John Derbyshire

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Any time something good happens to black people because they are black, that's racist

 

Any time something bad happens to black people because they are black, that's not racist

 

Any time a white person gets in trouble for talking about blacks, they are not racist but everyone else is

 

 

 

I agree with the elderly on this board. BLACK PEOPLE ARE SCARY!

 

Children should be seen and not heard. Go to bed.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Like I said.

I do not believe that race is solely responsible in the slight iq differences.

I do think it's wise to be cautious in general in the situations he describes.

 

WSS

 

But that's not what the column is saying, or why it's being described as racist.

 

I was just wondering how explicitly someone would have to say, "Blacks are inferior to whites and you should avoid them, especially in numbers" before you would call it racist. Apparently, this isn't explicit enough.

 

Perhaps I'll post all the responses from his co-workers at the National Review since you can't take it from me without pretending this is about social programs, or whatever else.

[heckofajobbrownie]

As a group, there is a higher percentage of black people who are successful american professional athletes than white.

 

Is that a racist statement or not?

WSS

 

No.

 

I'd also think it may not even be true. You'd have some sports where it was, but looking at, say, hockey or lacrosse or swimming or ice skating or skiing or tennis wouldn't give you the same picture.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Rich Lowry:

 

Anyone who has read Derb in our pages knows he’s a deeply literate, funny, and incisive writer. I direct anyone who doubts his talents to his delightful first novel, “Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream,” or any one of his “Straggler” columns in the books section of NR. Derb is also maddening, outrageous, cranky, and provocative. His latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible. We never would have published it, but the main reason that people noticed it is that it is by a National Review writer. Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise. So there has to be a parting of the ways. Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation. It’s a free country, and Derb can write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Just not in the pages of NR or NRO, or as someone associated with NR any longer.

 

John Barro:

 

Conservatives so often get unfairly pounded on race because, so often, conservatives get fairly pounded on race. And this is the Right’s own fault, because conservatives are not serious about draining the swamp. ... My challenge to conservatives who feel they get a bum rap on race is this. Stand up for yourself and your colleagues when you feel that a criticism is unfair. At the same time, criticize other conservatives who say racist things, cynically tolerate racism in the Republican base, or deny the mere existence of racial issues in America today. The conservative movement desperately needs self-policing on racial issues, if it ever hopes to have credibility on them.

 

Jason Lee Steorts:

 

In 2010, John Derbyshire gave remarks on the race/IQ question in which he said this: “Group differences are statistical truths. They exist in an abstract realm quite far removed from our everyday personal experience. They tell you nothing about the person you just met.”

 

John’s recent column abandons that principle. It gives practical advice (think twice about voting for a black politician; do not be a Good Samaritan to blacks; and much more) according to which each individual black person should start out at a kind of deficit. We see John’s departure from his stated view of 2010, as well, in the recent column’s hyperlinks. For example, on not being a Good Samaritan, John offers an article about a black man who, while beating up his girlfriend, stomped to death a white man who tried to defend her. There are many abusive people of all races, and many of them would attack any third party who intervened to stop the abuse. The statistics John cites do not even begin to justify the notion that the individual in this case acted as he did because he was black; but John is perfectly happy to make that assumption. This move from the abstract and statistical to the very personal is the most overtly racist aspect of the column, to my mind, and I think John’s defenders are failing to register it.

 

I think they are also insufficiently troubled by John’s readiness to assume that statistical differences between races — e.g. between their incarceration rates or average scores on IQ tests — are due to innate psychological and cognitive differences. The causation is hotly disputed, but John has always seemed interested in only one explanation — or, at a minimum, he has seemed startlingly uninterested in telling us why he finds that explanation the most compelling.

 

I share Mark’s frustration with the selectivity of our culture’s racial outrage, and his alarm over the manner in which political correctness restricts the bounds of discourse and thought; but neither point strikes me as a good reason for NR to affiliate itself with a writer who expresses genuinely racist sentiments. (Two wrongs don’t make a right &c.) At the same time, there is something thuggish, not to mention insecure, in the mob’s expectation that a head be thrown to it without any discussion of the nature of the offense, and in its refusal to entertain any possibility of forgiveness.

 

Human beings are complicated. It is possible for good people to have deep flaws, and for traits utterly worthy of condemnation to exist alongside admirable ones. And so I will end by saying that in my personal dealings with him I have always found John to be thoughtful and kind, that some of his work (for instance his novel Seeing Calvin Coolidge in a Dream, which Rich has mentioned) expresses a deep and generous humanity, and that I will sorely miss his column “The Straggler” in NR’s books section.

