« Laugh out loud funny-really | Gene Expression Front Page | There's one way to always make $$$ »
December 30, 2002

Wow-times have changed, but it's still whitey's fault!

An LA Times article:

"I don't have a problem with separate but equal. It's just that this isn't equal," said Ruben Hopkins, 43, a financial analyst, who is black.

Huh? The article is about segregation in Milwaukee. It seems to imply that prejudice from the white population is keeping blacks away (probably somewhat true), but note this one sentence:

In the city too, they remain in traditionally black neighborhoods north of the Menomonee River. Whites live in the south, joined by a growing number of Latino and Asian immigrants.

Those articles titled "America in black & white," should be retitled "America in black & non-black," because the irrational white hatred of the colored seems to fall disproportionately on African-Americans. Why? See below:

Woodrow Reed, now a middle-age car mechanic, crossed the river on those marches as a defiant black teen. He is proud, even now, of the victory. But he has long since retreated to what he calls "the heart of the 'hood."

He does not stray south of the river, does not cross the wasteland of the Menomonee River Valley, with its tangle of railroad tracks and old brick smokestacks. He stays where he feels comfortable.

"I'm back where I came from," Reed said.


"I have a question for Truth Teller, is it THEORETICALLY possible for someone to honestly believe in HBD things like genetic differences in IQ among races and not be racist?

Posted by -R at December 31, 2002 07:36 PM "

"Of course not, fool. The fact someone would rush to claim racial superiority is in itself evidence of racism since there is no support for that belief. Your belief in white supremacy is no different than the Raelians belief in extraterrestial seeding. There is no evidence of either, but the adherents believe because they want to.

Posted by Truth Teller at December 31, 2002 08:08 PM "

For what it's worth, I believe that one need not be racist (and use normative language like "superior" and "inferior") and still accept human biodiversity. I also think one can be reasonable in expressing skepticism while still taking in the facts that are out there. Some who post on the message board are clearly human biodiversity skeptics, but they don't go around saying "Dodo" and "Fool" to whoever disagrees with them because their position is so obviously correct.

Posted by razib at 04:20 AM

And the Mayor "blames the outlying suburbs for not building low-cost housing." Apparently as mayor of Milwaukee he's unable to improve the city enough so that whites want to live there. Instead of blaming crime-prone, blame the suburbs!

Posted by: duende at December 30, 2002 09:52 AM

I don't have the exact citation, but I remember a few years ago some sociologists did a simple study, which combined two factors. First, with some simple models they showed that small personal preferences could result in self-segregation. (Basically, if whites and blacks each have a small preference for living with their own race, then you get self-organization with the two colors seperating, without any real discrimination.)

Then they interviewd a bunch of people and found that actual preferences were far over the levels needed to produce segregation. I forget the exact numbers, but it was something like "Blacks didn't feel comfortable moving into a neighborhood that wasn't at least 50% Black, while whites didn't like moving into a neighborhood that was more than 30% black." Don't quote me on the numbers, but the basic point is that indiciduals basic preferences combine to naturally result in racial segregation in housing, without any explicit racism involved.

Posted by: Doug Turnbull at December 30, 2002 12:08 PM

John Derbyshire has an old article outlining the two races in America: blacks and nonblacks.


Posted by: duende at December 30, 2002 01:07 PM

Whites will move into a black neighborhood as long as the neighborhood is gentrifying. For example, the historic Uptown area of Dallas (just north of the Federal Reserve) used to be all black until the early '80s. Then the family that founded the 7-11 Corporation bought a lot of land to the north of Uptown. This began a process of gentrification which continues until today. Hardly any blacks now live in the old neighborhood.

Posted by: Roger Chaillet at December 30, 2002 03:26 PM

The fundamental issue is people's personal preferences driving all this segregation. This problem simply cannot be solved by govt intervention as long as we live in a republic. This article simply re-hashed what was already known.

Posted by: -R at December 30, 2002 05:12 PM

Look at this aarticle:

Aparently, there is a requirement in the NFL that an owner has to officially consider a minority candidate when hiring a coach. Dennis Green was later reported to be concerneed that he was just interviewed to satisfy the requirement. I guess this is a no win situation if you are an owner in the NFL. Legislating preferences is so tedious.

