Narratives, Terror & Violence
After the terrorist attack on the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, commentators hastened to weave a narrative about the murders. Some, such as folks at Fox News, Lindsay Graham and Rick Santorum, endeavored to present the attack as an assault on religious liberty. This does fit the bizarre narrative that Christians are being persecuted in a country whose population and holders of power are predominantly Christian. While the attack did take place in a church, it was a very specific church with a history connected to the struggle against slavery and racism in America. If the intended target was just a church, presumably any church would have sufficed. Naturally, it could be claimed that it just so happened that this church was selected.
The alleged killer’s own words make his motivation clear. He said that he was killing people because blacks were “raping our women” and “taking over our country.” As far as currently known, he made no remarks about being motivated by hate of religion in general or Christianity in particular. Those investigating his background found considerable evidence of racism and hatred of blacks, but evidence of hatred against Christianity seems to be absent. Given this evidence, it seems reasonable to accept that the alleged killer was there to specifically kill black people and not to kill Christians.
Some commentators also put forth the stock narrative that the alleged killer suffered from mental illness, despite there being no actual evidence of this. This, as critics have noted, is the go-to explanation when a white person engages in a mass shooting. This explanation is given some credibility because some shooters have, in fact, suffered from mental illness. However, people with mental illness (which is an incredibly broad and diverse population) are far more often the victims of violence rather than the perpetrators.
It is certainly tempting to believe that a person who could murder nine people in a church must be mentally ill. After all, one might argue, no sane person would commit such a heinous deed. An easy and obvious reply is that if mental illness is a necessary condition for committing wicked deeds, then such illness must be very common in the human population. Accepting this explanation would, on the face of it, seem to require accepting that the Nazis were all mentally ill. Moving away from the obligatory reference to Nazis, it would also entail that all violent criminals are mentally ill.
One possible counter is to simply accept that there is no evil, merely mental illness. This is an option that some do accept and some even realize and embrace the implications of this view. Accepting this view does require its consistent application: if a white man who murders nine people must be mentally ill, then an ISIS terrorist who beheads a person must also be mentally ill rather than evil. As might be suspected, the narrative of mental illness is not, in practice, consistently applied.
This view does have some potential problems. Accepting this view would seem to deny the existence of evil (or at least the sort involved with violent acts) in favor of people being mentally defective. This would also be to deny people moral agency, making humans things rather than people. However, the fact that something might appear undesirable does not make it untrue. Perhaps the world is, after all, brutalized by the mad rather than the evil.
An unsurprising narrative, put forth by Charles L. Cotton of the NRA, is that the Reverend Clementa Pickney was to blame for the deaths because he was also a state legislator “And he voted against concealed-carry. Eight of his church members who might be alive if he had expressly allowed members to carry handguns in church are dead. Innocent people died because of his position on a political issue.” While it is true that Rev. Pickney voted against a 2011 bill allowing guns to be brought into churches and day care centers, it is not true that Rev. Pickney is responsible for the deaths. The reasoning in Cotton’s claim is that if Rev. Pickney had not voted against the bill, then an armed “good guy” might have been in the church and might have been able to stop the shooter. From a moral and causal standpoint, this seems to be quite a stretch. When looking at the moral responsibility, it primarily falls on the killer. The blame can be extended beyond the killer, but the moral and causal analysis would certainly place blame on such factors as the influence of racism, the easy availability of weapons, and so on. If Cotton’s approach is accepted and broad counterfactual “what if” scenarios are considered, then the blame would seem to spread far and wide. For example, if he had been called on his racism early on and corrected by his friends or relatives, then those people might still be alive. As another example, if the state had taken a firm stand against racism by removing the Confederate flag and boldly denouncing the evils of slavery while acknowledging its legacy, perhaps those people would still be alive.
It could be countered that the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun and that it is not possible to address social problems except via the application of firepower. However, this seems to be untrue.
One intriguing narrative, most recently put forth by Jeb Bush, is the idea of an unknown (or even unknowable) motivation. Speaking after the alleged killer’s expressed motivations were known (he has apparently asserted that he wanted to start a race war), Bush claimed that he did not “know what was on the mind or the heart of the man who committed these atrocious crimes.” While philosophers do recognize the problem of other minds in particular and epistemic skepticism in general, it seems unlikely that Bush has embraced philosophical skepticism. While it is true that one can never know the mind or heart of another with certainty, the evidence regarding the alleged shooter’s motivations seems to be clear—racism. To claim that it is unknown, one might think, is to deny what is obvious in the hopes of denying the broader reality of racism in America. It can be replied that there is no such broader reality of racism in America, which leads to the last narrative I will consider.
The final narrative under consideration is that such an attack is an “isolated incident” conducted by a “lone wolf.” This narrative does allow that the “lone wolf” be motivated by racism (though, of course, one need not accept that motivation). However, it denies the existence of a broader context of racism in America—such as the Confederate flag flying proudly on public land near the capital of South Carolina. Instead, the shooter is cast as an isolated hater, acting solely from his own motives and ideology. This approach allows one to avoid the absurdity of denying that the alleged shooter was motivated by racism while denying that racism is a broader problem. One obvious problem with the “isolated incident” explanation is that incidents of violence against African Americans is more systematic than isolated—as anyone who actually knows American history will attest. In regards to the “lone wolf” explanation, while it is true that the alleged shooter seems to have acted alone, he did not create the ideology that seems to have motivated the attack. While acting alone, he certainly seems to be the member of a substantial pack and that pack is still in the wild.
It can be replied that the alleged shooter was, by definition, a lone wolf (since he acted alone) and that the incident was isolated because there has not been a systematic series of attacks across the country. The lone wolf claim does certainly have appeal—the alleged shooter seems to have acted alone. However, when other terrorists attempt attacks in the United States, the narrative is that each act is part of a larger whole and not an isolated incident. In fact, some extend the blame to religion and ethnic background of the terrorist, blaming all of Islam or all Arabs for an attack.
In the past, I have argued that the acts of terrorists should not confer blame on their professed religion or ethnicity. However, I do accept that the terrorist groups (such as ISIS) that a terrorist belongs to does merit some of the blame for the acts of its members. I also accept that groups that actively try to radicalize people and motivate them to acts of terror deserve some blame for these acts. Being consistent, I certainly will not claim that all or even many white people are racists or terrorists just because the alleged shooter is white. That would be absurd. However, I do accept that some of the responsibility rests with the racist community that helped radicalize the alleged shooter to engage in his act of terror.
A Philosopher's Blog 
Usually the killers themselves explain why they committed their acts. In the case of Islam, the terrorists explain that their religion commands them to act in the way they do. In the case of Dylan Roof, he explains:
“I have no choice,” it reads. “I am not in the position to, alone, go into the ghetto and fight. I chose Charleston because it is most historic city in my state, and at one time had the highest ratio of blacks to Whites in the country. We have no skinheads, no real KKK, no one doing anything but talking on the internet. Well someone has to have the bravery to take it to the real world, and I guess that has to be me.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/us/dylann-storm-roof-photos-website-charleston-church-shooting.html?_r=0
He certainly lays out his motivation.
“While acting alone, he certainly seems to be the member of a substantial pack and that pack is still in the wild.”
Mike, how many white supremacists do you think there are out there?
That is an excellent question.
Roof, interestingly enough, seems to think that they do exist but are all just talking these days and not murdering people like they used to.
There are still operating groups that identify themselves as white supremacist groups. There are others that express racism, but deny they are white supremacists. So, I’d say there are some but far, far less than their used to be.
But, there are certainly a good number (or bad number) of racists around.
