficult test affected the performance of high-ability African American students, a phenomenon they termed stereotype threat. The authors document that this research is widely misinterpreted in both popular and scholarly publications as showing that eliminating stereotype threat eliminates the African American–White difference in test performance. In fact, scores were statistically adjusted for differences in students' prior SAT performance, and thus, Steele and Aronson's findings actually showed that absent stereotype threat, the two groups differ to the degree that would be expected based on differences in prior SAT scores. The authors caution against interpreting the Steele and Aronson experiment as evidence that stereotype threat is the primary cause of African American–White differences in test performance.

Your IQ citations are explainable thus. I imagine that if someone had high confidence for a test, they'd do better than someone with low confidence, and if intelligence confidence is created by social stimuli then this average IQ that you cite is perfectly reasonable. Especially since on blind tests, Blacks perform identically.

Yet for some reason this didn't negatively impact jews or east asians, but victims of negative stereotyping in the past. I would like to see evidence that blacks perform identically on blind tests.

Maybe you have racial privilege that blinds you from the pyschological impact of intelligence testing after someone degrades you.

I am white, I am at a racial disadvantage as legal statutes discriminate against me in many ways.

I can create a scenario that you'd better understand. Well, actually another one comes to mind! The ranking of a chess player can affect the mentality of their opponent, right? That is what IQ testing is like (at least for Black America.) The example that I wanted to write, though, is if you can imagine being told that you read slow, then being timed for reading a book and having your mind constantly go on the degrading comments that suggest that you read slow and unclearly and thus you make blunders or stall because of it compared with if you just read the text without the degradation. (sorry for language, getting real hungry.) Do you get what I mean?

I don't have so little self-confidence as to be phased by that.

[NoRapture]

Edit: Actually, you should just concede that your argument is entirely racist.

I don't think Dave has a problem with being regarded as a racist. His argument is that all the smartest and most intellectually fashionable people are racists and that you should be one too.

[QatzelOk]

Kumatto, I just read the article you posted. Well, not all of it. Just the first section on L'il Abner, the section that you recommended, and I skimmed the second article.

The first reading is very interesting. The L'il Abner comic and comments about its subtext is extremely important and rich in what it can communicate to people of all educational background - perhaps because of the combination of popular zine (L'il Abner) and academic theory.

The section that you highlighted is heart-breaking - as is the table of Schmoo preferences. The capitalists would rather kill all schmoos (or own them all themselves) rather than have everyone own one. This is truly evil. This entire race-defining thread seems to paint a picture of the "privileged classes" as parasitic hate creators.

Maybe I found the articles interesting because this is how I see this class as well. As parasitic hate-creators.

[Godstud]

You should just have posted this topic's title: "How I view race" as that's what it ends up being.
It's really easy to generalize about things but it doesn't make it correct.

[QatzelOk]

Looking again at the Lil Abner cartoon in the first reading, I don't really like the way the feminist discourse was added onto the class discourse. By associating rejection of male sexuality with a rejection of class domination, the cartoon reinforces the "sexiness" of power accumulation, and thus propagates a culture of domination in a male audience via sexual instinct.

By getting the male reader to think capitalism equals males getting laid, it builds an association between his sexual desires and the accumulation of capital.

Does anyone else think the cartoon may propagate capitalism by hijacking sexual instincts?

[Verv]

Asians do not fit well into the model you present, Kumatto.

After the Asians were sucked up and thrown out by the railroads, many left and went home and some stayed. And some experienced intense racism...

But today, they are economically more successful than whites in their own capitalist machine if we count north Asians.

Where do Asians fit into this mess of a vision?

[QatzelOk]

Kumatto provided some pertinent reading material to stimulate a thread, and I think I'm the only poster who read it and commented on it. But it's not a discussion if I'm the only one who discusses it.

The rest of you have decided NOT to read anything in the OP, deciding instead to build a thread around the educational capital that you already possess.

Which means you have rejected the NEW CAPITAL offered to you - free of charge - by Kumatto.

Why?