Posted by: -R at December 30, 2002 06:23 PM

i read that article too. proportionality is funny. i guess the theory is that what makes a great player also makes a great coach. something to it, but not to the extent that people might think.

Posted by: razib at December 30, 2002 06:26 PM

The problem is that black areas are automatically considered "no go" whereas Asian or Italian neighborhoods are perceived as colorful and welcoming to tourists, or in the case of Jewish neighborhoods, a good place to raise kids ("the schools are good"). If anyone can give me an example where "Africa-town" is considered a tourist attraction, or a welcome place to send your kids to school, let me know.

We are beginning to develop African (as opposed to African-American) 'hoods in NYC; maybe they will become tourist meccas. That remains to be seen.

Posted by: Diana at December 30, 2002 07:42 PM

Who might the 'crime prone' be, pray tell? Let me guess.

Most of the posts on this thread are merely rationalizations for residential segregation under the rubric 'everyone likes it that way.' The everyone being racists like themselves. People who are actually interested in an integrated society look at income as the main criterion of whether a housing market is nondiscriminatory. If nonwhites of the same income levels as whites are not buying homes in the same areas then there probably is institutional or subjective discrimination going on. I say nonwhites because the data on Hispanics and Asians is being misrepresented here. (It often is because Razib hates the people he most resembles -- African-Americans -- and will say anything, no matter how false, to demean them.) The article says Hispanics and Asians are 'beginning' to move into white areas, which means most still live in segregated areas. In reality, there has been an enormous culture clash between the Hmong and the mainstream there.

As for Dodo Diana's claim that 'Africa-towns' have never attracted whites as tourists, utter B.S. How does she think Harlem got its reputation for heaven's sakes? Nor was it an anomaly. Black communities in most cities long drew whites for entertainment, especially music.

One wishes some people would spend their time reading the excellent mainstream literature of America's true mixed culture instead of the moldy, discredited treatises of scientific racists.

Posted by: Truth Teller at December 31, 2002 06:51 AM

T Te: I asked for a current example. Harlem was a tourist mecca in the 20s (and to a lesser extent in the 30s) when it was a mixed neighborhood.

By the post-war era, Harlem was solidly black, and avoided by whites who didn't work there.

Posted by: diana at December 31, 2002 10:57 AM

I grew up in Milwaukee.

The whites don't like the blacks, and the blacks don't like whites. So they don't live near each other.

I went to a majority white high school near the South Side. We went to a track meet on the North Side. The black kids in the 'hood threw rocks at our bus.

I remember winning a chess tournament--I beat a black kid to do it. The black guy said that I won just because I'm a white boy (I looked white enough to him). Like that made any difference. I beat him because I was better.

this is the crap blacks and whites deal with in Milwaukee. Both sides know it. The real news is that the black guy's comments made it into the article (he stays where he feels comfortable). That's how everyone does it. If you're a white guy in that 'hood, you're mugged, carjacked or worse. If you're a black guy in the white side of town, you're harassed and shunned.


Posted by: David at December 31, 2002 12:27 PM

Truth Teller should check out Prince George's County, Maryland. It's widely cited by "experts" as being a black utopia. Some have even called it a "golden ghetto" because of the large number of blacks in the middle class.

They are wrong. The public schools in the county suck, and violent crime is on the rise countywide. And, of course, most of the violent crime is perpetrated by blacks against blacks, as well as Third World immigrants.

Posted by: Roger Chaillet at December 31, 2002 01:58 PM

Determined to force your bigotries into being fact, but it can't be done.

Harlem and other inner city entertainment districts thrived well into the '70s. They went into decline during the movement of middle-class people of all 'races' to the suburbs. However, they have been reviving with the return of the middle-class to downtowns and exurbs. Some regions, especially the West and Pacific Northwest, are more residentially integrated than ever, with nonwhites moving to the suburbs and whites moving into the city. That's the reality the U.S. Census reveals, not the racism motivated nonsense you people post.

Diana, you are either a dunce or one hell of a liar. What will you do for an encore -- belittle a lovely little African-American ballerina for not having straight hair?