“a substantial pack and that pack is still in the wild”
Haven’t thoroughly read the article, nor the comments. Maybe this has already been pointed out, but why does Mike not apply the above statement to violent Islam. Polls show there are hundreds of thousands of Muslims who support terrorism in the name of Islam. How many, even within my own group, the dissident Right, support terror violence against minorities.
Lone wolf Islamic terrorists who are inspired by groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda have a substantial pack that is still in the wild.
The vast majority of those on the right, even people who are racists, do not support murdering people in churches.
Where is the message from white supremacists to conduct such attacks? ISIS and al-Qaeda have used social media extensively to endorse such attacks. WS have not.
That is certainly a relevant point. The white supremacists do not seem to publicly and openly call for criminal acts, presumably because they would be arrested. Being outside of the reach of law enforcement allows ISIS and its ilk to make straight up calls for murder and destruction.
However, it seems rather inherent to white supremacy to be hostile to others. It would certainly be odd to have a pacifist white supremacist who regards whites as supreme, yet rejects violence as a method. Not impossible, of course.
It also seems rather inherent to radical Islam to be hostile to others. It would certainly be odd to have a pacifist Islamic supremacist who regards Islamic culture as supreme, yet rejects violence as a method. Not impossible, of course.
Black Shooters?
Aaron Alexis — a black man who murdered twelve people at the Washington Navy Yard — was considered mentally ill.
Two sane black men — John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo — murdered three and injured many others when they terrorized the Washington DC area during the Beltway Sniper incident. Not well known is the fact that “Muhammad’s goal in Phase One was to kill six white people a day for 30 days.” (See: The Real Plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Boyd_Malvo#The_.22real_plan.2C.22_as_told_by_Lee_Boyd_Malvo)
Terrorism?
“The Haditha killings (also called the Haditha massacre or the Haditha incident) refers to the incident in which 24 unarmed Iraqi men, women and children, all civilians, were killed by a group of United States Marines on November 19, 2005 in Haditha, a city in the western Iraqi province of Al Anbar. The dead included several children and elderly people, who were shot multiple times at close range while unarmed. It has been alleged that the killings were retribution for the attack on a convoy of Marines with an improvised explosive device that killed Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas. Many news reports have compared the incident to the My Lai massacre…” (See: The Haditha killings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haditha_killings)
AJ
Black shooters? Don’t blacks manage to shoot each other on a regular basis? 10 shot with 1 dead in Detroit
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3133369/Attackers-shoot-10-people-child-s-birthday-party-Detroit-leaving-one-dead-one-fighting-life.html
Most violent crime is within the “race.” That is, whites tend to kill white, etc.
You’re dodging the point. Within and between the races, the murder rates are much higher for blacks as perpetrators, whether on themselves or other races. Blacks have a murder rate of 80-90% that of (non-hispanic) whites while constituting only 12% of the population. And that’s not counting whites who “identify as black” as part of the black population. For 2013, 2509 whites killed whites. For the same year 2245 blacks killed blacks. As for cross-race, just white/black, whites (63% of US population) killed 189 blacks while blacks (remember, 12% of the population…whites outnumber blacks approx. 5 to 1) killed 409 whites. Obviously (BTW, noticed the LOI is creeping up again, this one is at 3) if you normalize for the size of the population, blacks kill blacks and blacks kill whites at hugely disproportionate numbers relative to white on white or black on black crime.
Also, if you want to see some more balanced competition in race war of murder, check out the Latino (17% of US population) vs. black stats. 87 Hispanics were killed by blacks while 76 blacks were killed by Latinos. As for Latinos, again (17% of population) 532 whites were killed by Hispanics and 486 Hispanics were killed by whites. So blacks out murder Latinos and both out murder whites on a per capita basis.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2013.xls
Why do blacks kill blacks at a much higher rate than whites kill whites? Why do Latinos kill whites at a much higher rate than whites kill Latinos? Why do blacks “win” in all these categories, by a wide, wide margin?
Yet this issue right here that you and the leftist media are crowing about, white on black murder, is a gross exaggeration of the problem. Do not racist blacks members of a substantial pack and that pack is still in the wild?. Are there not black racists still operating groups that identify themselves as black supremacist groups, others that express racism, but deny they are black supremacists? Wouldn’t you say there are many and far, far more than their used to be?
Yes, there are certainly a good number (or bad number) of racists around.
The usual answers to questions about the higher crime rates point to the historical, social and economic factors. People who were enslaved, then faced the Jim Crow and lynching era, and who are still subject to fairly systematic economic and political inequality are probably somewhat more likely to end up being criminals.
I’m curious about your narrative here. Are you claiming there has been and is a systematic campaign of black terror against whites? Are you claiming that while whites sometimes kill blacks, that does not matter so much because blacks kill more blacks than whites kill blacks? Or something else?
No, I make no such claim. That is something I believe you are inferring in a bad faith attempt to dodge the issue again and a bit of a passive aggressive insult. I have taken your own words and put them in context of actual facts. That you would come to the conclusion that because I point out that one race or ethnic group is killing another race or ethnic group in starkly differing proportions, this should be taken to mean that there is a systematic campaign of terror against whites, while at the same time you are going along with the idea that a much smaller reverse murder rate IS as sign of a systematic campaign of terror is quite the reflection on your critical thinking skills.
Also, the vast majority of the blacks doing the killing were born long after slavery (as were most of their grandparents, great-grandparents, and even great-great-grandparents, possibly even great-great-great-grandparents), long after Jim Crow laws ended (as were many, if not most of their parents and grandparents), and long after the last lynching of a black man. As for systematic economic and political inequality are probably somewhat more likely to end up being criminals, there is a perfectly valid, and I would say more likely, argument that criminal behavior creates economic and even political inequality.
And what is the criminal element Latinos’ excuse?
But what is your point?
This sounds about right to me. Mike, what is your view?
If we put ourselves into the shoes of racists who seek to sabotage black upward mobility, we couldn’t develop a more effective agenda than that followed by civil rights organizations, black politicians, academics, liberals and the news media. Let’s look at it.
First, weaken the black family, but don’t blame it on individual choices. You have to preach that today’s weak black family is a legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, and racism. The truth is that black female-headed households were just 18 percent of households in 1950, as opposed to about 68 percent today. In fact, from 1890 to 1940, the black marriage rate was slightly higher than that of whites. Even during slavery, when marriage was forbidden for blacks, most black children lived in biological two-parent families. In New York City, in 1925, 85 percent of black households were two-parent households. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were two-parent households.
During the 1960s, devastating nonsense emerged, exemplified by a Johns Hopkins University sociology professor who argued, “It has yet to be shown that the absence of a father was directly responsible for any of the supposed deficiencies of broken homes.” The real issue, he went on to say, “is not the lack of male presence but the lack of male income.” That suggests marriage and fatherhood can be replaced by a welfare check.
The poverty rate among blacks is 36 percent. Most black poverty is found in female-headed households. The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994 and is about 8 percent today. The black illegitimacy rate is 75 percent, and in some cities, it’s 90 percent. But if that’s a legacy of slavery, it must have skipped several generations, because in the 1940s, unwed births hovered around 14 percent.
Along with the decline of the black family comes anti-social behavior, manifested by high crime rates. Each year, roughly 7,000 blacks are murdered. Ninety-four percent of the time, the murderer is another black person. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, between 1976 and 2011, there were 279,384 black murder victims. Using the 94 percent figure means that 262,621 were murdered by other blacks. Though blacks are 13 percent of the nation’s population, they account for more than 50 percent of homicide victims. Nationally, the black homicide victimization rate is six times that of whites, and in some cities, it’s 22 times that of whites. I’d like for the president, the civil rights establishment, white liberals and the news media, who spent massive resources protesting the George Zimmerman trial’s verdict, to tell the nation whether they believe that the major murder problem blacks face is murder by whites. There are no such protests against the thousands of black murders.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/16148-black-self-sabotage
I’m not clear on how the media and civil rights organizations destroyed the black family. I did see the quote from the John Hopkins professor, but what is the causal link here?
