Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Are Racial Differences Racist?

Many years ago, I briefly watched a retrospective of the TV show Good Times, an all-black sit com which I, white, watched and liked in my teens - although I confess I found JJ (Jimmie Walker) annoying with his "Dynomite" schtick.

In this retrospective, the actor playing Ralph Carter - Michael Evans, explained why John Amos as James Evans Sr. left the show. I can't remember exactly what he said, but it was something like, "In black culture, the father musn't be outshone by the son. The writers were making JJ the star of the series, and as the father, James Evans couldn't be asked to put up with that."

And let us not forget that when talking about Kwanzaa, etc, black advocates are talking about celebrating black culture. And if they're celebrating black culture, it must be different from white culture, correct? In what ways is it different, hm?

Well, one way in which it is different -- now -- is that 75 percent of all black children are born out of wedlock, as opposed to something like 30% for whites. Most black kids are second or third generation single parents, and believe it or not, if you grow up in a home with only one parent, especially if its an unmarried and uneducated mother, your'e going to be poor. (IF a kid, regardless of race, has a kid at age 15, they typically can't or don't want to finish their education, thus, uneducated.)

And single mothers raise their kid(s) differently than do dual-parent households. Because most of them are on welfare, they teach their kids not to take anything from anybody, so several generations of kids have been brought up to be a bit more violent than white kids. (Don't get me wrong. White kids can be plenty sadistic. So can Asians. People are people. But I'm takling about the differences generated by how parents raise kids differently.)

Point is, this study that Newsweek published, with the magazine cover, Is Your Baby Racist, talked about 100 white kids ages 5-7, who said that black kids were meaner than white kids.

Now, why does that make these kids racist? Can it be that black kids are meaner than white kids? Because black kids have been taught to be very prickly, to see offense everywhere, etc. etc.?

But, no. 100 kids say black kids are meaner than white kids, they must be racist.

Here are a few articles which show that children of different races are discplined differently...therefore they act different than other children... it is not racist to perceive differences in attitudes among different races...


This was an interesting comment to the blog question:

if u r over thirty and don't know "the switch" you are not only just "lucky" you ain't BLACK!!! haha I get chills just thinking about the switch, and unfortunately for us, it was NOT just "for show."

You can't read the above link without getting a subscription to the site, but this is interesting:

A new study shows that this generalization may be true with White children, but it is not true for Black children. The study also proves that child development research has frequently neglected cultural and ethnic distinction.

The study recruited 466 White and 100 Black families between 1987 and 1988 in Knoxville and Nashville, TN, and Bloomington, IN. The mothers of the families were interviewed at ...

First off, how can you come to any wide-reaching conclusion whatsoever when your study consists of 566 kids. Out of how many in the US. Millions and millions. And then again, 366 more white kids than black get tested...obviously things are going to be weighted/skewed a bit.

Yet these kinds of studies, with such small sample sizes, are reported as if they prove everything.

How Can This Not Be Racially Motivated????

Black kid gets on a bus full of all white people. None of them will let him sit down. Finally, he moves a bag, and sits down. The person who owns the bag starts beating up on this kid. Meanwhile, the entire bus stands up and starts cheering.

Had that been the case, the ACLU, ACORN, every African American person in the country would have been screaming racism and demanding that every kid on that bus have his identity known so he could never get a job again.

But...it was the other way around. The victim was white. The boy who beat on him was black, everyone cheering the beating was black.

So obviously, it wasn't a hate crime. It was just because the boy dared to move a bag so he could sit down, because none of the fine, upstanding kids on that bus wanted to let him sit next to them.


Pay your d*mn debt!

I'm watching Sports Center on ESPN, and every commercial break there's a commercial for some company saying, "If you've got $10,000 in debt you've got a right to reduce that debt." And there's footage of Obama looking back and forth between his teleprompters.

Here's what annoys me.

Lots of people have $10,000 in debt, and they're paying their bills on time. Why should *they* have to pay their bills, when other people who *can't* pay their debt, are allowed to "settle" their debt for pennies on the dollar?

I bet plenty of people who are perfectly able to settle their debts on their own are now calling up these companies in order to get this deal for themselves. Why shouldn't they?

I've often considered calling up these people and saying, "Hey, I don't have any credit card debt right now, but if you'll send me one, I'll rack up $10,000 worth of charges, and then settle it." And of course the merchants who accepted my "promise of payment' which is what a purchase on credit is, will be out of luck....and pretty soon out of business.

One of many annoying things about these commercials is the presence of Obama in them. Of course there's the "small print" saying, "This is a dramatization. Obama isn't necessarily endorsing this" but what do most people see? President Obama saying, "Sure, just because you incurred this debt doesn't mean you have to pay it. It's not your fault. You've been squeezed by the big, bad, racist credit card companies, and I"m doing somethign about it by makign it so you don't have to pay for anything you purchased, or return it even though you can't pay for it!)

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Boycott Newsweek for its cover: Is Your Baby Racist?

I am reminded of a court case from a few years ago. A white couple wanted to adopt a black baby, but I think it was the ACLU or maybe ACORN that filed a lawsuit to prevent it. "Black children should be raised by black parents. They want to look up at their parents and see people who look just like them." I paraphrase, but that's the gist.

Now we get this piece of garbage:

Newsweek could have had a baby from each race, with that question, but no, only white people can be racist, eh?

And its offensive of course just as the bible is offensive in saying that babies are born sinners. Yeah, right.

Kids become familiar with their parents, and some react badly to strangers or to those who look different. Regardless of their race. Period, end of story. (After all, I suppose a baby can look at its arms, and see they're white or brown or black, and expect to see that same coloring in their caregivers, eh?)

I am so sick of "racism". It should be the "R-word" just like the "N-word." It is trotted out to end all discusson. Accuse someone of being a racist, and discussion over. They now must spend the rest of their lives defending themselves from that charge. If they're white, of course. If they're any other color...they get a free pass.

(As for example Shaquille O'Neal and his "mocking" of Yao Ming. Not that I thought that was anything for the Asian community to get in a fuss about, neverthless, it was water off a duck's back. Shaquille's black, he can't be racist.

Geoffrey Holder did indeed speak the truth when he said America was "afraid" to talk about racism. If only because whites aren't allowed to talk about the racism of others, the hate crimes of others. Didn't Professor Gates own mother "hate white people." Isn't that racist?

Racism afflicts every race. Otherwise, there wouldn't be genocidal warfare in the Sudan, in Kenya, in Somalia, etc. etc. and etc.