Roger, I will believe what you say when you offer some objective data supporting it. Until then, considering this is a racist site, I suspect you are as tainted as the other people on this thread.

David sounds like another wannabe white person who hates black people. Why am I not surprised?

Posted by: Truth Teller at December 31, 2002 05:22 PM


article about prince george's county-coming from the no doubt racist WASHINGTON POST (note that they use "urban" to describe both DC and Prince George's)

Posted by: razib at December 31, 2002 07:19 PM

Razib, lemme guess Litt- I mean Truth Teller's response to anything you (or anyone else he disagrees with) have to say:
"The article is racist. The writer of the article is racist. Anyone who believes in facts that are contrary to my opinions is obviously racist."

I have a question for Truth Teller, is it THEORETICALLY possible for someone to honestly believe in HBD things like genetic differences in IQ among races and not be racist?

Posted by: -R at December 31, 2002 07:36 PM

Of course not, fool. The fact someone would rush to claim racial superiority is in itself evidence of racism since there is no support for that belief. Your belief in white supremacy is no different than the Raelians belief in extraterrestial seeding. There is no evidence of either, but the adherents believe because they want to.

Some in the mental health field believe racism is often a system of mental illness because it relies on obsession, paranoia, projection and an exaggerated sense of self-importance. They may be on to something.

Posted by: Truth Teller at December 31, 2002 08:08 PM

Truth Teller is more than welcome to read the Washington Post online, and then come to his own conclusions.

Better yet, he can do his own due diligence. Go to the following link, and choose Prince George's County from the School Survey map. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/education/. The county's public schools are atrocious. They are so bad that the county now has more than 100 private and parochial schools.

Face it, Truth Teller, IQ is important, it can be measured, and blacks, ON AVERAGE, have lower IQs than other races.

So why are you arguing with us?

Posted by: Roger Chaillet at January 1, 2003 07:32 AM

Harlem and other inner city entertainment districts

Harlem was never an "inner city entertainment district." It was a mixed neighborhood until WWII, when it became predominantly black. The entertainment district of NYC is the theatre district, in the West 40s. There were a few entertainment emporiums in Harlem--very popular with people of all races--but whites abandoned them by the late 30s. Calling Harlem an "entertainment district" makes as much sense as calling Chinatown an "entertainment district" because it has Chinese operas and cinemas.

Of course, people of all races visit Chinatown. Not too many blacks, though. It's always struck me as a curious fact: why, when you visit Chinatown, do you see comparatively few black faces. Has anyone else noticed this, and if so, supply a reason?

thrived well into the '70s.

Nope. You are 20 years out of date. When I went to high school in the 70s, there was one boy who trucked to Queens from Harlem. He was a Yugoslavian immigrant and his parents lived in Harlem. Whenever he told the other students that, they were dumbstruck. The reaction was esp. true of black students (my HS was at least 25% black.)

They went into decline during the movement of middle-class people of all 'races' to the suburbs.

Here, T Te directly associates "poor" with "crime" or perhaps "depraved." Historically this is not necessarily true.

However, they have been reviving with the return of the middle-class to downtowns and exurbs.

Yes, Harlem is now "reviving" because a lot of black yuppies, and whites, are moving back in. I think also that Asian entrepreneurship is playing an unsung part here.

As for my encore, I didn't create the fact that ballet is a white, patriarchal, European art form that oppresses both women (fragile, pale, skinny women dancing supernatural creatures on painfully distended toes) and righteous persons of color. What it is, man. It's a strange and formalized art form with its own traditions.

The African-American girl playing Clara in the Nutcracker (a Christmas, and therefore anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish, tale) is a true African-American, being Ethiopian-born. She already has fairly loose hair. But an African or African-American with tightly curly or frizzy hair who wants to be a ballerina will have to undergo radical chemical processing of the hair in order to be part of the sisterhood. I've heard and read that it's terribly painful. OK, that's her choice, but isn't that what black militants for at least 30 years have decried as "oreoization"?

Fine with me, if a black girl wants to become an oreo to become some 19th century white man's ideal of beauty, but not with all the theorists of black pride that I have read. Modern ballets have moved somewhat outside the 19th century limits of what a ballerina is but--they still do that hair tossing business an awful lot. Deal with it.