I’m reasonable sure that black politicians, academics and so on are also against blacks killing blacks.
But, you are right to point out that the problems facing black Americans are clearly not limited to the occasional white supremacist attack or police brutality.
“People who were enslaved, then faced the Jim Crow and lynching era, and who are still subject to fairly systematic economic and political inequality are probably somewhat more likely to end up being criminals. ”
And will the Left please tell them to stop being criminals. Please?
“Stop being criminals.”
-The Left
Thanks.
-The Right
Back here to read TJ and Magus’s comments and re-reading this:
I’m curious about your narrative here. Are you claiming there has been and is a systematic campaign of black terror against whites? Are you claiming that while whites sometimes kill blacks, that does not matter so much because blacks kill more blacks than whites kill blacks? Or something else?
I’m curious about your narrative. “Are you claiming that while whites sometimes kill blacks, that does not matter so much because blacks kill more blacks than whites kill blacks?”. Show me where you get that from? I said absolutely no such thing. You were the one who presented a polemic stating that this dirtbag “certainly seems to be the member of a substantial pack and that pack is still in the wild”. I only pointed out solid statistics from the FBI that show murder statistics. I made absolutely no mention of any organizing among these groups to kill whites. I did mention in another comment that there are black racist organizations. If I can more accurately put words in your mouth than you put in mine, are you saying that there have not been any murders of whites by blacks that were motivated by racism? After all (TM), there has not been any evidence presented so far that this dirtbag was working with any white supremacist organization.
Note that I point out, in response to your comment Most violent crime is within the “race.” , that within the race “blacks kill blacks at a much higher rate than whites kill whites”. I present statistics showing that the black on black murder rate is about 5 times that at which whites kill whites. How can such a point be construed as a claim that there is ” a systematic campaign of black terror against whites”? There is no racism factor in murder within the races, though I can guess where some leftists could take that argument…I’ll let you go there if you so desire and we can discuss that line of pitiful reasoning.
I think you are way out of line in both your reasoning and the strategy of argumentation you are taking here.
But what is your point?
I believe many things, Mike. I believe in Rock and Roll and that music can save your mortal soul. Thanks to Al Michaels and the gold metal winning 1980 US Olympic hockey team, I believe in miracles. I believe that Betty White is older than sliced bread and that honey never spoils. What I don’t believe is that you cannot discern my point. However I do believe that you consciously choose not to even try to understand my point. I also believe that argument with you is futile because the only universe you will play in is one of your own construction. But as Mike Rowe says, somebody’s gotta do it.
Since you brought this subject up perhaps you could do some research on how many white supremacists (not “groups”, actual individual supremacists) are believed to exist in the US and contrast that with how many black supremacists (Nation of Islam alone is 20-50K FWIU but perhaps you could enlighten me) there are. After all (TM), you’re the academic here…obviously.
Good point-when counting racists, one should not just count the white colored ones.
Aaron Alexis had a well-established history of mental illness, so that certainly makes sense. Also, he did not seem to be acting to create terror. The shooter at FSU also had an established history of mental health issues and was there to shoot whoever he encountered-he did not have a political motivation to inflict terror.
Malvo and Muhmmad would, given your claim, seem to qualify as terrorists-if they set out the target whites and thus cause terror.
Is there an element of racism in this incident? http://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2014/04/dc-cops-use-of-force-policy-is-secret.html
A report here says that he went the way he did over a girl that spurned his advances and went for a black man.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/06/18/cousin-of-charleston-suspect-says-black-man-stole-roofs-love-interest/
Not surprising. People often slide deeper into hate over a perceived wrong done to them by “the other.”
I actually have no problem calling Dylan Roof a terrorist and condemning the white supremacist ideology he used to justify his actions.
I guess one could argue, as some people do with respect to Islam, that most white supremacists are “peaceful” or “moderate” and that if you condemn their ideology it will only cause more to be radicalized.
TJ
A lot of this ‘white supremacist ‘ thing is IMO just propaganda. It gives a nice target for the three minute hate session to keep the masses with the program.
Any white person objecting to mass third world immigration/invasion and multicult fragmentation of once white societies can and will be labelled a ‘evil white supremacist’ for simply wanting that. It doesn’t matter if they are just presenting reasons why that is a good idea. They are labelled a ‘hater’ whatever that really means. Of course no one calls black Zimbabweans or South Africans ‘black supremacists’ for wanting whitey out. For that matter, no other non white country is blamed for not being diverse enough. That should be the clue as to what all this is about.
Just saw an article http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/19/us-usa-charleston-assistance-idUSKBN0OZ2CN20150619 where your fedgovcorp is going to give 29 big ones to the families of the Charleston incident. So that works out to $3.2 mil for each family.
So are all murder victim families going to get a massive payout……or does it depend on the colour of their skin? Just asking…..
“Any white person objecting to mass third world immigration/invasion and multicult fragmentation of once white societies can and will be labelled a ‘evil white supremacist’ for simply wanting that.”
At minimum he or she will be called a “racist xenophope” or (horrors) a “nativist.”
Personally, I have no problem with immigration as long as the “melting pot” is still functional. What I worry about is that we are becoming tribalized.
What are some examples of this tribalism and the harms caused by it?
Michael
“What are some examples of this tribalism and the harms caused by it?”
Sharia law areas in the UK, no go zones in France and Sweden, raping of 1800 young vulnerable girls 11 yo+ in 1 UK city(Rotherham)+ others. and the corrupting of local politics that goes with ethnic enclaves.
Just casting my mind around the world in search of a successful( that somehow fit our western idea of successful pluralism) society and it’s not easy to find. Fiji has problems between Indians and fijians, Philipines has the southern moslem insurgency, Malaysia has very strict laws to keep the Malays, Chinese and Indians from each other’s throats, Indonesia has occasional massacres of minorities and christians, Sri lanka has just finished an ethnic based civil war , India and muslim/sikh/hindu tensions, middle east total shitfight all the time. Africa total tribal shitfight. The only thing that can make multicult work in the long run is a government as ruthless as China or Saddam Hussein. And the rest of us pay for that…….in order to gain what exactly?
I have heard the FOX News claims about Sharia law, etc. but these seem to lack a foundation in fact. Could you come up with some real examples of tribalism, preferably in the US.
Of course, it is easy enough to find actual tribalism in the sense of actual tribes-plenty of those around the world.
Hey Mike, how about you do your own research before you spew and save me the 15 minutes it takes to refute your BS:
On Faux CNN: “Muslim Patrols”. Of course, with the usual disclaimers that what they show on their very own video isn’t really happening.
Not the Fox Channel 4 News UK:
RT…Granted Russian and generally suspect, however the Muslims speak for themselves:
Sun news:
The horribly conservative BBC:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16522447
WTP
Thanks for finding those vids. I have been following the story for ten years or so, from when I first heard about ‘sharia controlled areas’.
It really is neither rocket science nor brain surgery to understand that when an alien but religiously/culturally cohesive group attains critical mass it then asserts its power.
If the embed doesn’t work https://youtu.be/2VcDbVJzN48
This vid shows the reality of moslem power in the UK where a cop will comply with a moslem request to remove a wristband supporting returned soldiers.
Exhibit A:
So ethnic politics is allowed, celebrated even for everyone except whites………
So now no elected official will make a stand against the illegals as he will be scared of being punished by their compatriots.
The slide gets steeper from now on………..enjoy the ride lol
You can totally celebrate your whiteness.
But, you do point to a reasonable point: talking about white pride or white identity does often get a person marked as a racist. But, this is sometimes due to the fact that what people say is racist.