[Westside Steve]

No.

 

I'd also think it may not even be true. You'd have some sports where it was, but looking at, say, hockey or lacrosse or swimming or ice skating or skiing or tennis wouldn't give you the same picture.

Oh I thought of that. Hence the successful and american but you know what I mean. I'd imagine the highest paid athletes on this earth for football and basketball players.

But do you think there might be something physiological that would make, for instance, the guy from kenya the distance running champ year after year?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh I thought of that. Hence the successful and american but you know what I mean. I'd imagine the highest paid athletes on this earth for football and basketball players.

But do you think there might be something physiological that would make, for instance, the guy from kenya the distance running champ year after year?

WSS

 

Well, sure, they think so. But the reason Kenyans dominate marathon running isn't because they're black. There are lots of countries with black athletes in them. Why do Kenyans specifically dominate marathons? It's got to do with the running culture and the altitude and the training regiment as well.

 

Why do Russians dominate in hockey?

 

If blacks are inherently better athletes, why does the one sports that is played equally around the world, soccer, not dominated by African countries? They're competitive, of course, but the dominant teams are from Brazil and Argentina and Spain and Italy.

 

Also, what are you getting at? Because there are physiological differences between the races you should be able to ...what? You're trying to go down a rabbit hole.

[Westside Steve]

But that's not what the column is saying, or why it's being described as racist.

 

I was just wondering how explicitly someone would have to say, "Blacks are inferior to whites and you should avoid them, especially in numbers" before you would call it racist. Apparently, this isn't explicit enough.

 

Perhaps I'll post all the responses from his co-workers at the National Review since you can't take it from me without pretending this is about social programs, or whatever else.

Whether it conforms to your definition of racism or not the numbers are what they are.

Do you think it's a patently ridiculous idea that large group of blacks might have inherent danger for white people? Do you think a group of hip hop black teens should probably avoid bensonhurst ?

 

WSS

[Westside Steve]

And if it's not about social programs, meaning that you don't think that they would make a significant improvement, to what do you ascribe the differences?

Poverty alone? Culture? Availability of education?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Whether it conforms to your definition of racism or not the numbers are what they are.

Do you think it's a patently ridiculous idea that large group of blacks might have inherent danger for white people? Do you think a group of hip hop black teens should probably avoid bensonhurst ?

 

WSS

 

Again, the numbers from studies of racial disparities in IQ studies are not the point, which you're clearly missing. That's not the racist part of the article, even though his figures are disputed in other studies. After all, in those studies, Jews and Asians post higher IQs than whites.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Just tell me: you don't seem to have any problems with this article. Is that true?

 

You don't think this is a clear example of racism? You think it's just someone telling the hard truths about black people?

[DieHardBrownsFan]

It's the truth about the world heck. Something you have no idea about in your liberal sheltered place.

[heckofajobbrownie]

It's the truth about the world heck. Something you have no idea about in your liberal sheltered place.

 

I'll try to adjust.

[The Cysko Kid]

It's the truth about the world heck. Something you have no idea about in your liberal sheltered place.y

 

This is a ridiculous statement that makes it seem like you were raised on a whites only religious nutjob compound. What, specifically, in this article tells you the secret truths of the world? That you are better than the blacks, and you shouldn't stop to help one stranded on the road? Fuck 'em right? Serves 'em right for being born black.

[heckofajobbrownie]

It's always so fun to read conservative after conservative say there no problem with racism, and the only problem is when liberals claim there is racism, or reverse-racism, and then come in here and listen to five different guys, all conservative, tell you why black people really are inferior, scary, and probably criminals.

 

"My challenge to conservatives who feel they get a bum rap on race is this. Stand up for yourself and your colleagues when you feel that a criticism is unfair. At the same time, criticize other conservatives who say racist things, cynically tolerate racism in the Republican base, or deny the mere existence of racial issues in America today. The conservative movement desperately needs self-policing on racial issues, if it ever hopes to have credibility on them."

 

Good luck with that.

[FairHooker11]

It's always so fun to read conservative after conservative say there no problem with racism, and the only problem is when liberals claim there is racism, or reverse-racism, and then come in here and listen to five different guys, all conservative, tell you why black people really are inferior, scary, and probably criminals.

 

Huh? where do you get that? In fact some of the posts I read here includes those of your political ilk to agree with some of Derbyshires recommendations to his kids? ( statistical common sense 10a & 10b - you did check out his links?) In fact 1 through 10 seemed perfectly normal to me.