Happy New Year, everyone.

Posted by: Diana at January 1, 2003 08:37 AM

I tried to set off T Te's comments in the above post with itals but it didn't work.

Posted by: Diana at January 1, 2003 08:38 AM

Truth teller, what kind of response is that? I'm a wannabe white person? Whatever. I'm mostly white, everybody who's been reading the site for awhile knows that. If I hated black people, I'd hate my grandmother, her brothers, and their kids (my cousins).

I'm the one "telling the truth." Milwaukee is, and always has been, a heavily segregated city where the races don't mix readily. And the reason isn't solely white people hating blacks--blacks do plenty of whitey-hating themselves.

How do I know this? I lived there for 15 years, including all of grade school and high school.

Have you ever been to Milwaukee? Lived there for any amount of time? Until then, you can kiss my rather pale posterior.

Posted by: David at January 1, 2003 11:39 AM

Ha ha ha, this "Truth teller" is the same guy (Liberatour) that said that Chris Brand was a racist and a evil white supremacist (LOL), for him everyone that not believe in axiom of the equality is a racist and a evil (don't you find this like a kind of fundamentalism??).

Why you pay attention to this jackass??

Posted by: Juan ascaño at January 1, 2003 12:25 PM

Juan: because he gives me a chance to hammer home my arguments. I can't speak for other people.

What I'd really like to ask a black person this: does they think that it is appropriate for blacks to participate in an art that originates in Europe, which requires them to cosmetically change one of their most distinctive ethnic characteristics? I'm not sure that T Te is capable of considering such a question dispassionately and logically.

Posted by: Diana at January 1, 2003 02:13 PM

A long time ago I read something that has stuck with me. I cannot for the life of me remember who had stated it, so forgive me for not properly referencing the phrase. The phrase is: "I am merely the pond that reflects the oncoming stone. I do not preach, I do not condone, I merely reflect what is coming towards me". With that statement in mind I hereby unleash ad hominem verbal diarrhea on Truth Teller as a response to his illogical ramblings and what amounts to trolling. If this sort of response is frowned upon, let me know and I will cease.

To Truth Teller:

Although his writings most certainly contains a definite verve, Litt’s, I mean Truth Teller’s verbose writings are, however, superfluous. One might say his writing comes off as a tad bit turgid. Perhaps his writing is just a little orotund for my tastes. This undoubtedly reflects his pretentious nature and his own sense of omnipotence. Truth Teller nonetheless displays a rare alacrity towards writing that is most certainly encouraging; I must if anything, give him that. But his intransigent attitude towards weighing the evidence and considering facts reported in peer reviewed scientific journals evinces obscurantism and leaves me somewhat perturbed. Ergo, his writing becomes nothing more than a trite piece of kitsch literature that leaves its intelligent readers discombobulated and occupying a state of utter obfuscation. “Res Ipsa Loquitor” is a Latin phrase that Truth Teller would benefit from observing.

What transpires when one peruses Truth Teller’s posts is that the reader is completely caught off guard by it's utter lack of merit, not unlike a deer caught in the headlights of a vehicle. The erroneous thoughts and absence of logic that permeate Truth Teller’s writing are then free to enter the mind of the unwilling subject, just as the poor little deer is subject to the onslaught of the oncoming vehicle or opportunistic hunter. The result is nothing but an immolation of the reader’s intelligence, just like the poor little deer is slaughtered. What I am trying to illustrate here is that the vacuity of Truth Teller’s writing is only matched by the lacuna between his ears. His mind is a deep chasm, a bottomless pit, a black hole for which intelligence is not allowed to escape. As for Truth Teller being a member of the contemporary literati establishment, not to mention our true intellectual elite, I think not!

Posted by: the_alpha_male28 at January 1, 2003 08:36 PM


Posted by: razib at January 1, 2003 09:18 PM

Juan wrote:
"Ha ha ha, this "Truth teller" is the same guy (Liberatour) that said that Chris Brand was a racist and a evil white supremacist (LOL), for him everyone that not believe in axiom of the equality is a racist and a evil (don't you find this like a kind of fundamentalism??)."