Michael
I spend way less time ‘celebrating my whiteness’ (which I don’t actually think about) than the massive double standard involved. That is what really annoys me.
……………………………..
“talking about white pride or white identity does often get a person marked as a racist. But, this is sometimes due to the fact that what people say is racist.”
……………………………….
The point being that it is only described as racist *because* that person is white. Ethnic pride is celebrated in anyone other than whites, no?
I saw recently that a Mexican restaurant in Colorado had a ‘white appreciation day’ and copped huge flak for it.
That says to me all that needs to be said about the anti white programming in the US. Self hatred+ ethnopolitics = cultural suicide.
On the one hand, you do point to a legitimate matter: as you say, talk of whiteness or white pride is generally assumed to be racist. This is analogous, in some ways, to what happens when men talk about men’s rights-the assumption is that they must be sexist.
On the other hand, this approach can be a subtle lead in to racism. Now, if you had simply expressed a positive view of white stuff and hadn’t said the other stuff, then I’d have taken you as merely being positive about whiteness.
Yeah, what exactly is wrong with tribalism? I guess nation/state ism is OK, unless the nation/state dislikes you for some reason. If you’re a native American with undeveloped property and unexploited natural resources it’s perfectly normal and morally right for the nation/state to kill you and take your stuff. If you’re a teenage girl on your way to school in Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945 you really shouldn’t be surprised to be incinerated by an atomic device dropped from a US aircraft so high in the sky as to be invisible. But if one nutcase shoots some churchgoers it really is a catastrophe, isn’t it?
Tom
What is wrong with tribalism? It all depends if the tribes are in your territory or not and if they want to challenge you or not.
…………………………
“If you’re a native American with undeveloped property and unexploited natural resources it’s perfectly normal and morally right for the nation/state to kill you and take your stuff. ”
…………………………..
Are you sure that you aren’t romanticizing the natives a bit much? Did they have tribal wars? Kill each other? Take slaves? Yes. Did they agonize over the morality of it all? I doubt it…….If they had better weapons than the next tribe would they hesitate to use them to slaughter them…..nup!
………………………………….
“If you’re a teenage girl on your way to school in Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945 you really shouldn’t be surprised to be incinerated by an atomic device dropped from a US aircraft so high in the sky as to be invisible. But if one nutcase shoots some churchgoers it really is a catastrophe, isn’t it?”
……………………………………
It does put the recent Charleston unpleasantness into perspective, doesn’t it? However, all sorts of shit continues to happen, and unbelievable as it may sound, not all of it is caused by pigmentally deficient.
There’s no need to romanticize the native Americans. The issue is that a society that purports itself to be superior to all others justifies genocide on the basis of the activities of new stone age peoples. If, indeed, the US has a better form of life than the Comanches or the Philippine Moros or the Hawaiians shouldn’t they have been able to convince them of that by reasoned argument? Well, of course not. People must be coerced into accepting the American line and killed if necessary if they don’t. Same goes for domestic disagreement. If those ignorant Confederates won’t go along with the program they must be killed, their cows eaten and their barns burned. When you know that you’re right almost anything can be justified.
The Confederacy opened fire on a United States fort, which was an act of treason. The leaders made the choice to try to break the Constitution in defense of slavery and they reaped what they sowed. So, yes, they were subject to the coercive power of the state-enforcing the law is the function of the state. I have no moral problem with using military force against a system based on slavery.
Tom
Reasoned argument? Try using reasoned argument with a 5 year old lol………In the real world, no matter how disguised, it will come down to force at the end of the day.
The residents of the 13 colonies were British subjects. The American revolution was treason in spades. So, ultimately, it’s the victor that determines morality. Perhaps one could say that firing on Ft. Sumter was an act of rebellion but would it have also been the act of a Mississippi river pilot or an Alabama lumberjack or a Texas cowherd? Why would the sacrifice of well over half a million men and boys from both the North and the South be required to a eliminate a system that was abandoned everywhere else with little or no loss of life? The answer, of course, is that slavery was only a small part of the disagreement. Even if the North had exacted retribution for Ft. Sumter, there was no reason why the other states of the confederacy shouldn’t have been allowed to secede. Except that the North was bound and determined to have mastery over the South.
“If this be treason, make the most of it.”
True, rebellion against the crown was treason. But, there is the moral question of whether the rebellion was warranted or not.
The leaders of the south made it clear that the central and primary issue for them was slavery.
“Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.”
TJ
…………………………………
“Personally, I have no problem with immigration as long as the “melting pot” is still functional. What I worry about is that we are becoming tribalized.”
…………………………………
I have no problem with immigration either as long as the immigrants are white europeans. Shocking huh? That makes me an ‘ebil xenophobe’ eh? Not really, just practical, as I don’t think that multicult ever really works, or if it does then it’s probably not worth the hassle.
Australia has had a huge immigration program since ww2, italians, greeks, yugos, dutch, poms and krauts all good. They (more so their kids)didn’t need much melting to become aussies For some bizarre reason we got rid of the ‘white australia policy’ in the 1960’s and now have suburbs infested with moslems, asians and somalis.
So there are your tribes, unassimilable with their own racial/ethnic identities that in many cases despises the host country. What actual value do they add besides no-go zones and FGM?
As for melting pots, if you have ever actually used a real one, it all depends on quantity and quality……put too much in and it will take forever to melt or put the wrong materials in and it won’t ever melt. It’s all about numbers IMO so its not really a personal issue. A thousand muzzies in Oz no problem…a better supply of kebabs for a late night snack after a night out………a million muzzies is a completely different story….sharia zones, raping of white girls(eg Rotherham UK, Sydney Australia, Sweden)or coopting of local political processes.
While not shocking, it is certainly disappointing.
While the United States often operates like a big frat hazing the newcomers (remember “WOPS”, “Dagos” and “Micks”?), we have generally done a good job with immigration.
America will be a minority majority country soon, which is just fine. Being American isn’t about being white. Racism will no doubt hang in there and get even more virulent in its ever decreasing pockets, but the rest of humanity will leave them behind. They might commit a murder here and there and spew some hate on the internet, but eventually they will not matter at all.
“America will be a minority majority country soon, which is just fine. Being American isn’t about being white.”
Mike, I agree in principle, but I am not optimistic. The very idea of America is being denigrated by the left. I suspect we will turn into Venezuela in 50 years.
Our fate is, as always, in our hands. We need to restore strong public education, open up economic opportunities for everyone, rebuild and advance our infrastructure and step up our exploitation of space.
In America, the impossible just takes a little longer.
Michael
Why disappointing? I am just being purely practical. Perhaps others with more anti white programming and hence guilt may disagree but multicult doesn’t work, at least with really different cultures in sufficient proportions. As I have pointed out elsewhere here,it is very hard to find a *real* multicult society that doesn’t require a Saddam Hussein to make it work. I am talking about societies with large minorities 20-50% each or so, not just a few exotics at the fringes.
You assuming that only whites are racist. Ever decreasing pockets? I don’t think that will be the case. While many whites have convinced themselves that ‘racism’ is all their fault and if they change and embrace a non racial future all will be well……………. the rest of the world didn’t get that memo! For example, Isn’t it true that your replacements, the hispanics, are even less impressed with blacks than whites are and lack the required guilt to placate them? How’s that going to work out in the long term?
Disappointing because I like to think that we are better than that.
I know that racism is not a white only thing.
The arc of history has been towards every greater empires that are able to have ever more diverse populations. True, there are forces devoted to the tribe and empires do often collapse back into brutal tribalism (as in Medieval times after the Roman Empire fell). I certainly hope that Pax Americana can keep it together until our successor steps up-another dark ages would be rather bad.
Michael
………………………………….
“Disappointing because I like to think that we are better than that.”
