# New Deal Democrat and his views on race **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 21, 2011, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492 "2011-03-21T18:47:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/81 "2011-03-22T17:27:54Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > The link that I gave you was right about Djibouti and Burkina Faso, probably wrong about most of the others, and certainly wrong about Kenya and Somalia. The authority I trust most on this is the State Department… Again with the fucking travel advisories. I thought you said (and I would agree): > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by **NDD** > The murder rate is a good way of estimating the entire crime rate because murders are more likely to come to the attention of the police. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/82 "2011-03-22T17:28:42Z")
Meh. Another unabashed “scientific” racist more or less isn’t going to affect my enjoyment of the 'Dope. I’ll avoid this idiot like I avoid **Chen** and \*\*Pedant \*\*now. It helps that he’s shown his idiocy by repeating such easy-to-refute crap like “Whites invented agriculture” and “Blacks didn’t have cities” and the like. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/83 "2011-03-22T17:29:14Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > I think we should evaluate individuals as individuals, rather than as members of a race. I do not think we should discriminate on the basis of race _alone_, > but that it is legitimate to discriminate on the basis of what correlates with race, when those qualities are relevant. I don’t believe that “race” is a scientifically rigorous concept to begin with (nod to **Sailboat** ), but even if I did–and further accepted that races had clear _average_ tendencies–how could that be applied _except_ by evaluating individuals “as members of a race”? ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/84 "2011-03-22T17:31:01Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > You can be sure of it all you like; that doesn’t mean it’s true. > [@Sailboat](#): > > So what? It’s not going to happen in either case. “Race” doesn’t consistently exist for this kind of “science” to prove things _about_. Just as with people who warn us of gravity’s impending reversal, the correct answer is to point at them and laugh. I think it’s possible that a cultural group of people who interbreed with their own members over the span of multiple generations might have a higher presence of certain genes than those outside that group. I guess this is sort of missing my point, however. Let’s say we define the African-American “race” as simply those people who identify themselves as belonging to it. Eminem can join the club too if he wishes. (This would reflect the current definition of “race” that is actually more similar to “culture”. But for my hypothetical purposes, this is still valid, since most people within this culture group also mate within this cultural group, thus become a “genetic group” of sorts.) Now let’s say 85% of these people who self-identify as AA have the “violence gene”, but only 15% of those who identify themselves as non-AA have this gene. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/85 "2011-03-22T17:33:21Z")
…then? ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/86 "2011-03-22T17:35:25Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > I don’t believe that “race” is a scientifically rigorous concept to begin with (nod to **Sailboat** ), but even if I did–and further accepted that races had clear _average_ tendencies–how could that be applied _except_ by evaluating individuals “as members of a race”? Is this an arguement that we should avoid scientfic studies that might find genetic differences between “races”? (With the exception of those necessary for better health/medical treatment.) ---
**Author:** ![Fuji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Fuji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuji)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/87 "2011-03-22T17:35:32Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > Race profiling is considered by many to be a reason New York City has one of the lowest crime rate of any large city. > > [http://www.morganquitno.com/cit07pop.htm#25](http://www.morganquitno.com/cit07pop.htm#25) > > [New York Crime Rates and Statistics - NeighborhoodScout](http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ny/new-york/crime/) “Race profiling” (_sic_) is considered by many to be a discriminatory practice, a violation of human rights, and ultimately ineffective in practice. > **[Racial Profiling: Definition | American Civil Liberties Union](https://www.aclu.org/documents/racial-profiling-definition)** > > Racial Profiling: Definition "Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Criminal... [http://www.amnestyusa.org/racial\_profiling/sevenfacts.html](http://www.amnestyusa.org/racial_profiling/sevenfacts.html) ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/88 "2011-03-22T17:38:20Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > The definitions of race vary. But that doesn’t mean there are no definitions. I am sure there are shared genetic features between those that identify themselves as African-American. My hypothetical suggestion is that a violence-gene or an intelligence-gene, or collection of genes, is found within these people. > > To simplify: Imagine if we found the “violence gene”. Surveying the American population finds that 15% of people who identify themselves as non-African-American have the gene. But 85% of the people who identify themselves as African-American do carry the gene. > > So WTF would you do now? Such results would clearly be meaningful - at the very least, because it would most certainly change the way society behaves and acts. How would/should we deal with such a revelation? How would you identify who was African-American? ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/89 "2011-03-22T17:42:42Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > …then? … then \*something \*will happen. My questions are posted only a few posts above this one. Only a minor amount of scrolling is required. > [@Borzo](#): > > A) What do you, NDD, think we as a society should do? You make some suggestions in your quotes above - but can you further elaborate? > > B) What do those that currently claim no such difference exists, and mock NDD for his backwards ways, suggest we do? > [@Borzo](#): > > (Some) say that this would do more harm than good. I can forsee a many closet-racists come out of the closet, and become MORE racist, and LESS likely to judge individuals based on individual merits. I’m sure we can both agree that this would be bad. > > How do you see the pros/cons upon society if this were to happen? How would you suggest we deal with it? ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/90 "2011-03-22T17:44:26Z")
> [@martu](#): > > How would you identify who was African-American? I would ask them. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/91 "2011-03-22T17:45:06Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > I suggest that nothing changes, as I will continue to form an opinion about individuals based on their individual merits. A lot changes in terms of interpreting the dearth of African-Americans in this-or-that position as being prima facie evidence of discrimination. ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/92 "2011-03-22T17:51:45Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > I would ask them. Then your data would be useless. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/93 "2011-03-22T17:55:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Just a quick note that in my years as a public defender I had more than one accused white mugger. So from here on out, if **NDD** is reading: you cannot say you’ve never heard of a white mugger. I am sure that there are white muggers. What I meant is that I have never _heard_ of one in a conversation. I have friends and relatives who have been victims of violent crime. It is always a black criminal who does it. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/94 "2011-03-22T17:55:34Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > Is this an arguement that we should avoid scientfic studies that might find genetic differences between “races”? I’m in favor of real, rigorous science exploring in every direction anybody can think of. Rigorous investigations into “race” would have to be predicated on scientifically rigorous definitions of _what that was_. Certainly we could invent definitions _based_ on genetic differences (you’re _this_ race if you have this genetic characteristic but not that one), but we could not invent rigorous definitions that would actually align with common cultural understandings of race. It’s been tried, and the more we look into it, the more complicated it becomes. Depending on which markers you choose to look at, you can divide the human species into any number of races you like. _None_ of these possible divisions lines up comfortably with anyone’s cultural understanding of what “race” is. Most of them involve grouping people who are commonly understood to be different races together and at the same time separating other people who are commonly understood to be the same race. ---
**Author:** ![orcenio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/orcenio/32/1036_2.png) [@orcenio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orcenio)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/95 "2011-03-22T17:56:38Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > What if someone has the balls to do more studies on race, genetics, and intelligence, violence, etc. And what if these studies do in fact show that African-Americans have genes that result in lower levels of intelligence and higher levels of violence? > > A) What do you, NDD, think we as a society should do? You make some suggestions in your quotes above - but can you further elaborate? > > B) What do those that currently claim no such difference exists, and mock NDD for his backwards ways, suggest we do? That’s an interesting thought experiment. I have another: What if someone has the balls to do more studies on race, genetics, and intelligence, violence, etc. And what if these studies do in fact show that White Americans have genes that result in lower levels of intelligence and higher levels of violence? And lets also say that I believe so strongly in this claim that I start hijacking threads on this message board too; randomly injecting my beliefs into every conversation that remotely has to do with: the economy, culture, politics, etc. If I’m aggressive enough I can get everybody talking about this topic regardless of the inherent lack of any genetic basis (ex. trolls are fed). If I’m “dedicated” enough I can get an entire country to consider my beliefs, no? At what point are we debating **real facts** or \*\*indulging \*\*racists in their delusions by freely disseminating their stupid, 18th century, views. I only say this cus your post really shines through to me as a good example of the **exact reason** why most people refuse to even entertain racialists. I, personally, believe that racists should be engaged in conversation, but the first step should be “show me your damn proof.” **The first step is not** to suspend your adherence to known scientific facts and engage them in racist thought experiments: “Let’s just say that Blacks are genetically…” “But what if it’s true…” Racialists don’t just engage in these thought experiments, they simply **live in them**. “show me your proof” is only annoying cus the key goal of most racists is **not** to prove their racist claims with objective facts, **but** to simply make as many unsupported, stereotyping, bigoted racist claims as possible. “Blacks are criminals!” “Blacks are retarded!” “Blacks are violent!” “Blacks are genetically prove to fucking!” “Blacks are disease ridden!” So if you choose to engage them in discussion the first rule is to keep it grounded in reality, with commonly accepted mainstream science. ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/96 "2011-03-22T17:57:37Z")
> [@martu](#): > > Then your data would be useless. I don’t believe so. I am using a cultural definition for “African-American”. Some people would lie, sure… but that’s why I’d ask thousands of them for this study. The results would be LESS ACCURATE, but there might still be enough statistical power to compare between groups. To put my hypothetical simply: _85% of the people who claim to belong to the African-American culture have the “violence gene”._ I don’t think that would be an insignificant finding. And I think it would have huge social consequences. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/97 "2011-03-22T18:03:37Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > The definitions of race vary. But that doesn’t mean there are no definitions. I am sure there are shared genetic features between those that identify themselves as African-American. My hypothetical suggestion is that a violence-gene or an intelligence-gene, or collection of genes, is found within these people. > > To simplify: Imagine if we found the “violence gene”. Surveying the American population finds that 15% of people who identify themselves as non-African-American have the gene. But 85% of the people who identify themselves as African-American do carry the gene. > > So WTF would you do now? Such results would clearly be meaningful - at the very least, because it would most certainly change the way society behaves and acts. How would/should we deal with such a revelation? If there is a genetic predisposition to engage in crime, and I am confident there is, there will not be one crime gene, but a constellation of genes. When they are discovered it will be easy to determine that most convicted felons have a large number of them, and that most people without felony convictions have few or none. It will also be possible to determine which babies are likely to become criminals, and which will be unlikely to develop that way. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/98 "2011-03-22T18:04:12Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > I don’t believe so. I am using a cultural definition for “African-American”. Some people would lie, sure… but that’s why I’d ask thousands of them for this study. The results would be LESS ACCURATE, but there might still be enough statistical power to compare between groups. > > To put my hypothetical simply: _85% of the people who claim to belong to the African-American culture have the “violence gene”._ I don’t think that would be an insignificant finding. And I think it would have huge social consequences. Do you realize that the hypothetical you are proposing is so far beyond our ability to understand how genes work that it really makes it useless? ---
**Author:** ![Borzo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/43a26b/32.png) [@Borzo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Borzo)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/99 "2011-03-22T18:05:37Z")
> [@spark240](#): > > I’m in favor of real, rigorous science exploring in every direction anybody can think of. > > Rigorous investigations into “race” would have to be predicated on scientifically rigorous definitions of _what that was_. Certainly we could invent definitions _based_ on genetic differences (you’re _this_ race if you have this genetic characteristic but not that one), **but we could not invent rigorous definitions that would actually align with common cultural understandings of race. It’s been tried, and the more we look into it, the more complicated it becomes.** Depending on which markers you choose to look at, you can divide the human species into any number of races you like. _None_ of these possible divisions lines up comfortably with anyone’s cultural understanding of what “race” is. Most of them involve grouping people who are commonly understood to be different races together and at the same time separating other people who are commonly understood to be the same race. This is interesting. Are there any references you would personally recommend, if I wanted to pursue further reading? ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492/100 "2011-03-22T18:06:14Z")
> [@Borzo](#): > > I don’t believe so. I am using a cultural definition for “African-American”. Some people would lie, sure… but that’s why I’d ask thousands of them for this study. The results would be LESS ACCURATE, but there might still be enough statistical power to compare between groups. > > To put my hypothetical simply: _85% of the people who claim to belong to the African-American culture have the “violence gene”._ I don’t think that would be an insignificant finding. And I think it would have huge social consequences. _shrug_ Garbage in, garbage out. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-deal-democrat-and-his-views-on-race/575492.md?page=6)