Time and time again, Truth Teller has been asked to provide some substantiation for his positions.
Time and time again, he offers none. He has no substantiatio b/c he doesn't have any idea of the actual arguments and so cannot defend himself- isn't that right Truth Teller?

Truth Teller's basic thought process is not entirely different from the thought process of a fundamentalist. Both depend on a very closed minded view of the world that is impenetrable via any outside interference.

An example of Truth Teller's thought process:
'Your facts are contrary to mine. I am clearly right so you must be incorrect and a racist.'

An example of any fundamentalist's (substitute Hitler, Bin Laden etc...) thought process:
'Your facts are contrary to mine. I am clearly right so you must be incorrect (& in the case of Hitler or Bin Laden I could add '...you must be incorrect and so must die).'

Without knowing what the others who actually research Human Biodiversity are talking about, the only avenue left is to reference himself or revert to ridiculous attacks on the personal character/ credibility of otheres.

Juan writes:
"Why you pay attention to this jackass??"

You're right. But, this absurd closed minded thought process is very prevalent in America/ Europe right now (i.e. the 'debate' in the EU over the death penalty or to a lesser extent immigration). The sheer stupidity of Truth Teller is fascinating to analyze for that reason alone even if it has already grown too tedious to witness.

I am waiting for his predictable response where he will ignore all of my actual arguments- except of course to give me a pathetic personal attack.

Posted by: -R at January 1, 2003 09:39 PM

his IP is banned. i'd rather not turn the boards into a "food fight" though he can still post in the regular message board.

Posted by: razib at January 1, 2003 09:56 PM

There is so much stupidity on this thread that I will touch on only some of it in the interest of saving time.

First, the premise of the thread, that people of color in Milwaukee PREFER to be segregated is not supported by the article at all. People on this thread believe it is because they view life through racist blinders. The story actually offers Milwaukee as a worst case scenario of a city where residential integration, improvement in the incomes of people of color and an end to redlining have not occurred. The quote most relied on to falsify the meaning of the article by the 'scientific' racists of Gene Expression is turned upside down by them. The black mechanic is not saying he LIKES being marginalized and segregated. He is saying that he no longer has the energy of his youth, has become demoralized and is therefore resigned to local segregation. All of the indicia in the piece make a case for government and private support of segregation in that city. Milwaukie could definitely be reformed with a bit of work. A start would be removing the geographic barriers that separate ethnic areas from white areas, as was done in much of the South. Next, since most of the minorities are poor there, better mass transit, so people can at least get to their jobs, is a must. Third, home loans must be made more equitable. The rejection rate for African-Americans definitely reflects discrimination. I suspect that is also true for Asians and Hispanics.

Next, Diana, because I think she may actually best Duncie in the stupidity department. Ballet has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's hair. Trying to claim it does is the shallowest of pretexts for discrimination. Nor does Diana's backing down from her attack on the little girl because the child's hair is only moderately kinky (as many African-Americans' is) win her any accolades. She never should have made such baseless and biased remarks in the first place. Nor does her 'distraction' while watching an African-American ballerina say anything about the dancer. It just shows Diana is such a racist that she can't see anything other than 'an inferior race' when looking at a black person. As for her bogus claims about altering hair, duh. I doubt hair straightening (which all 'races' do) is anymore painful than permanents or coloring. Nor do I see any reason why anyone need straighten their hair to be ballerinas or anything else. I've yet to hear a dance lover claim 'distraction' by the wonderful Judith Jamison's short Afro. I have already debunked Dodo's claims about integration and social life in NYC, so let's move on.

A brief revisitation to the basic tenet of 'scientific' racism that lower scores on some aptitude tests by historically oppressed groups such as African-Americans mean they are deficient in intelligence and guilty of whatever pathologies said 'scientific' racists want to blame on them, is in order. EVERYTHING about the premise is false. It is not established that the tests really measure intelligence or do so in a manner reflective of all test-takers. The historical oppression of the groups means they got a late start in remotely equitable education. Slaves were forbidden to learn to read and write. Few schools for freedment were established and those were short-term and had limited resources. Segregation continued the practice of inferior schools, including often opening black schools for fewer months than white schools. There has been increase in aptitude scores for minority students during the last three decades, which coincide with the integration of schools. The pathologies 'scientific' racists try to impose on blacks and Hispanics have much more to do with wishful thinking than reality. The average American of color lives an utterly ordinary life, except for being subjected to discrimination.