……………………………………
Better is a very subjective term, better than what?
Another relevant question. Does human nature change in a fundamental sense?
……………………………………….
“The arc of history has been towards every greater empires that are able to have ever more diverse populations. True, there are forces devoted to the tribe and empires do often collapse back into brutal tribalism (as in Medieval times after the Roman Empire fell).”
…………………………………………..
Didn’t the Roman Empire disintegrate at least in part because they came to rely on tribes that had no fundamental allegiance to Rome and its ideals? Any relation to the current program by your elites to import millions of hispanics?
Better is certainly relative, as you note.
Human nature seems to be rather flexible, although biology does clearly lock us into certain things. I tend to agree with Aristotle: we are not born virtuous, but is natural to receive virtue. We are what we make ourselves to be, though people do vary in basic character.
Rome fell for many reasons. But, you are right that an empire needs an army that is loyal to that empire and not just a specific emperor. The United States and other modern states have done well in creating armies that are not loyal to a specific ruler, but to the society. US soldiers do not swear an oath to the person in the White House, but to the Constitution.
Rome also failed to stop expanding-it needed the income of treasure to keep going. We are currently creating much of our treasure ex nihilo by clever financial wizardry. But it is no clear how long that magic can sustain us.
Our “elites” are divided on the immigration thing. On the one hand, Republicans do need the base of old, white guys who are afraid of brown folks. On the other hand, the Republicans also have the support of companies that rely heavily on immigrants and illegals.
The Democrats certainly want the Hispanic vote, so they need to say the right things. Some even believe what they say.
My European ancestors got to roll over my native ancestors and take their lands, so white folks really cannot bust out a principle of how immigrants must be kept out now to keep them off land that was, obviously enough, stolen the old fashioned way.
Naturally, we can debate the relevant ethics of immigration.
I know you are scared, but it will be okay.
Rome also failed to stop expanding-it needed the income of treasure to keep going. We are currently creating much of our treasure ex nihilo by clever financial wizardry. But it is no clear how long that magic can sustain us.
Again, you know nothing about how we create our treasure. You demonstrate here, yet again, a zero-sum mentality toward wealth creation. You don’t know what wealth is.
A person can be opposed to immigration, etc. and not be a white supremacist.
It is certainly fair to be critical of black (or whatever) racists and lack of diversity in other countries.
I would disagree with the analogy between white supremacists and Muslims. A better analogy would be something like condemning God Hates Fags while noting that the vast majority of Christians are not haters.
I think it is a pretty good analogy. In both cases you have a group of people (racists, Muslims) who believe they are superior, and although most of these people are not violent, there is a small group (white supremacists, Jihadists) who believe that violence is needed to advance their cause.
Actually, it is a near perfect analogy.
It’s a terribly imperfect analogy because it fails to mesh with the only reality that matters. Leftist reality. All else is Faux News.
Mike, can you comment?
In the last half-century, Americans have increasingly tended to emphasize race and tribe in promoting “diversity,” rather than seeking to strengthen the more tenuous notion of unity with their fellow citizens. We have forgotten that human nature is fond of division and must work at setting aside superficial tribal affinities to unite on the basis of core values and ideas. Symbols, flags, organizations, and phrases that emphasize racial difference and ethnic pride are no longer just fossilized notions from the 1960s; they are growing fissures in the American mosaic that now threaten to split the country apart — fueling the suspicion of less liberal and more homogeneous nations that the great American experiment will finally unwind as expected. That would be a great tragedy, but a catastrophe entirely predictable if citizens seek symbolic solidarity with their tribe rather than in the common idea of just being American.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420142/america-one-nation-indivisible
Interesting hypotheses. However, I am not sure that we are less united as Americans than we were during say, the Jim Crow era or the Civil Rights movement. I suspect that some people see the fact that America is not just papered over in a white unity as problematic, but that was, I think, the illusion of unity.
Wasn’t there a “War Between the States” when Americans were somewhat less united than now?
Where is the organizational terror, here? I’m not finding it. Where is the advanced financing, planning, meetings, manuals, etc? This is lone-wolf stuff.
True, but so was Nidal Malik Hasan. What I think defines it as terrorism is that Roof had the political aim of starting a race war just as Hasan had the political aim of fighting for Islam.
I have no problem calling these crimes terrorism as the perpetrators were clearly sane and were not getting instructions from the neighbor’s dog, for example, but were clearly motivated by an evil ideology.
I agree. While evil acts seem like madness, there is a clear distinction between insanity and evil.
TJ, Hasan was communicating with al_Qaeda on a regular basis.
The shooter was, as you said, a lone wolf. However, he does have a broader context and association with established hate groups. This is analogous to how groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda motivate and inspire their own lone wolfs.
I’m sure you know about the history of the KKK and other groups in the US. Plus, the internet is a sea of hate.
I should also highlight that by merely pointing out facts, such as black populations having severe crime problems in every country in which black populations exist, can spark violence from non-blacks. This does not make the initial truth any less true. And, that it is interesting that Mike thinks rhetoric from the right may have sparked the recent mass killing, but does not think that rhetoric from the left has anything to do with the black crime epidemic. He didn’t list this as an association with black crime, though he listed Jim Crow. BTW, I find that Jim Crow as a cause of this crime to be tenuous at best. After all, the laws applied to both blacks and whites. Most black people could probably not even tell you what the laws were.
Why this?
Yeah, I like how the victim was punished because they told her she should have curled up into a ball an not fought back. If there was more to this video I missed it because I gave up at the 2:38 mark. This is the problem with the bully bullshit. The “don’t fight back” rule. It’s bullshit. It always has been bullshit, and it always will be bullshit. We need to stop punishing children for defending themselves. Self defense is the most fundamental, existential human right and belongs not just to nations but children as well.
Fuck these goddammed “intellectual” “academics” and their candy-ass rules. These are children and the deserve the right to defend themselves. That right supersedes any “right to a safe environment” mantra bullshit that can’t be guaranteed.
Pardon my french but damn this shit pisses me off. It’s gotten worse and worse since the 60’s/70’s and nobody wants to get a clue. These administrators consciously choose to not understand because they are weak and afraid to stand for anything the left doesn’t want them to stand for. You would think the kind of people who feel they have some sort of need to “preserve humanity” would speak up in a forceful manner on such matters, not just to the void but directly to the kind of people who perpetuate this crap. Children are the most human of humanity.
WTP
Your French is pardoned lol
…………………………..
“Fuck these goddammed “intellectual” “academics” and their candy-ass rules. ”
……………………………
Ongoing feminization of society means feminine values……. physical violence =bad , verbal violence and shunning/ostracization=good.
When I was a kid(no, not last week) schoolyard fights were OK, and being as boys are, if you had a fight with someone,win lose or draw you probably ended up best mates with them. If a kid was being bullied his dad would send him to learn boxing so he could sort the matter out himself. That way a boy grows in confidence as opposed to running to tell the teacher in which case the boy somehow shrinks.
Now as soon as boys have so much as a scuffle they are surrounded by shrieking harpies overreacting as only women do, demanding either expulsion or counselling. Is it any surprise that depression is endemic in our societies with that sort of shit going on.
Yes, well let me tell you how things were when I was a boy. Dogs roamed free, just like cats today. There were no leash laws and thus no way to tie one dog’s poop to a dog, let alone its owner. Then with leash laws we began requiring owners to pick up the dogs’ poops. Consequently, there was always some dog poop lying around somewhere. This was a good thing. See back in my neighborhood, when two kids got in a fight, the one winning the fight would threaten to drag the one losing to the dog poop. If the kid on the losing side didn’t quit and run away, the more dominant would drag the weaker one over to a pile of poop and mush the back of his head in it. Thus the “pooped” kid would run home to his mother to wash and change clothes and that would be the end of the fight. Now-a-days, with all the poop getting picked up, fights must go on indefinitely until one party gets the absolute crap kicked out of them.
