Special pleading by cherry picking special ed spending.
[
](The Troubling Link Between School Funding and Race - The Atlantic)
And from your cite:
Socio-economically disadvantaged students are more likely to qualify for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) as well has have more barriers to success.
Nothing here says that “crackers are smarter than them negros”
Once again you are cherry picking stats to fit your pre-existing biases and ignoring the complexities that are involved.
Here is a more accessable cite, that will demonstrate some of the complexities.
But also note this little gem, that helps hide some of the numbers in the more urban areas.
And note that 1-2% spending difference that ignores the 10% of students that are in private or charter schools, which are far more likely to be white and/or high income.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgc.asp
But it does work well for cooking the books if you want to distill into a single set of digits to justify your racism.
For those who actually care about data.
Here is the most comprehensive study to date but note.
"Taken together, the 74 genetic variants explain roughly half of 1% of the variation across individuals in educational attainment”
Also the general consensus from the palaeoanthropologist field is that average intelligence probably hasn’t changed much for 100,000 years, or before we left Africa mostly due to the challenges of novel mutations gaining foot with a larger population base.
Studies have also shown that:
“If you are genetically predisposed to have a lot of education, you are also predisposed to have fewer children.”
I know this will be lost when arguing with someone who’s position is based on having a non-defined elite group, but in general we should consider our relatives for the past 100K years to be our intellectual equals.
In fact there is some evidence that this is leading to a general reduction in “IQ” over the decades.
So what? *Abstract *art started in Africa, way before Europe.
And you’re completely ignorant of how unstudied Africa is vs Europe, from an archaeology standpoint, if you think this point means anything.
Yes, we’ve had several threads on how colonialism retarded African progress. Nice of you to remind us of the innate savagery of Europeans once again.
Oh, it’s not innate, you say? Gosh, imagine that…
So are you arguing all forms of colonialism are the same, now? What happened to the gentle Indian paternalsim of your racist fuckstick predecessor Mills?
Which easily gives the lie to anyone arguing that SJWs are in charge.
And only one woman has ever won it. Is that because women are also just inferior to men in intelligence. Or, you know, other reasons, same as the dearth of Black mathematicians.
Naah, it makes perfect sense - as long as you’re not starting with racism and working backwards. Which, of course, excludes a dumb fuck like you.
It’s not part of Eurasia, either, so what’s your point?
At last I see your actual intellectual problem* - you have no fucking clue how to distinguish cause and effect in that D-K rattlebox you call a brain, do you, you poor simpleton? It all makes sense now. Disdain is now ever so slightly tinged with pity.
Nonsense. Nobody is claiming (at least, I’m not and I didn’t see any evidence that rat avatar or any other poster here is either) that there is no biological basis for any shared physical characteristics.
But to try to extrapolate from that any consistent biological basis for superficial “racial” categories is bullshit. It is well established that two people who look “racially” dissimilar can nonetheless be more closely related genetically to each other than to people who look more “racially” similar to them. If there is no reliable correlation between superficially defined racial category and closeness of genetic relationship, then there’s no biological basis for race.
What part of that do you have a problem with?
Well, you are maintaining that racial-group differences in IQ test scores are at least partly caused by genetic differences. And Native Americans have lower average IQ test scores than whites/Europeans, as do Australian aboriginal people and Inuits.
So, given that you’re claiming that climate challenges and distance traversed are primary drivers of selection for intelligence among prehistoric peoples, what’s your explanation of why, say, Australian aborigines and Native Americans don’t have the highest IQ levels?
The “Africans/Blacks never invented/did ‘x’…” Is one of the oldest circulating internet racist rallying cries.
With a little sleuthing you can find entire lists developed of supposedly “proof of black inferiority” talking points that were collected and disseminated by internet hate groups to use as propaganda. I’m sure many people (right here on the SDMB) are familiar with new members arriving on this board only to preach “blacks never”… invented the wheel, or written language, or math, or boats, etc. -I’m reluctant to even link to such trash, but you can find alt-right youtubers making these exact claims, no doubt, after being exposed to them via internet hate groups.-
Why do this? I think the value of making these claims comes from common shared ignorance of Africa and its ultimate goal is to use your own ignorance against you. I can make 100 claims on the life cycle of the nematode but how many are equipt to challenge them? The fact of the matter is we are all ignorant of both Africans and the African continent (we are so ignorant that we often cannot refer to the place/people as anything but “Africa” and not as any smaller individualized pieces of that whole). However if you do try to fight the claims with reason and facts the conversation almost always goes like this:
Racialist: African/Blacks never did ‘x’
Anti-Racialist: Here’s an example of ‘x’ in Africa
Racialist 1: That is not a true/complex enough example of ‘x’
Racialist 2: Those are not true blacks/Africans.