Welcome to reality, folks! (Lurkers: Watch the GEs scurry away from it as fast as they can.)

Posted by: Truth Teller at January 2, 2003 01:38 AM

Some banned IP.

Posted by: Truth Teller at January 2, 2003 01:39 AM

I am assuming Truth Teller is male; he/she is free to correct me if I am wrong.

The only person who scurries away is Truth Teller, most notably when he is asked to back up his arguments or claims with evidence.

Who defined scientific racism? Who is categorized as a scientific racist? Are Jensen and Eysenck considered scientific racists? I suppose only Truth Teller and those of his ilk are free to pass judgment as to who are scientific racists.

Is it racist to say that on average, blacks of West African descent have dominated the 100 m dash in the second half of the twentieth century? And if it isn't scientifically racist to observe that difference, then why is it scientifically racist to observe ethnic population differences in certain cognitive abilities or crime statistics?

Since it is a fact that blacks have dominated the 100-meter dash in the second half of the twentieth century, I must be a sport racist in regards to peoples of non West African descent for merely observing that fact. I must hate white people and especially South Asian and East Asian people since when compared to West Africans they are simply not competitive at the highest levels of the sport.

Since Truth Teller is still calling individual members of this blog “stupid”, I feel he has laid down the gauntlet to partake in another round of verbal diarrhea. Truth Teller seems to be something of a mystic. He knows, by some arcane process, that some or maybe all of us are racists. Seeing as I have found myself miraculously imbued with this power, I will use it to, once again, dissect Truth Teller’s personality.

Truth Teller seems to be imbued with an insouciant demeanor, which manifests itself in his logic, evinced through his writings on this thread. He seems to be not ebullient but effusive which, regrettably, often results in writing that is rather fetid and interminable. What’s worse is that he is nothing more than a dilettante; a mere amateur who fugaciously jumps from subject matter to subject matter as capriciously as his cognately erratic personality allows him. These personality traits, I’m afraid, do not allow him to ameliorate his arguments and thought processes. And amelioration is something his arguments could definitely benefit from. The most salient point that I would want to inculcate upon your impressionable young minds is that Truth Teller’s writings are purely diaphanous. Just like the man himself, his arguments are superficial to the core.

Truth Teller offers nothing more than the nugatory ramblings and opinions of an ignominiously churlish, irascible, and miserable little soul whose main arguments are nothing but a pernicious invective resulting in their almost certain ad-Hominem feel.

Posted by: the_alpha_male28 at January 2, 2003 03:36 AM

discrimination exists-but it is a minor part of life in my america. i speak as a black person (truth teller's definition). of course, i "want to be white" so my opinion matters not :)

Posted by: razib at January 2, 2003 03:55 AM

T Te: Thank you for reading my former blog, and for paying such close attention to what I wrote about a subject that is obviously dear to your heart: the problem of integrating racial minorities into America's top ballet companies.

T Te didn't debunk anything about integration in NYC, s/he just couldn't deal with the picture I drew in my last comment, so his/her response is "let's move on." Fine, but I think that any objective person reading this thread will think that is quite a weak response.

Nor did T Te give a current example of an "Africatown" that is a tourist mecca, as any city's Chinatown is.

T Te claims successively that ballet has nothing to do with the look of a person's hair, denies that having to chemically process kinky hair is painful, says that all races have to straighten their hair, and anyway, the texture of a person's hair shouldn't affect their ability to become a ballerina anyway.

First of all, the vast majority of whites and all Aisans do NOT have to straighten their hair. Kinky hair is an ethnic characteristic of sub-Saharan Africans, fact.

I guess that many advances have been made in the years since I heard these hair-straightening horror stories, from black girls themselves. It all goes to prove that blacks struggle to fit themselves into white standards of beauty. I think there is something tragic about this, and that they shouldn't do it.