 

 

ives who feel they get a bum rap on race is this. Stand up for yourself and your colleagues when you feel that a criticism is unfair. At the same time, criticize other conservatives who say racist things, cynically tolerate racism in the Republican base, or deny the mere existence of racial issues in America today. The conservative movement desperately needs self-policing on racial issues, if it ever hopes to have credibility on them."

 

Good luck with that.

 

 

lol like we think YOU libs have the answer here! And such MORAL high ground you stand on! Let me tell you something, credibility starts when you are honest enough to state the facts and not cower from them. The party you represent corners the market on being POLITICALLY CORRECT . And the narrative of the day seems to be the correct speech given and in this case, getting fired for not complying with being PC.

 

Remember when R Limbaugh on ESPN way back in 2003 said he thought Donovan McNabb was overrated? Oh such racism for saying such a thing...he was fired from espn....

[VaporTrail]

Huh? where do you get that? In fact some of the posts I read here includes those of your political ilk to agree with some of Derbyshires recommendations to his kids? ( statistical common sense 10a & 10b - you did check out his links?) In fact 1 through 10 seemed perfectly normal to me.

 

You're referring to my thoughts on 10a and 10b. While I might practice those things in context with large groups of black people, the reason I'm doing it isn't because they're black. The reason I'm doing it is because I'm not. It's because I'm different. I'd do the same thing in Hawaii with native islanders (even though I'm of Pacific Islander descent). I'd do the same thing with white countryfolk. Their color doesn't make a lick of difference to me, but mine might to them.

 

Packs of people can be irrational and dangerous. I'd prefer to not stick out like a sore thumb. Do you think that this puts me on the same level as this guy?

[MLD Woody]

raised by these people

[FairHooker11]

obama's liberal band of activist hippies only want everyone else to be pc while they are allowed to be arrogant asses and make false allegations.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wacfY-w0Vjc&feature=related

 

 

 

 

or in the case of that caller, an absolute nut job...

[Westside Steve]

Again, the numbers from studies of racial disparities in IQ studies are not the point, which you're clearly missing. That's not the racist part of the article, even though his figures are disputed in other studies. After all, in those studies, Jews and Asians post higher IQs than whites.

I believe that to be true.

So let's say I strongly identify myself as a white man.

How should I react to that statement?

Should I become angry with the people that conducted the study?

Should I demand that anyone who repeats those statistics be fired

Should I take a close look at my own adopted demographic and try to find ways to balance that out?

 

If you could take a minute to consider those questions without the knee jerk accusation of racism....

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Well, sure, they think so. But the reason Kenyans dominate marathon running isn't because they're black. There are lots of countries with black athletes in them. Why do Kenyans specifically dominate marathons? It's got to do with the running culture and the altitude and the training regiment as well.

 

Why do Russians dominate in hockey?

 

If blacks are inherently better athletes, why does the one sports that is played equally around the world, soccer, not dominated by African countries? They're competitive, of course, but the dominant teams are from Brazil and Argentina and Spain and Italy.

 

Also, what are you getting at? Because there are physiological differences between the races you should be able to ...what? You're trying to go down a rabbit hole.

Not at all.

so if someone pointed out the professional sports in america is dominated by black athletes you counter said it's probably mostly due to culture. That seems to make sense.

On the other hand, if someone correctly points out that this 1 demographic has a higher rate of violent crime, for example, you claim racism.

And since I mostly agree on both fronts why are you so angry with me for blaming that culture?

Or do you blame white racism?

WSS

[VaporTrail]

I believe that to be true.

So let's say I strongly identify myself as a white man.

How should I react to that statement?

Should I become angry with the people that conducted the study?

Should I demand that anyone who repeats those statistics be fired

Should I take a close look at my own adopted demographic and try to find ways to balance that out?

 

If you could take a minute to consider those questions without the knee jerk accusation of racism....

WSS

 

No, Steve, because that's not how science works. One study is never the be-all, end-all. Any study that you look at needs to be taken in context with the studies that preceded it as well as the studies that this one influenced. This moron is cherry picking studies he likes to make a stupid point. Not science.

[Westside Steve]

No, Steve, because that's not how science works. One study is never the be-all, end-all. Any study that you look at needs to be taken in context with the studies that preceded it as well as the studies that this one influenced. This moron is cherry picking studies he likes to make a stupid point. Not science.

That's an excellent example of knee jerk.