Racialist 3: Those were done by non-locals (Arabs/Europeans/Asians) traders/invaders/colonizers.
Racialist 4: ‘x’ was done by Arabs/Europeans/Asians first! Africans came well after.
If you take a different route and ask why is ‘x’ being used as the key for black/African inferiority. The answer often is that there is nothing special about ‘x,’ it just represents a wider pattern of dysfunction/inferiority; thus the ‘x’ gold standard can be dropped and exchanged for the ‘y’ gold standard (and the ‘z’ one after that…) at the drop of a hat. This is why giving facts and debunking their claims rarely lead to fruitful exchanges.
Any example of black/African non-excellence is the gold standard of black/African inferiority.
No matter how often you show that, yes, one can find plenty examples of African art, language, religion, cities, technology, sea travel, farming, trading, infrastructure, etc… It does not matter. A racialist just changes that nebulous goal post to be something esoteric like
Odd eh? Not if you have racialist beliefs that need defending. Any fig leaf will do for this task. Any fig leaf must do.
David Reich absolutely should be tone deaf when he is discussing his views on a subject about which few people know more than he does. When this subject gets raised, it’s people like David Reich who we should turn to, and who should feel free to speak up honestly. But they seldom do, because there is no chance they won’t be accused of being “tone deaf” and of defending racism. I’ll bet Reich wouldn’t have stuck his head over the parapet this time either if it wasn’t for the fact that he had just written a book on the subject.
And that Buzzfeed article is pretty weak sauce.
First of all, it’s Buzzfeed. Why didn’t the NYT print the letter? I understand they were given the opportunity, but declined. I can’t imagine they did so because they thought that their readership would not be receptive to the content, or that they didn’t want to get embroiled in a controversy. Media outlets love controversy; I’ll bet Ezra Klein is still high-fiving the other Vox editors over how much attention they’ve gotten over this whole episode.
Secondly, the letter is signed by 67 researchers that apparently don’t do a hell of a lot of research in the field of genetics. So where do they get off telling a prominent geneticist what he is or is not allowed to say about genetics research? Where are the rest of the 139 geneticists that came out against Nicholas Wade? If what Reich wrote is so off-base, maybe these geneticists are the ones who should be writing a letter.
Reich wrote this in response to critics:
“Race” is fundamentally a social category — not a biological one — as anthropologists have shown.
So great; we can all agree about something.
He then goes into the nuances, which make great reading, and than concludes with this:
In short, I think everyone can understand that very modest differences across human population in the genetic influences on behavior and cognition are to be expected. And I think everyone can understand that even if we do not yet have any idea about what the differences are, we do not need to be worried about what we will find because we can already be sure that any differences will be small (far smaller than those among individuals).
This is a key point. We are talking about differences that are probably so small that they only have symbolic meaning. But therein lies the entire conflict. To accept that there may be any difference at all is to feed our tribal inclinations, but to to deny any difference at all is to stifle our intellect.
There’s lots of people out there (few of them specialists in the field) advocating that we can and should already accept that black people are inherently inferior on average, intellectually speaking, due to genetics, with very spare and entirely indirect (and entirely non-genetic) evidence for, and ignoring direct evidence against. It’s entirely appropriate that such folks be harshly criticized and challenged. That’s not just any old claim – that’s a claim that’s justified some of the worst atrocities in human history. To make such a claim without even halfway decent evidence, much less rock-solid proof, is wholly irresponsible and absolutely must be challenged.
Again Reich is telling us that people like Murray are racists and have no leg to stand on for their racist solutions. Specially when the differences of intelligence among the “races” will be small indeed.
Please check the title of this thread. It may had been an interesting conversation, but for Sam falling for the pretty talk of the racists.
And then there is the sad spectacle of you thinking that Reich was helpful to defend the indefensible.