But any black woman who proudly insists on keeping a 'fro can't be a ballerina. Judith Jamison was a great dancer; she wasn't a ballet dancer. Saying that people "shouldn't" focus on the hair texture of a ballerina is circular logic. Ballet isn't a sport; it's an aesthetic experience, and a ballerina who deviates from the ideal isn't going to be employed, even if she can do the steps. That's the reason Alvin Ailey founded a dance company in which a 6-foot tall black woman with a 'fro could be a first dancer.

My suggestion to T Te is that he get very rich somehow, and endow his own ballet company where he can employ a choreographer who doesn't care whether his girls can yank their hair loose and have it tumble down to their waists.

Men find that very sexy.

Posted by: diana at January 2, 2003 08:18 AM

Yeah, Truth, given a choice, people will choose to integrate.

HAH. Did you go to a racially mixed school? Ever notice how the kids voluntarily separate into racial groups at lunch time?

Ever notice how churches are nearly always either all black or all non-black?

Is it so hard to imagine that people might choose to live with other people of their race/ethnic background? I don't think New Holland in Michigan was originally founded by Tibetans. Or New Ulm in Minnesota by Sicilians.



Posted by: David at January 2, 2003 10:04 AM

"Yeah, Truth, given a choice, people will choose to integrate. HAH."

If I didn't believe this could be so, I would be posting over at American Renaissance instead. Humans have already come a long way in this regard. Look at the murderous tribal behaviour of chimps (I believe chimp behavior carries important information about humans). Ok, now look at the similar tribalist behavior of the yanomamo, and other small civilizations (I believe primitive societies carry important information about human behavior). Jared Diamond talks about how two strange New Guineans who meet eachother in the forest will make stretched attempts to discover how they might be related, just so they don't have to kill eachother. Look at Aghanistan or the Balkans with their endless and mutually destructive ethnic feuding. Now look at how Europe (esp. Western Europe) is interrealating/ cooperating. Look at France and Germany, and how that relationship has changed during the twentieth century.
The fact of the matter is, is that people are killing abortion doctors and others are murdering people who hurt animals. Why? Because humans are altruistically malleable enough to consider things as ridiculous as a microscopic cluster of cells and a dumb chicken as more fundamentally equal than some tribes people can even consider their geographical neighbor. I don't care how many black kids sit together at lunch, the truth is is that whites and blacks cooperate daily in this country for purposes that transcend racial preference and altruistic cohesion. Human races can inhabit a shared altruistic circle when they find a higher premise to coexist for. This is not hypothetical, it is demonstrated daily. If the world were attacked by aliens tomorrow, I think you would see, how quickly and dramatically the us vs. them paradigm would shift.

Its evolutionary role in human affairs aside, racial altruism is destructive to the future of the human race, and to the idea of man ever peacefully coexisting. I am not skeptical that it can be transcended (though, like rape and murder, never perfectly extirpated. We are, after all, referring to the same biomechanism that ensures people will care most for their own children), and that applies to America as well as to our ever more connected and expanding world, where everybody is quickly being crowded into everyone else.

Posted by: Jason M. at January 2, 2003 12:00 PM

as far as integration/segregation goes-i think personal choice, rather than government fiat is the key. change is natural and normal-but it involves EVOLUTION, not REVOLUTION. excepting intermarriage and integration to occur in one generation between blacks and whites is a utopian fantasy. as a long term process, it is plausible as other factors than race (genetic enhancements, religious affiliation) become more important.

demanding justice involves one generation of laws-implementing it is the work of centuries.

Posted by: razib at January 2, 2003 03:55 PM

"racial altruism is destructive to the future of the human race"

I don't understand this. Please explain.

Posted by: Diana at January 2, 2003 04:25 PM


I don't care whom little Johnny sits next to at lunch either. I'm merely noting that people feel most "comfortable" with members of a similar racial/ethnic group. They typically associate more with each other than with "others" when given a choice. Will this change? Maybe. How long will it take if it does? longer than the nearly 40 years since the Civil Rights Act.

I don't think that's a very controversial prediction.


Posted by: David at January 2, 2003 05:23 PM

"I don't understand this. Please explain."