I blame the leash laws.
Which is why a quote from Colonel Jeff Cooper is in the banner to my blog: “The will to survive is not as important as the will to prevail … the answer to criminal aggression is retaliation.”
I would never teach my kids not to defend themselves. Those who pull out the Jesus “turn the other cheek”, quote obviously miss the message in that quote. Just as many will miss the message in Cooper’s quote. Was Jesus turning the other cheek when he turned over the money changer’s tables in the temple? The message is against revenge for revenge’s sake, and promotes a spirit of forgiveness when the element of danger has passed.
Cooper’s promotion of retaliation against *criminal aggression* means that passive defense (ie putting your hands up, running away), are not as effective as going on the offensive. I stand by it.
I’m pro-self defense. Hence years of Tae Kwon Do and many hours at the range. I have argued that people have a moral obligation to be competent at self-protection, so I would certainly not advocate not defending oneself.
I’m divided on forgiveness. On the one hand, I admire the moral strength and faith of the family members of the murder victims who told the killer that they forgave him. That takes incredible moral fiber and a devotion to the core of Christianity (to love one another as God has loved us and to forgive trespasses against us). On the other hand, misdeeds must be punished and forgiveness must be earned.
” misdeeds must be punished and forgiveness must be earned.”
Misdeeds must be classified by someone. What some consider a misdeed is a matter of no consequence to others. For instance, the murders of the Branch Davidians couldn’t have been much of a misdeed as Janet Reno and her underlings weren’t punished. And if they had been punished, how would forgiveness have been earned? Aside from that, why must misdeeds be punished? There’s no end of misdeeds occurring on a daily basis planet wide. Who’s keeping track? Maybe God, like Santa, is making a list and checking it twice and sweeping out particular areas of Hades for the eternal residency of lower echelon nasties. But Teddy Kennedy probably isn’t on the list.
I’m an objectivist about ethics (that is, I think moral claims are true or false independent of our opinions about them). So, something being wrong or not is a matter of fact. But also something we can be completely wrong about.
God does not seem interested in helping us out in this matter, at least in the here and now. So, it falls to us to dispense justice and injustice. Locke made a pretty good argument for us being what I call God’s vigilantes. We have to be, since the sheriff is never in town.
The extreme right wing rhetoric seems to push hatred and fear, which tend to lead to violence. When, for example, people talk about the dangers of immigrants or how blacks are making gains at the expense of whites, those seem to be claims that push towards violence.
What does the left say that encourages crime? Naturally, I do agree that the hard left anarchists have urged people to “demand jobs”, “demand bread” and “take bread.” But the American left seems rather against crime.
Jim Crow is still remembered.
Speaking of narratives.
3 black men charged with murder of white security guard in Mississippi – http://tinyurl.com/lxgsupm See also: http://tinyurl.com/kx8jldt
But what is your point, Magus?
Point is, narratives and their effects on violence swing both ways. And the overwhelming chunk of narratives in regard to race has a liberal bent.
Magus
“And the overwhelming chunk of narratives in regard to race has a liberal bent.”
Liberal=hates whites and if they couldn’t use it to bash whites then they wouldn’t even bother talking about it.
Yeah, that word…”narrative”. It’s a bit problematic in your context. It is to be used only in the pejorative and applied to people like Jeb Bush and Christians and such. You know, the bad guys. But we can’t say “bad guys” because that would be tipping our hand, so we subtly and not so subtly refer to “narratives”. As such, “narratives” do not apply to so-called Liberals. The things that leftists have to say are hard truths that the mindless conservative masses do not wish to hear. Such is why the bitter-clingers to guns-and-religion set listen to Faux News and not the ever so truthful New York Times. Just like our president says. He knows all about these things. NYT reporting by Jason Blair or on the Duke lacrosse players or commentary by Maureen Dowd and such not withstanding.
But is the liberal narrative one of violence?
Let’s ask Mao, Stalin, Fidel, Che, and even Adolph (yes, I went there). They all say “yes”. Their apologists are a bit wishy-washy on the matter but when presented with the “facts” of leftist ideology they usually agree. Those who don’t take a nice dirt nap while folks like Ernest Hemingway sip mojitos and Walter Durante collect Pulitzers.
Are you saying the conservative narrative is one of violence?
When US police are portrayed as violent oppressors, sure. When whites are portrayed as racist bigots, bent on keeping black people poor, addicted to drugs, and away from good jobs, yes. The term “liberal” may be a problem, here. But suffice to say, Eric Holder is as liberal as they come, and has made it clear that American police forces are racist institutions.
Where does this come from? Conservatives?
To state the obvious, not all American police forces are racist institutions.
However, this does not show that there is not systematic racism in some police forces. Careful investigations have shown that this is a real problem in some places.
But, how do liberals push blacks to crime?
Magus
Another Gavin vid
In any group of white supremacists, most are on the FBI payroll: Records show feds used ultra-right radio host for years – http://www.northjersey.com/news/records-show-feds-used-ultra-right-radio-host-for-years-1.299323?page=all The same can be said for so-called Islamic terrorist groups: Trevor Aaronson: How this FBI strategy is actually creating US-based terrorists… https://youtu.be/SGG97dDfZ7E via @YouTube
AJ
I remember reading ages ago that in Northern Ireland that MI5 had so infiltrated both the IRA and the opposition UDL/UDF that there were more agents in the leaderships than real members.
Here in Oz the fed police infiltrate all nationalist groups. The only way is totally isolated actions. Last year, someone put banners up across freeway overpasses in Brisbane with a few choice messages in time for the morning peak hour rush. There needs to be more of that to wake people up,
Yeah that’s what’s happened here in the USA too. Mike seems to think the KKK was organic, but it wasn’t, and never has been. He thinks al Qaeda and ISIS are organic, too, but they aren’t, and they never were.
Professor Mike seems to believe that because lynchings happened 100 years ago we still have a problem with them today. Which fallacy is that? The fallacy of reading into the present events from the past? He also seems to believe that because black on white crime shouldn’t be spoken of it doesn’t exist. Which fallacy is that? The Ostrich Fallacy?
AJ
‘Ostrich fallacy’ lol…….I like that one.
I agree that ISIS and Al Qaeda are not organic but I assumed that the KKK was(though the name *does* have a cartoonish quality to it now I think about it). Tell me more….
If we compared the KKK and the ANC of South Africa, one is celebrated openly and one is despised……….why is that given similar political aims? Another part of the great double standard I guess.
Well, 34 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Donald
While it has been a while since there have been lynchings, their legacy remains. The past does not just wash away. Class and economic status is not determined just by what happened recently, but is linked to the past. True, some folks can bust out of poverty and become rich or great-but these people become famous because they are rather rare. For the most part, Americans get stuck in the economic class of their parents, though now the tendency has been for a decline.
I never said that we should not speak of black on white crime. It does exist and, like all crime, is a matter of concern.
Two people? That’s a murder, not a lynching. The media never mentions black on white crime, nor does media mention the disproportionately high number of blacks involved in violent crimes. Media portrays blacks as — as a race — as victims, even though blacks — as a race — are the perps. Generally and statistically speaking. Like I said, spend a week at your local county courthouse and see who is in the dock, and why. Take a break from the ivory tower and see the real world people police and courts deal with day in and day out. It will open your mind to reality. As it is, you seem to have a constructed reality that fits a PC narrative.
Well, I do admit that I do not spend a lot of time in the courts or with police patrols. But, I am aware of the statistics.
Would you say that blacks are naturally criminals or would you consider the effects of social and economic conditions that were forged in slavery and matured under Jim Crow? Or something else?