I don't think your precious science has too much idea what causes basic differences and IQ.

There is, however, substantial evidence as to crime rates education rates poverty rates etcetra.

I will give it to you guys to figure out why those differences exist.

Or, as usual, just get mad because somebody mentioned them.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

How did this turn into a discussion about racial disparities in IQ measurements? That's not what the column is about. It's only part of it.

 

Steve, answer the question: do you think the column is racist, or do you think he's just telling hard truths about the black community?

[Westside Steve]

How did this turn into a discussion about racial disparities in IQ measurements? That's not what the column is about. It's only part of it.

 

Steve, answer the question: do you think the column is racist, or do you think he's just telling hard truths about the black community?

I just read it again Heck.

 

I think that the article is based on the unfortunate truths in american society.

I think number 10 sums it up well.

I think if it bothers you so much that your anger is misdirected.

 

I don't have anything to lose so why pretend to be outraged?

I realize that the national review fears retaliation from demagogues such as yourself.

 

1 of the most troubling aspect of it is that it's acceptable and even required to fire someone for writing.

 

I will await your sermon.

WSS

[VaporTrail]

That's an excellent example of knee jerk.

I don't think your precious science has too much idea what causes basic differences and IQ.

There is, however, substantial evidence as to crime rates education rates poverty rates etcetra.

I will give it to you guys to figure out why those differences exist.

Or, as usual, just get mad because somebody mentioned them.

WSS

 

What are you talking about? Science doesn't have much of an idea of what causes differences in IQ, and I never stated otherwise. Guess what. Those sociological rates you're referring to, and the studies that allow us to come up with those rates are science. This guy is making blanket statements on an entire race of people based on what evidence?

 

I think that the article is based on the unfortunate truths in american society.

I think number 10 sums it up well.

I think if it bothers you so much that your anger is misdirected.

 

Okay, let's look at 10 again.

 

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

 

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

 

(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).

 

(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.

 

(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.

 

(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.

 

(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.

 

(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.

 

(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.

 

Just to further clarify that you think he's speaking truths about the world we live in.

[The Cysko Kid]

This is a ridiculous statement that makes it seem like you were raised on a whites only religious nutjob compound. What, specifically, in this article tells you the secret truths of the world? That you are better than the blacks, and you shouldn't stop to help one stranded on the road? Fuck 'em right? Serves 'em right for being born black.

[The Cysko Kid]

10h is my favorite. Why help a black dude with a flat tire? Hell only rape and kill you, right? Right?

[Westside Steve]

[quote name='VaporTrail' timestamp='1334155474' post='282

 

 

 

Okay, let's look at 10 again.

 

 

 

Just to further clarify that you think he's speaking truths about the world we live in.

 

Actually you didn't include 10.

But if you feel comfortable stopping in the black part of town after dark and helping out somebody on the side of the road great.

I would say statistically like it says in 10, your risk of being hurt is probably greater.

If you don't believe that's true, fine.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

(10) Thus, while always attentive to the particular qualities of individuals, on the many occasions where you have nothing to guide you but knowledge of those mean differences, use statistical common sense:

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I just read it again Heck.

 

I think that the article is based on the unfortunate truths in american society.

I think number 10 sums it up well.

I think if it bothers you so much that your anger is misdirected.

 

I don't have anything to lose so why pretend to be outraged?

I realize that the national review fears retaliation from demagogues such as yourself.

 

1 of the most troubling aspect of it is that it's acceptable and even required to fire someone for writing.

 

I will await your sermon.

WSS

 

Well, that's what I figured you'd say. When I read this my first thought was, "What the...?" I've read a lot of John Derbyshire over the years. He's often interesting. But he clearly has a distaste for blacks, and what he imagines is "black culture." He's often gotten fairly close to the line, but this was something entirely new. I've never read anything like it, and assumed it would get him instantly condemned, even by the right, and then fired. And it did.

 

One of my other thoughts was that you would agree with it, and not think it's racist at all.

 

And the National Review doesn't fear me, or demagogues. They fear having all of their writers and their magazine associated with someone with clearly racist views, which is why they fired him. Because when you're trying to make the case that the right doesn't have a racial problem, which they often do, it helps not to have a guy with obvious racial problems on your staff.

 

Like you said, you don't have to answer to anyone else, so you don't care if someone thinks you're a racist, or that what you've written in here over the years would get you fired as well, and quickly. I suppose this is liberating for you. As for me, I suppose i can stop trying to find where your line is. After the white power video, and now this, I'm not sure I want to find out.