Certainly. Even if I can't express the ideas very clearly, I will direct you to some better sources. (off the top of my head) William Hamilton, the man who's work set off E.O. Wilson to develop sociobiology, noticed that bees would (counter-intuitively) sacrifice themselves for their siblings at the expense of making their own chill'uns. The reason for this is that in the quarky world of bee-dom, a bee will pass on more of its genetic material through its sibling than it will through its own offspring. Thus we have kinship selection, the theory behind who gets our most natural favor- mainly the person who will most ensure the greatest amount of our selfish genes get to live on. This is thought to apply concentrically outward, so that as a mother might have a greater stake in the survival of her own child, an Italian guy might have a greater stake in the survival of another (however distantly related) Italian guy, than in the survival of any given Korean guy. This creates what might be called an ethnic nepotism, whereby people are compelled to cast their lot and favor with those that are increasingly genetically similar. Thus the black kids in the cafeteria. When I said this:

"racial altruism is destructive to the future of the human race"

What I mean is that humans can no longer afford to keep clustering by race b/c its about the biggest dead end philosophy.
If they wanted to (with collective desire), it's probable that "white" people could eliminate every last non-white on earth at this point in history. Of course, once that horrific precedent is set, is anyone really expected to believe that that's where that ends? The germanic people, and the slavic people and the semitic people would then eliminate eachother acting on the same destructive instincts that set off the elimination of the swarthy others. Like a Borgesian nightmare,this is infinitely divisible. As an example, look at how near genetically identical Papaun tribes associate. Does anyone think a Pashtun and an Uzbek are all that different? That is the future of ethnic nationalism. I feel that the world is moving (and should work harder)towards what could be called a post-ethnic-nationalism, where kinship, or altruistic circles are increasingly (and artificially) built on shared ideals than on degrees of blood relation. As a good example of what I'm talking about here, I submit to you the 100th Battalion’s 442nd Regimental Combat Team- a force of Japanese-Americans that fought for the US (internment camps and all) against Japan. It was one of the most highly decorated units of its size during WWII. This a small representation of human's fighting for the greater well-being of ourselves and our future, over the viceful endowments of nature.

For more on ethnic nepotism read Van den Berghe's 'The Ethnic Phenomenon'. (just look at the 'customers who bought' section, and you'll see why I can't resist this guy):


For an Internet read:


Posted by: Jason M. at January 2, 2003 06:31 PM

Egad! I just noticed Steve Sailer is a reviewer on the book I linked! He's only one of two people. It amazes me the wavelength that many of us share here. Here is a good quote taken off the page:

"To maximize their reproduction, genes in program organisms to do two things: successfully compete against, and thereby contribute to the reproduction of organisms that carry alternative alleles of the genes in question, and successfully cooperate with (and thereby contribute to the reproduction of) organisms that share the same allele of the genes. In simpler terms, the degree of cooperation between organisms can be expected to be a direct function of the proportion of the genes they share: conversely, the degree of conflict between them is an inverse function of the proportion of shared genes." van den Berghe, Pierre The Ethnic Phenomenon, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Inc., 1981, p. 7"

You can read the first 22 pages free.

Posted by: Jason M. at January 2, 2003 07:45 PM

Hello Jason, Van den Berghe is a good writer

Have you read his review of Tatu Vanhanen´s "Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism"?

Is very good:


Posted by: Juan ascaño at January 2, 2003 11:46 PM

Thanks Juan,

but that wasn't reviewed by Van den Berghe, but by another sociobiologist who deals in ethnic conflict, Johan M.G. Van der Dennen. His book here:


Posted by: Jason M. at January 3, 2003 06:14 AM

I'll look into those books, meanwhile y'all should check out the book I've been touting on the other comment thread:


which describes ethnic conflict and globalization w/out reference to genes

Posted by: Diana at January 3, 2003 07:04 AM

Diana should not really take on topics about which she has no earthly idea. Judith Jamison was a trained ballet dancer who had never studied jazz dance but switched to that dance form after an audition with and encouragement from Alvin Ailey. As a trained dancer, I can tell you all the other stuff she says about dancing is, as my father would say, hogwash!

Posted by: Jam at February 27, 2003 09:44 AM