Probably not as many as you imagine, but still too many. They can go fuck themselves.
But…
“To make such a claim without even halfway decent evidence, much less rock-solid proof, is wholly irresponsible and absolutely must be challenged.”
I would ask that this standard be applied to anyone who calls someone a racist. For better or worse, that’s a fighting word.
It is a descriptive term, that has implications that should cause pause in those who subscribe to it. You are handwaving away the fact that the field does uses scientifically relevant terms, which race is not.
If you subscribe to the belief that race is a valid scientific description to group people into biological groupings you are a “racist” “Racist” is a spectrum, but what is being arguing for here is not different than the tired old “Teach the Controversy” model for ID.
If you are arguing that is not the fact, please provide evidence that “race” is a useful biological term, and that the groupings based on biological traits are not addressed by more modern and precise terms (like clade) which do not hold the intentional meaning and avoid confusion with the very real, modern implications of the social impact of “race”.
One has to be seriously tone deaf, ignorant, or have other motives to not realize this.
So says the one that wilfully ignores that the racist OP put this on the pit to avoid having to “suffer” that coming from moderators too.
And again, Reich has no trouble on telling us that guys like Murray are racists.
If you’re saying that calling someone racist by mistake is within the same moral universe, much less ball park, as actually saying or doing something that’s racist, I’ll heartily disagree.
If you’re just asking people not to throw around that accusation willy nilly, then I’m fine with that, but I think that’s much less common than the right’s complaints would suggest.
If we were talking about burning crosses, then I would heartily agree with your disagreement. That’s not the case. We are talking about subtle things that only the accusers seem to be able to perceive.
Given the social and moral consequences of being shamed as a racist, what fate would you choose for yourself?
Holding the possibility that there may be measurable innate intelligence differences between populations, eh, I wouldn’t call that view racist. Saying there are significant intelligence differences, yes, that is racist, or else the term has no meaning.
Such consequences can be powerful indeed – they might even lead to election as president of the US! [/sarcasm]
Any consequences are usually incredibly overblown.
It’s unclear whether “…and I’m sure” was a typo, and you meant not, but either way, it seems to present problems for your logic.
If the group of South Asian immigrants to the US is representative of South Asians in general, what happened to the logic of inferring something about individual intelligence from how many X a group produces (e.g. patents filed, nobel prize winners)? South Asia also underwhelms per capita. And why in fact, according to your logic where IQ tests are broadly accurate, does the country do so poorly on such tests?
And again, it’s funny if south asians are now allowed to be considered among the smart groups, as it is so recent that, in the West, they were depicted as simpletons. Even now, the book Camp of the Saints gets a lot of mentions on FOX.
If you mean the group is *not *representative, then it undercuts a lot of what you’re saying. Yeah, a group of people who largely came to the US on a (skilled) work or study visa, or are the children of people that did, may well contain a higher proportion of intelligent people than just a random sampling of a big population. I’d love to compare, say, recent African immigrants on work or study visas to a random sampling of whites.
And this is ignoring the elephant in the room that those recent immigrants are going to be disproportionately from the wealthier tiers of their societies, whereas blacks in America was mandated to the lowest tier until just a couple generations ago (and it’s a country with appalling social mobility).
Finally, again, all this was asked in the context of me asking you what predictions your hypothesis makes.
It’s not enough to say (not a quote) “That these groups I think are smart, would be smart” because that’s a premise you’re starting with, not a prediction. I think your hypothesis has clear implications about what we should find with regard to intelligent individuals in Africa, but you’re retreating from saying anything, because it would just lay more weight on the side of your hypothesis being a pile of shite.
“For better or worse”? Is there any question as to which it is?
The segment of society that benefits from historical and institutional racism has pulled a clever trick. Sixty or so years ago, the ruling class openly embraced racist principles. Then the civil rights movement started making huge progress.
That progress has been slowed down in a very interesting way—the ruling class has found a way to avoid giving up its racism-based advantages by outwardly disavowing racism and also punishing anyone who tries to identify racism in society. And most of them have also managed to persuade themselves that they are themselves uncontaminated by any stain of racism. And all this while racism is still one of the most apparent features of our societal structure.
It’s certainly a masterstroke of propaganda, demagoguery, and double-think.