There is, in fact, a persistent pattern of low IQ test results for African-Americans. The record for Hispanics is mixed, with second and later generation Latinos closing the gap. For blacks there also is a closing of the gap but in percentage terms the numbers doing the gap closing are relatively low. In other words, there is a serious problem here. The Times reporter, who is black, deals with the issue by blaming Republicans for being racist --in so many words, even if not directly. It may be that some % of Republicans are, in fact, racist, as is some % of registered Democrats. But what, then, of Allen West and Alan Keyes, and of people like Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley ? The article seems to say that these Republicans don't exist. Which is not an argument to vote GOP, about which I have many reservations, it merely is an observation. This tactic, blame the Republicans, can be interpreted as reinforcing conclusions about low IQ scores among African-Americans. Charles Blow, in other words, has a low IQ himself. For all I can say, Blow's IQ may be fairly high. The point is, his thesis is not intelligent ; to be unkind, it is stupid. After all, what "service" is being rendered by denial of facts ? Instead of being helpful, denial perpetuates the problem. Is the difference genetic ? If there is some genetic component one fact is true enough, there have been black people who have histories of achievement that are obvious to everyone, whether Du Bois or Booker T Washington, to today, with people like McWhorter and Sowell and --with some moral lapses-- Maya Angelou. One of my professors at the University of Massachusetts, Art France, was black, and smart as hell, moreover, so my feelings are partly conditioned by experience. My personal view is that the differences are best explain culturally. Namely, there exists in black culture at large a strongly anti-intellectual component that mitigates against conceptual development. There are also white sub cultures that have a similar component, but overall white culture is pro-intellectual, or, anyway, strongly disposed toward professional achievement. What white people are not reluctant to discuss are the differences between white IQ and the higher overall IQ results of Asians and Jews. Hence new theories about the need for a broader definition of intelligence to include such factors as creativity, emotional maturity, and character. There is little doubt that Americans "out create" everyone else, for instance, or that a character trait like boldness and courage goes far in determining achievement. East Asian cultures may foster reticence and aversion to risk taking instead, and produce a high rate of conformists. Whether such new theories are valid or not, white writers and scholars are seeking an intellectually respectable and productive answer to questions raised by IQ disparities that are not to their advantage. At the New York Times we get denial on the part of a showcased black journalist. Not sure why the otherwise very intelligent Jews and other 'Caucasians' at the Times are oblivious to the obvious. Billy ==================================== NY Times Terms of Art By CHARLES M. BLOW Published: May 8, 2013
Many on the political right simply can’t get this diversity thing right — and I deeply doubt that they want to. Theirs is a bone-deep contempt for otherness, a congenital belief in the superiority-inferiority binary, a circle-the-wagons, zero-sum view of progress, prosperity and power. This became apparent yet again Wednesday when it was revealed that one of the co-authors of a much maligned _Heritage Foundation “study”_ (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrant s-and-amnesty%20to-the-us-taxpayer) about “The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer,” Jason Richwine, had written a Ph.D. dissertation at Harvard in 2009 titled _“IQ and Immigration Policy.”_ (http://books.google.com/books/about/IQ_and_Immigration_Policy.html?id=KvaMQ wAACAAJ) _Dylan Matthews of The Washington Post_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/08/heritage-study-co-author-opposed-letting-in-immigra nts-with-low-iqs/) summarized Richwine’s dissertation thusly: “Richwine’s dissertation asserts that there are deep-set differentials in intelligence between races. While it’s clear he thinks it is partly due to genetics — ‘the totality of the evidence suggests a genetic component to group differences in I.Q.’ — he argues the most important thing is that the differences in group I.Q.s are persistent, for whatever reason. He writes, ‘No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach I.Q. parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-I.Q. children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.’ ” Matthews continues: “He does caution against referring to it as I.Q.-based selection, saying that using the term ‘skill-based’ would ‘blunt the negative reaction.’ ” Skill-based. Clever. Or Machiavellian. In reality, it’s just another conservative euphemism meant to cast class aspersions and raise racial ire without ever forthrightly addressing the issues of class and race. This form of Roundabout Republicanism has entirely replaced honest conservative discussion, to the point that anyone who now raises class-based inequality is labeled divisive and anyone who raises race is labeled a racist. It’s a way of wriggling out of unpleasant debates on which they have stopped trying to engage altogether. The new strategy is avoidance, obfuscation and boomerang blaming. This “skill-based” phraseology is simply the latest in a long line of recent right-wing terms of art. There was _Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comment_ (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/watch-full-secret-video-private-romney-fundraiser) about the people who would “vote for the president no matter what.” He continued: “there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.” That was in line with the other-ing of President Obama, whether in the form of aspersions about his birth or his faith or his understanding of and commitment to the country he leads. Recall John Sununu, a top Romney surrogate, saying that Obama _“has no idea how the American system functions”_ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TsYulKm3O7w) and saying that he wished the president _“would learn how to be an American.”_ (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/07/17/537131/how-romney-spent-all-day-ca lling-obama-a-foreigner/?mobile=nc) Representative Paul Ryan, Romney’s vice-presidential running mate, blamed _turnout in “urban areas”_ (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/us/politics/ryan-sees-urban-vote-as-reason-gop-lost.html) for their loss, rather than their ragtag campaign operation and a coreless nominee who was utterly inept when attempting to connect with average voters. Remember _Romney liked grits_ (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/mitt-romney-i-like-grits-learning-to-say-yall_n_1334935.html) , y’all. The former House speaker and failed presidential candidate Newt Gingrich — the one who said that poor children had no habit of working “unless it is illegal” — told Fox News last year that President Obama was _“not a real president.” _ (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/newts-dog-whistle-obama-not-real-pre) During that same television appearance, Gingrich said of the president: “I’m assuming that there’s some rhythm to Barack Obama that the rest of us don’t understand. Whether he needs large amounts of rest, whether he needs to go play basketball for a while, um, watch ESPN, I mean, I don’t quite know what his rhythms are.” Huh. Needs large amounts of rest and to go play basketball and watch television. Nothing subliminal there. Moving along. This list could extend to more than one column — including terms like “ job creators” and “we built this,” and the candidate Rick Santorum (who has three degrees) calling the president a snob for wanting “everybody in America to go to college ” (which is not at all what the president said). And it could stretch back further to the patron saint of the right Ronald Reagan’s use of the welfare queen meme and George Bush’s and Lee Atwater’s invocation of Willie Horton in the 1988 presidential campaign. But I think you get the picture. The right is constantly invoking class and race as cudgels in our political discussions; they just hide the hand that swings the club. The rebranding of the Republican Party is to a large degree the renaming of intolerance. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
