Comments on: The White Racial Frame: A Reprise

By: racismreview.com » Blog Archive » Disappointing, Incomplete ‘Primer’ on Racism

Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:27:14 +0000

[...] in The Race Card, in his ‘primer’ on race for Slate Ford ignores the research on systemic racism altogether. In case you missed any of the previous posts that Joe (or I) have done about this [...]

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Rosalind

Rosalind — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:38:48 +0000

I have been away on a camping trip since Thursday and just got reconnected to the internet. I see that I’ve been addressed in some posts with some questions and will respond once I’ve had time to catch up.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Darin Johnson

Darin Johnson — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:33:21 +0000

Wait, okay, let’s do this. Kristen, why don’t you choose a couple papers or posts you think will be particularly interesting or persuasive, I’ll read them, and then we’ll discuss.
.
Fair enough?

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Mom@Darin

Mom@Darin — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:45:07 +0000

WOW Darin you’re a trip!!LOL

I did some research into the background of Joe, and I have to say, that I’m surprised that he would allow such nasty remarks from his scholars such as “stupid, gnat brain, twilight zone, etc” to be posted on this blog that he and Jesse created..Does not look good for the welfare of this site…

I’ve got to go, but I would think that there are some states that are more inclined to be more prejudice then other state, especially, the southern part of our country…I know this to be true, because as mentioned before, I’m going through some legal stuff because of discrimination of national origin…We don’t have any organizations out there to help us..All we can do is hire a civil rights attorney…Thanks, Mom

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Darin Johnson

Darin Johnson — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:08:15 +0000

Kristen, Wow.
.
I’ll be careful not to set myself up as some being too heroic, but I suspect, Kristen, that you’re not used to being challenged. Why else would you be so bothered by this? I’m not being belligerent. We obviously disagree profoundly, and I haven’t tried to hide that fact, but then neither have you.
.
I have to say, I’m a little disappointed. But I’m not too surprised. This website is an echo chamber. You all think the same things, you all say the same things, you all have exactly the same assumptions. And you’re apparently not used to talking to somebody (me) who does not share those assumptions. Maybe I’m just as guilty as you, but there’s an important difference. My view (i.e., not sharing the assumptions) is much more widely held. In other words, you’re going to have to find a way to deal with people who don’t start in exactly the same place you do if you ever want to convince them. Maybe you don’t care about that.
.
Best wishes, Darin

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Kristen

Kristen — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:53:05 +0000

Darin,
I did indeed follow the links you sent, and I know what The Bell Curve says. This all started from a discussion of documented actions carried out by people that create and exacerbate racial disparities. Your argument that IQ of all things must be the missing factor in why white vocational training program graduates experienced better outcomes was utterly preposterous (we are talking about construction workers and electricians here), but for some reason I and others entertained the notion and explained the research more and offered you some credible information on race and genetics. You dismiss an entire body of sound research on institutional processes that solidify racial inequalities because you don’t believe it to be “real” science. But, as I mentioned in my last post, you are not a good candidate to decide what is sound research and what is not. You have not studied these issues in-depth; you have located a couple scholars and bloggers who support your point of view. You are not on solid footing here. Unless something changes, I will not be engaging with you on this site anymore.
~
I now exit this thread and call up Joe’s comment in post #16:

Darin, the questions you have raised are too much for this comments column, but I think if you read half the expert research posts on this blog, you will begin to see that you are looking at the world from a centuries-old white racial frame. There is a huge amount of evidence here refuting your major points. Do Consider stepping back and thinking critically about how you, and most of us, have been brainwashed over the years to see the world just from that old white racial frame.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Mom

Mom — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:05:23 +0000

I have a question…First I will go out and do some reading, regarding the books that were mentioned.

However, my question are certain parts of the country more racist then others?

