14 comments

• 

  John K.

  1 year ago

  The race riots at Jordan and other schools in the last few years simply underscores MacDonald's premise: when push comes to shove, race matters.
  It always has, and always will, no matter how many liberals who live away from the neighborhoods in turmoil would like to dream otherwise.
  The author of this piece makes the same amateur mistakes most journalists make when reviewing scientific ideas that are over their heads, but not their "morality."
  That is, it doesn't matter if a fact is good or bad to think about. What matters is if it's true.
  If MacDonald's criteria is proven as false, nothing else matters. If some or all of it's true, he's only relevant insofar as his conclusions are correct.
  We don't need journalist cheerleader's trying to shame people into their political slant while standing on the intellectual sidelines, much less, as this author is trying to do, shame people for not feeling shame.
  reply
• 

  Kelson

  1 year ago

  Separate from your points, let me begin by noting that "criteria" is plural.
  The "scientific" ideas put forward by MacDonald have already been shown to be completely bogus, and the race riots at Jordan do not prove his premise. One only need look at the extent to which race underscores rioting and violence in other countries. The fact is that nationalism and nativism is the only thing that matters. Race is the artificial construct used to justify nationalism and nativism. There's nothing scientific about it.
  reply
• 

  John K.

  1 year ago

  Kelson, as long as we're correcting papers, disproving an argument requires more than simply saying, "no it's not."
  I'm sorry you were overwhelmed, but when that happens, you should simply not speak.
  Just my advice.
  reply
• 

  Kelson

  1 year ago

  Gosh, and I thought that the onus was on those who should be *proving* their hypotheses. Peacful race relations in a zillion other countries already disprove the argument that race matters. And it turns out that race cannot matter, because it is a totally artificial concept. Only bigoted nationalistic zeal matters. But you can keep on being sorry that I'm overwhelmed. It's only because I actually have a job, writing scientific papers.
  reply
• 

  wswaim

  1 year ago

  Of course race matters, but there's ample evidence we can choose to transcend and include it as a matter of fact among many other facts (gender, hair color, ideology, whatever). Civilization is about choices; because of civilizing influences, we don't shit where we eat, no matter how compelling that might seem to some; because of civilizing influences, we choose democracy rather than tribal rule. Similarly we can choose--as a civilization--to transcend race and ethnicity. My English ancestors did it when they decided, somehow, that maybe the Welsh and Scottish were OK--transcending a barrier which seemed then insuperable. French Catholics and Protestants did it, too--likewise deciding that maybe getting along was better than killing for what seemed like obvious reasons. There's no European monolith; the impression MacDonald gives that there might be ignores about 3000 years of violence among Europeans.
  
  Sorry that John K. thinks I'm liberal or that I don't understand the science in MacDonald's work; I'm not and I do. John does nothing to support these assumptions, and I find it weirdly ironic--funny, really--he'd make them while arguing that I don't understand the scientific method. I can't find a place in the essay where I argue that a fact is true but bad to think about; I challenge John K. to find the place I do.
  
  The article, in the end, isn't about MacDonald's arguments, however--that's been dealt with by his peers who, almost to a person, dismiss it as non-science. My story was about something else: the bizarre non-response on a college campus--when college campuses (liberals and conservatives say) are supposed to erupt over this stuff. That this one didn't is, for me, a fascinating story.
  reply
• 

  John K.

  1 year ago

  Kelson Believes:
  "Peacful race relations in a zillion other countries already disprove the argument that race matters."
  
  
  I think the above remark underlines, more than anything, that not only race, but mental stability... matters. Since I believe, owing to the above remark and others, that you've got a "screw loose," I'm not inclined to respond to you further. I might, but it's not likely.
  reply
• 

  John K.

  1 year ago

  "Of course race matters, but there’s ample evidence we can choose to transcend and include it as a matter of fact among many other facts (gender, hair color, ideology, whatever). Civilization is about choices; because of civilizing influences, we don’t shit where we eat, no matter how compelling that might seem to some; because of civilizing influences, we choose democracy rather than tribal rule. Similarly we can choose–as a civilization–to transcend race and ethnicity. My English ancestors did it when they decided, somehow, that maybe the Welsh and Scottish were OK–transcending a barrier which seemed then insuperable. French Catholics and Protestants did it, too–likewise deciding that maybe getting along was better than killing for what seemed like obvious reasons. There’s no European monolith; the impression MacDonald gives that there might be ignores about 3000 years of violence among Europeans."
  
