Monday, March 01, 2010

Science at its finest

According to a popular textbook on race and ethnicity by Joseph F. Healey, 62% of white Americans are racists, meaning people who harbor hostile feelings toward minority groups. He concludes this based on General Social Survey (GSS) data which indicate that 50% of whites believe that blacks are poorer than other groups because they are not trying hard enough, plus the 12% who feel that blacks are less intelligent. The latter answer is a measure of traditional racism, while the former is the modern, covert type. Both are ways that whites express the hostility they have for minorities.

It's strange that these race scholars choose the "reason for poverty" question as a measure of hostility. Why not use the GSS question that actually inquires abouts one's feelings?

GSS respondents were asked, "In general, how warm or cool do you feel towards African Americans?" Answer-choices range from "very warm" (1) to "very cool" (9).  

The problem with this question is that only 1.2% of whites answered "very cool." That's not nearly enough white racists to warrant calling America a racist country. Well, maybe a 7 or 8 indicates a dislike of blacks too. 2.1% gave a 7 and 0.6% gave an 8, giving a grand total of 3.9%. Heck, let's be generous and say those who gave a middle-of-the-road six are haters too. Add 3% to 3.9%, and you're still left with an uninspiring 6.9% of whites being bigots.  

I can see why sociologists stick with the "reasons for poverty" question. Because they're impartial scientists, I mean.


  1. So for black respondents to the GSS what is their reason that blacks lag? Because if blacks agree, are they racists, too. Or do sociologists blame whites for blacks agreeing with them?

  2. Okay, it still bugs me. What about the reasons why some whites are in poverty? What do whites say to that? If whites think people, not just blacks, are poor because they aren't working hard enough, then where is the racism?

  3. Anonymous3:54 PM

    The primary reason for black poverty can be traced to white liberals.

    White liberals deliberately (my opinion) ruined the black family by their missionaryesque zeal to sign black women up for welfare benefits in the 1960's and 1970's. Black women no longer needed black men to have 1)babies, 2)food, 3)shelter. Liberal social programs replaced men's role in providing these for women.*****

    Fathers are the conduit of culture. If you remove fathers, you can replace the patriarichal religous culture of a group with a "new" culture as injected via educatorial-propaganda and the entertainment media.

    The black out-of-wedlock birthrate was roughly 25% before white liberal social workers went about black neighborhoods signing up black women on various entitlements. Its now just south of 70%. Remove fathers, remove the church-going/values-laden patriarichal culture, insert matriarichal culture. The next generation's girls choose to mate with not provider "good guy" males, but exciting "bad boy" males that they aren't even married to and sometimes not even really dating. Two generations down the line, look at the young black males we usually have now. They are quite different than their grandfathers. Look at the young black females we have now, quite a bit different than their grandmothers.%%

    When blacks in the ensuing generations don't do all that well financially or legally, nobody points the blame back at the people who intentionally destroyed the black family. One other very Machivallian-tactic was employed against blacks by the left, and it was borne of simply over-indulging them, and that was in employment "discrimination" lawsuits. Making blacks hard-to-fire when they underperformed (and instilling a ton of entitlement mentaility within them on purpose), eventually made them expensive to employ because of lawsuits and aggressive litigious attitudes coaxed into them. Many production jobs fled to the rural south, west, and overseas. They were fleeing litigation-prone employees as much as they were unions. We have one black employee at our company who although personally likeable, has successfully sued the company three times. His wife has sued the company once, and his brother yet one more time. He's about an "average" employee, and has generally done as we have instructed him to. Nevertheless, the three of them have cost us about a quater of a million in compensation/court costs/associated costs. We have one employee in particular that HR has told me has cost the company over $700K in lawsuits. And blacks wonder why employers so eagerly choose to employ little Mexicans over them? Mexicans that hardly ever "talk back" or tell you how you should operate? Whats a shame is that the 85-90% profitable black employees get collectively tarred-and-feathered by the actions of a few, but nevertheless that element is indeed still there.

    Sociology professors dont have to run a business and make a profit. Our global competition does not have to deal with such externalities (China, India, Russia). The white out-of-wedlock birthrate is climbing, and the white underclass mores might become more like the black underclass mores as a result eventually. I hope we can hit the brakes on these trends, but some laws need changing for that to happen.

    **** Anybody else notice the complete lack of shame at the grocery store people who are paying with foodstamps have these days? Especially if they are women! Its outrageous to see some "ho" with both her child and boyfriend (no rings on fingers, must not be married) gleefully telling the clerk she is paying with "stamps" with no hint of embarrassment at all.


Meta-analysis of clinical trials: Eat walnuts

I am always looking for easy eating choices that are good for you. This new meta-analysis of 26 clinical trials looked to see if walnuts ma...