@Nquest” There is such a thing as intellectual intelligence, and then there is such thing as emotional intelligence..I may not understand on a scholar level of thinking about what’s being discussed, but I sure know the personal attacks that you make at other commentator’s indicate the level of emotional intelligence that you have or maybe the negative feelings that you have about yourself. Please explain too me why do you feel the need to be so nasty to everybody…I am certain that face to face you would not be…This is not condescending, just observation, of how you talk and treat people in general…

However, would you someone please answer the question…Thanks, MOM

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Nquest

Nquest — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:54:01 +0000

CORRECTION:
“… and [want] to play blindfolds…”

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Nquest

Nquest — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:52:39 +0000

PS. I agree with smoke.a.newport that you owe MOM an apology.
>
So. You and everybody else here can agree and say I owe MOM an apology. Matter of fact, take your own little poll and list all the people who agree with you and smoke.a.newport then see what my response is.
>
Obviously you feel like what you think (or what smoke.a.newport thinks) is important to me. That’s your first mistake.
>
Regardless, for the record, when MOM can be so dishonest as to represent herself as “a single WHITE parent” before she and I had an exchanged but then start to represent herself as “a true Native American Indian” once we began our exchange…. you, MOM and smoke.a.newport have another thing coming, talking out your anus saying I owe MOM an apology. And that’s just for the record…
>
This is too:
>
MOM, I find your words to Nquest rather condescending.
>
Given how MOM and none of her would-be surrogates/supporters even acknowledge that… and won’t to play blindfolds when it comes to MOM at first claiming to be “a single WHITE parent” then changing her identity and claiming she’s “a true Native American Indian” and never reconciling/explaining the two apparently contradictory statements she made… Well, like I said, ya’ll got another thing coming.
>
PS: Go ahead, be my guest, tell me what things Black kids should do when “Whitey” tells them.
>
It’s.not.that.hard.

Like or Dislike: 0 0

By: Darin Johnson

Darin Johnson — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:31:18 +0000

Kristen, if you weren’t talking to me, then I’ll accept that. Where we clearly disagree is over the idea that “racism studies” could ever be a field of its own, independent of sociology, biology, economics, and so on. I don’t believe it can in this sense: if the “real” science, the one that does not start from the premise that racism is the be-all, end-all of life in America, disagrees with “racism studies,” then the “real” science is almost surely right.
.
We’re not going to agree on this IQ question. That’s okay, because it’s not very central to my point. I’m just say that I’ve heard more refutations of The Bell Curve from people who have obviously not read it than I care to count. Even your own criticism of it suggests you don’t quite know what the book actually says.
.
I admit that I am not familiar with Rushton. What you say may be true. I chose that link only because it’s an article in Psychological Science — a peer-reviewed, scientific journal — that acknowledges this IQ gap we were talking about. I’m not trying to hang my hat on the author’s name.
.
I think if you’re honest, you’ll admit that you’re not really challenging your “racism matters a lot” premise at this point. You didn’t really read the links I sent you, for example, and I didn’t really expect you to. But it’s that one extra premise that’s really the heart of the disagreement.
.
I will make only one more suggestion. We seem to have gotten to the point where we’re both saying that the other has been duped — you said it explicitly, and in case I wasn’t clear, I think the same about you. (Obviously, we’ll both just have to not take offense at that idea. At least you think I was tricked, not just too stupid to understand the truth!) Here’s a point for you to file away for future consideration: I’m coming to this debate with one fewer premise than you are. You say “racism matters,” I say, “I don’t know if it matters or not.” If I’m honest, I will admit that I don’t think it matters from a macro perspective — obviously it can matter very much from a personal perspective. But in terms of our debate, I seem to be the one with fewer assumptions. In Bayesian terms, I believe I’ve chosen a less-informative prior. Is that fair?
.
I suppose that’s why I’m completely unimpressed by the scholarship you talk about here. I don’t think it’s real scholarship, I think it’s advocacy. I think it’s people who have an ax to grind going about grinding it with a little science-sauce to make it more convincing. I will admit here and now that this assessment is based only on the conversation I’ve had here and my experiences with similar single-issue groups elsewhere. It could turn out that the Racism Review Blog is full of top-notch science and I just missed it. But I doubt it.

Like or Dislike: 0 0