  I agree with most of this, believe it or not. However, I believe as long as people lie to "save face" for themselves, or for others, we will waste a lot of time and lives sorting out this ideal regarding how human beings relate to each other.
  Some people believe there is no such thing as race, that the NBA is full of a lot of lucky black people, that the 100 meter is, and always has been won by nothing but lucky black people, and that sickle cell anemia is suffered by nothing but... unlucky black people. But other than to identify luck, race doesn't matter, and where you're originally from means nothing genetically.
  By the way, you seem to be fixated on the idea that violence means failure, and that if western europeans resort to violence, then they are qualitively on social parity with a group of head hunters in the Congo.
  I don't mark scores that way.
  The measure of an advanced society is what they ultimately create, and the western europeans have done very well for themselves by that measure.
  Other races have not.
  I understood what your article was about, addressed it, and you carry on as if I hadn't.
  You're "fascinated" that students don't automatically rise up in brainless outrage when someone says that race may make a much larger difference in how coutries are grown than many liberals (and some conservatives) might feel comfortable thinking about.
  I think that says that the students may actually be learning how to think, rather that repeating what others think, or at least view such theories less passionately, and thoughtfully.
  Next thing you know, they might start questioning newspaper journalists!
  reply
• 

  Lady Madonna

  1 year ago

  Dr. Kevin MacDonald is an embarrassment to CSULB. His existence as a tenured professor makes our school look like our bar for hate speech is rather low. In this climate of school violence and rape culture, his contributions of racism perpetuate and add to the already dangerous campus life for all minorities. All research is biased, there is no excuse for "looking for" inequalities in humans nor in his overt demonization and Othering.
  reply
• 

  wswaim

  1 year ago

  John K: I carry on "as if" you didn't understand my story because you didn't understand it. Take a look at your first post: you claim, without any evidence, that I don't like the scientific conclusions of MacDonald's writings because I don't understand science. Your most recent post concedes that, in fact, my story is about the non-response of students. Those are two very different theses. I wrote only one of them.
  
  ON that latter point (the non-response): I'm with you, and I wish I'd made that clearer: I say that students don't regard MacDonald seriously. That seems very thoughtful indeed.
  
  You ever read Ken Wilber, the philosopher? You might enjoy him.
  reply
• 

  wswaim

  1 year ago

  One other thing, John: I don't understand this line in your comment:
  
  "By the way, you seem to be fixated on the idea that violence means failure, and that if western europeans resort to violence, then they are qualitively on social parity with a group of head hunters in the Congo."
  
  I don't see that in anything I wrote. I certainly don't think that. I meant--and still think I said this clearly--that European civilization is influential and powerful precisely because it managed to transcend and include differences (of race, ethnicity, and--starting in the Renaissance--even gender, and then religion) so that Europeans could get on with the business of making a difference in the material world. That shift in consciousness--from peasants into Frenchman, one scholar called it in the case of France--is huge, and may account for the material progress of Europe. In that regard, I see violence as stupid, sure: the more violent a community, the less time it has for the creation of wealth. And wealth is better than poverty.
  reply
• 

  Gustavo Arellano

  1 year ago

  John K. is not only an idiot, he's an inaccurate idiot. "Black people" domination of the 100-meter dash is a relatively recent phenomenon in the sport: as recently as the 1960s, two white men--a German and a South African--were the world record-holders in the event. And who is dominating the 100-meter dash in the Paraplegic Games in such a manner that the IOC won't allow him to compete in the regular Olympic games? A white man. As for his NBA crack--John K. has obviously never seen UCLA's Kevin Love in action.
  reply
• 

  John K.

  1 year ago

  "I don’t see that in anything I wrote. I certainly don’t think that. I meant–and still think I said this clearly–that European civilization is influential and powerful precisely because it managed to transcend and include differences (of race, ethnicity, and–starting in the Renaissance–even gender, and then religion)"
  
  Since racially based slavery is in full effect today, I can't disagree with your premise.
  My assertion that you don't understand the science of what you're dismissing might be because you don't account for racial IQ, and what that means when trying to establish a democracy. You also go on about Hitler very subjectively, while I don't.
  There was nothing particularly special about Hitler. He was what I'd call a classic warrior, and simply did what other warriors from long ago, some famous, did as a matter of course.
  What really is immature in your concern is the fact that you are flummoxed that students aren't attacking the professor with your brand of dogma.
  To me, it's not a matter of if it's right or wrong to discuss alleged Jewish clan behavior, or how it might have affected a response from Germans before WWII. The only proper response to his assertions is, "is he right?"
  Not "it's terrible to consider such things," because... that's irrational, and stupid.
  I think it's a good sign that students aren't responding as you would have liked. To me, it may indicate that they aren't hypervigilant about towing the liberal line, and an original, unemotional, unbiased thought might have some room to sneak in their young heads.
  That's right. Not screaming at anyone who might posit the notion that the jews were anything but hapless victims in the world in all important aspects of their history is a sign of emotional mental health.
  If you don't think the Jews can be clannish, that they can't impose their agenda in any meaningful way in other countries, fine.
  Make your case, the professor can make his, and people can decide.
  Simply being amazed that students don't particularly share your emotional view on a matter isn't helping you to think any more clearly. It's keeping you right were you are, basting in your limited methods of discovery.
  reply
• 

  John K.

  1 year ago

  "Since racially based slavery is in full effect today, I can’t disagree with your premise."
  
  I mistyped. Meant to say I can't agree.
  reply
• 

  Kelson

  1 year ago

  When White People are clannish and impose agendas in meaningful ways, we don't usually attribute this to race.
  
  I'll start doing so immediately. Thank you for clearing this up for me.
  reply