I would say all of us are naturally criminals, due to original sin. Black crime is due to sociological factors, which are particular to the black population. Dr M L King was trying to address these before he was murdered, as was Robert F Kennedy. No one has seriously attempted to address them since. Kennedy wanted to encourage the creation of light industry businesses in the inner city ghettos, which would allow people to live, work, and shop in their communities. Any hope of that is long gone. No one has mentioned it since 1968.
True, there are large numbers of people who have been largely abandoned.
They say the black family was intact until “The Great Society” began in earnest. The media hype is symbolism over substance. No one in the media cares about black people. They pretend they do because they have ulterior motives, such as the division and destruction of our society. If the media wanted to unite us they could easily do so. They don’t.
“Unity doesn’t sell papers.”
-Some Media Person
You got that right 😛
For the most part, Americans get stuck in the economic class of their parents, though now the tendency has been for a decline.
More unchallenged BS from Mike Don’t know for sure but I would venture that like myself, Magus has risen above the class of his parents, possibly TJ. Many, many successful people I know live lives above or well above the class of their parents. In fact, most of the people I grew up with who are now very successful had very little back in the day. One guy grew up in a trailer park. Another was on the free lunch program for a short while after his father died young. And OTOH, a few of the kids who were born into money have fallen to middle class or lower. Some died young due to the ability to afford to make poor life choices.
I submit that Mike’s perspective is the warped one. He only sees the famous who bust out of poverty, thus they must be the only ones. As AJ says, Take a break from the ivory tower and see the real world. Of course as I have been repeating here lately, I don’t see it so much any more in Mike’s specific case of being in the ivory tower, though it’s certainly an influence, but a world of Mike’s own creation where his perspective is reinforced by what he wants to see. He goes looking only for facts that back up his world view and those become the “trusted” sources. Other points of view are nothing but faux news.
Count me in as having risen farther than my parents. Actually, getting away from my parents by enlisting in the USN made a big difference in my life.
Heh…in the office today and BS’ing with one of my co-workers. One whose kids are going to FAMU and it hit me. Haven’t taken a complete poll and don’t know the background of every FAMU grad that I work with, but the ones I do know well enough to say have risen above the class of their parents. Yes, I know it’s a warped sampling, but it’s not like these are tiny anomalies we’re talking about. People in this country, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, rise above the economic class of their parents when they work at something useful. Now philosophy majors, creative writing majors, or costume technology majors may find themselves living in Mom’s basement. Hell the joke used to be “basketry majors” but I would be willing to bet if someone spent the same amount of time learning basketry that is spent “studying” theatre or Canadian Studies, they would be much better off.
I mean, WTH are we paying Mike’s salary for if kids from the socioeconomic backgrounds of the average FAMU student are not rising above the class of their parents?
Sure, people do that. Which is great. But what interests me the most is the level of social mobility for the whole country. Now, it could be argued that social mobility is not important-what matters more is how well off people are. So, we could have the same social strata, but people could be doing quite well. So, Sally could be in the same class as her parents, but be doing much better in terms of her inflation adjusted wages, and so on.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured
The United States has low social mobility, at least based on the statistics.
Sure, there are people who are doing better than their parents. But, an appeal to anecdotal evidence is not a way to establish a statistical claim about the whole population.
I never claimed that the famous are the only ones. My point is that such anecdotes do not show us the general chances in regards to the whole population.
Funny, anecdotal evidence works fine for Mike’s arguments. Of course he covers himself with a “seems to be” fig leaf. But of course the article you link about a study by clutch of economists at Harvard University and the University of California, Berkeley, no leftist bias there, references mobility from the extremes of bottom fifth to top fifth and that itself using very dubious comparisons to draw quite dubious conclusions, not the least being the low overall wealth generated by the various countries. Interesting that the article does not consider the mobility in the other fifths, which apparently the study itself goes into. And then taking stats from oddly cherry picked years of 1971 to 1993 (for the math impaired, 1993 was 22 years ago) and plunking those stats down in today’s world. And this one article, one that supports what he wishes to believe, one based on very subjective analytical design, one published in a left leaning publication, is to be taken by itself. And even yet, according to the leftist NY Times regarding the same study states:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/business/upward-mobility-has-not-declined-study-says.html?_r=0
The bias of the authors is rather apparent with one stating that “The level of opportunity is alarming, even though it’s stable over time”. Stability over decades is “alarming”.
But hey, if opportunities are better in Denmark, or in general, Western Europe, you would think there would be more people leaving the US to live in Europe. Yet that is far, far from the case. According to wiki (weak source but best I could find) “Given the high dynamics of the emigration-prone groups, emigration from United States remains indiscernible from temporary country leave.” And
And not to be outdone, if you’re quoting the Economist, and if I’m quoting the NY Times, both leftist in origin, let’s smash them both together and see what we get:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/12/the_strains_of_danish_commitme
So it seems higher taxes drive out those higher income generators. Something not seen in the final statistics. And yet back to the original point, we might also consider that a generation ago, people did not spend gobs of money on worthless degrees. They got jobs and/or education aimed at making themselves productive members of society.
So…Mike quotes dubious, highly subjective conclusion, conflicting with other conclusions drawn from the same study as his to refute “anecdotes”, and yet has no answer for the objective FBI statistics I presented elsewhere here beyond and ad hominem questioning my “narrative”.
I’d appreciate it if someone else would do more legwork here as I’ve bled over my lunch hour and must return to my duties so that I may pay my taxes and support Mike in his polemics.
Ah, hell….Curiosity is killing me, Mike. Tell us, given your interest in fairness and who you think deserves what…What percent of income do you think is fair for the top 1% of income earners to have? How much would be fair for the to 5%, top 10%, and top 20%? What do you would reflect a “fair” income distribution?
In the abstract, a fair income would be based on the value a person generates minus what it costs to generate that value. This, of course, would be exceptionally complicated in practice. For example, someone might create something like HTML and let it go for free, thus making the internet possible. This generates stacks of cash, yet earns him nothing. As another example, some clever fellow in finances might develop some new financial product that generates money ex nihilo and become a billionaire.
Like all economics, it is part of ethical theory/moral philosophy and that is tough stuff.
” The past does not just wash away.”
Sure it does or the near extinction of the native Americans would be a more discussed topic. Perhaps it’s more evil to hold someone in bondage than it is to steal their stuff and kill them. Then there’s this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/27/large-alaska-tribe-to-boycott-fedex-for-its-nfl-sp/ It won’t mean much to anyone because it’s just about some Indians. Who cares? Perhaps it would be OK to call the Detroit NFL team the Bantus or the Somalis. Or some other well-known but seldom uttered descriptive.
Nailhead, I’m not sure you fully realize that most of the people living in the US are newcomers. For example, over 1 in 4 residents of California and over 1 in 5 residents of New York and New Jersey were foreign born. Most others can trace their lineage in the US back less than 100 years.
Do you really expect people that were not even born in the US to carry around the baggage of crimes committed by unrelated people 150 years ago? Why should they?
If you’re talking about slavery, it wasn’t a crime. Nor was the killing of native Americans. And, aren’t we all newcomers? There hasn’t been any institutionalized slavery in the US during my lifetime.
It is not discussed, but the legacy remains. Interestingly, Florida is involved in negotiations with its sovereign tribes in regards to gambling. Plus, reservations still remain, etc.
A narrative from the extreme Left. Why do you ignore this, Mike?
Any chance Malik Shabazz will be arrested for incitement to murder? Or is he by virtue of skin colour above laws that would have one of the ‘slavemasters’ arrested?
I wonder too if he plans to go to Africa to threaten the decendents of those who sold his ancestors to slave traders?
Well, mainly because that is the first I heard of it. If it was on NPR, I missed it. I count on you guys to bring me the news from the right. 🙂
I’m reasonably sure that this person reflects the views of most African Americans to the degree that Roof reflects the views of most white Americans.
You are certainly right to be critical of a call to murder.
To state the obvious: I’m against murdering white folks. I am against the use of violence as a tool for social change within the United States of today.
So, condemned.
Yeah, NPR misses some stuff. You might be surprised how much stuff. Really, if you’re relying on NPR as your primary news source, you have no business mocking Fuax News. You might want to consider watching Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. I’ll leave it to you to discern when it’s on. I can promise you that you won’t catch cooties.
As for I’m reasonably sure that this person reflects the views of most African Americans to the degree that Roof reflects the views of most white Americans. have you watched Magus’ video post below at
https://aphilosopher.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/narratives-terror-violence/#comment-117637
?
Is that gentleman’s perspective on the views of most in the AA community in accurate? If not, how do you know this? If not, is it justifiable to call him an Uncle Tom? If not, why?
More narrative.
Magus
Are you allowed to call them black supremacists without being called racist? Actually, being called racist these days is no real insult at all, the inevitable result of overuse of the term.
“Black supremacist” is not inherently racist. Back when I first arrived in Tallahassee, the Nation of Islam had a strong presence. I ran into them from time to time near campus and learned a new phrase from some of them, namely “white devil.” So, yeah, racist.
Whites are attacked 200x more by blacks than blacks are attacked by whites, after adjusting for population differences. What narrative is driving this, Mike? Will we find Liberals standing against this?
Yes. But is it systemic?
Yes.
I’m sorry. I’m confused. You were just asking me if I was claiming that there was a systemic campaign of black terror against whites. Are you now saying that such does exist?
I’m against blacks attacking whites.
I can’t think of any serious politician on the left who is not against that.
This is evident in the Army. It’s really bad in my unit, the obvious dislike black Soldiers have for white Soldiers. I went a while trying to be super nice to some of these guys. It didn’t work. I’m getting out, and can’t wait for that day.
3 black men charged with murder of white teen girl – http://wp.me/p5MgbW-avP via @wncn
Can someone answer me this.
As an outsider (aussie) it seems to me that the most despised people in the US are not the blacks but the rednecks. Is that fair comment?
I base my observation on anyone can insult them with impunity, belittle them and no one defends them, make jokes about them and everyone(except maybe the rednecks themselves)laughs. There are no redneck liberation organizations, no red panthers, nothing. There are no laws against their denigration. They are not even considered an actual ‘minority’.
So, are blacks at the bottom of the heap or is there one below them? And if there is one below them why are they ignored if so much effort goes into promoting ‘equality’, or are rednecks unworthy?
It’s not complicated, but it’s not as simple as that either. The parallels are not entirely accurate but they are approximate such that black::n*****r/ghetto is as southerner::redneck/wigger/trailer-trash. Proportions are different but still the same level of ignorance, bigotry, and laziness. I’ve volunteered at a food pantry up in the hills of north Georgia and all the “customers” coming down out of the hills to get their free handouts were all white. Or I presume they were all white, but it was sometimes hard to tell under the dirt on their skin and the filth in their cars. I’ve hired contractors to do work around my house and found, granted on a fairly small sample size but consistently, that the people who have moved up from Florida or escapees from Atlanta will show up on time, give you an estimate, and get back to you rather promptly with any questions you may have. The locals, who are not all rednecks per se but trend that way, run on “Mountain time”. They rarely show up, they rarely get back to you, they rarely inspire confidence in their abilities. Then you hear the locals complain that city folk move to the mountains and “steal” their jobs.
So in my mind the two, as more precisely defined above. are equivalent. However, your observation from far away Oz is not that far off, seeing as most of what is visible there must flow through a media lens. Actually, i find the media, while certainly prejudiced against southerns as a whole, are not quite as biased as many of the “elites” in the northeast areas of NY, MD, DC, or in academia. I tend to attribute this to southerners working in media organizations and being successful because they tend to be more personable relative to the majority elitists that make up the media. Of course still by the nature of mass media, that pool of people is rather leftist relative to most in the south.
meant to add…Crystal Meth. Don’t hear much about it coming out of Oz but it is effectively the redneck’s crack cocaine. Just as effective, works similarly in destroying societies.
Off the subject, but what do you think about Telstra’s new Wi-Fi system? I hope your ISPs suck less than Comcast.
Michael
I don’t know about Telstra’s new Wi Fi as I only get the old WiFi. There is a 4 or 5 year long program for a national broadband network currently underway that aims to bring high speed internet to everyone in Oz either via fibre or wifi or for the really isolated, satellite. The wifi part of that will be a new high speed wifi.
I live in a rural area, (so technically I am redneck lol must get banjo lessons) and I am on the wireless network. 8 gig for $50/m but when the super dooper wifi comes in it will be $80/m for 100gig+all phone calls and I can then watch Youtube vids even…I don’t know when that will be, hopefully within the next year.
Here in the states, we are still lagging behind the rest of the world. Part of the problem is that we have what amounts to local monopolies, though there has been some improvement. Some years ago, I could have any broadband I wanted, as long as it was Comcast. Now I can pick between Comcast for cable and Sprint for DSL. Opening up competition would certainly help, but our “free market” folks seem to be opposed to that…something about campaign contributions.
$80 a month for 100 gig seems not so bad.
Michael
I am surprised that there isn’t more competition there. Here is a different situation. Telstra was once a government owned corp(originally spun out of the Post Office many years ago), then privitized(with strings). Those strings were the requirement to lease bandwidth capacity to competitors as Telstra was just too overwhelmingly dominant in the market, because of its earlier monopoly status.
So now that the NBN is being built, Telstra and all the other companies will be just retail outlets with government owned NBNco owning all the infrastructure and selling it on to all comers. Many say that this is how things should have been handled 30 years ago.
Thanks to lobbying, the various ISPs own sections of the US, sort of like a digital feudal system. These companies even got state legislatures in some places to forbid localities from putting in their own broadband. The ISP providers get that competition would mean that they would need to improve service and lower costs, so they are against that and willing to drop plenty of cash to keep things the way they like.
Google seems to be a prime competitor, but Google makes its money via advertising-for them the broadband is just a path to their actual products. I’m hoping Google will decide to come to Tallahassee-I’d drop Comcast in a second.
It is tough being a redneck in America. Only Larry the Cable Guy and Jeff Foxworthy serve as their champions.
Yet neither one truly lives the full-on redneck lifestyle. As in Foxworthy’s “You might be a redneck if…” bits. Foxworthy certainly doesn’t live like those jokes. Both are big believers in working hard and doing a good job. Of course all this depends on how you want to define “redneck”.
“As an outsider (aussie) it seems to me that the most despised people in the US are not the blacks but the rednecks. Is that fair comment?”
Yes, rednecks and lower class whites are fair game for any sort of ridicule, especially if they are religious and overweight. No one will stick up for them.
WPT
Thanks for that straight answer to an honest question.
There is a certain irony in that rednecks were probably the group least likely to have owned slaves yet cop the denigration worse than those who actually did own slaves, which I understand were only 2% or so of the southern population.
I understand what you are saying about their personal attributes, poverty and isolation may have encouraged that.
As for meth………..what a horror. It actually makes heroin look good, even chemically as it is endogenous to the human body but meth WTF???? There have been cases here where meth cooks rent a house cook batches then leave. next tenants come down with all sorts of sickness relating to chemicals seeping out of the house requiring thhe stripping of the interiors………and people ingest that shit???
Well, at least we agree on meth.
“I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government… A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” ~ MLK (1967)
[…] An excellent, cogent essay on why Dylan Roof’s attack was racist. […]