Bennett defended racial comments with falsehood
On the September 29 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, former Secretary of Education Bill Bennett defended comments he made the day before linking crime rates and abortion by blacks. Bennett, who said that "it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime ... you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down," claimed that he was taken out of context, and that his comment was based on a 1999 Slate.com online discussion between Steven D. Levitt, co-author of Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005), and right-wing columnist Steve Sailer, in which Bennett claimed that Levitt "discusse[d], as I did, the racial implications of abortion and crime." Levitt did not. In fact, in the Slate debate that Bennett cited, Levitt said the opposite of what Bennett claimed: "None of our analysis is race-based because the crime data by race is generally not deemed reliable."
On his September 29 broadcast, Bennett said: "The author of Freakonomics, Steve Levitt engages the theory that abortion reduces crime, and he also discusses, as I did, the racial implications of abortion and crime. And he does that in an extended debate on Slate.com." But in the course of the three-day Slate.com discussion, Levitt barely mentioned race. In fact, on the first day of the discussion, Levitt noted specifically that race was not a key part to his theory:
As an aside, it has been both fascinating and disturbing to me how the media have insisted on reporting this as a study about race, when race really is not an integral part of the story. The link between abortion and unwantedness, and also between unwantedness and later criminality, have been shown most clearly in Scandinavian data. Abortion rates among African-Americans are higher, but overall, far more abortions are done by whites. None of our analysis is race-based because the crime data by race is generally not deemed reliable.
In a September 30 response to Bennett's comments, Levitt further asserted the marginality of race with regard to his theory: "Race is not an important part of the abortion-crime argument that John Donohue and I have made in academic papers and that [co-author Stephen J.] Dubner and I discuss in Freakonomics."
The only significant discussion of race during the Slate debate came from Sailer on day two. Sailer writes for the anti-immigration website VDARE.com and has defended the Pioneer Fund -- an organization designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center for its support of the work of white supremacists, eugenicists, and others dedicated to proving the genetic superiority of certain races.
On his September 28 broadcast, Bennett stated that he disagreed with Levitt and Dubner's theory that abortion reduces crime because "there is just too much that you don't know." But in commenting that black abortions would reduce the crime rate, Bennett appeared to accept and extend it beyond what they intended. As Levitt noted in his September 30 response to Bennett: "There is one thing I would take Bennett to task for: first saying that he doesn't believe our abortion-crime hypothesis but then revealing that he does believe it with his comments about black babies. You can't have it both ways."
From the September 29 broadcast of Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America:
BENNETT: Let me deal with something that came up yesterday, and my critics and enemies are trying to make hay out of it, trying to discredit me. Let me give you the context and explain what's going on and then get back to business. We had a caller yesterday, and he posed the idea that if we didn't have abortion, we'd have no Social Security problems, and that you shouldn't have abortions because it will lead -- if you don't have abortions, you'll have better economics.
So this led to a discussion where I argued that this is an unknowable proposition. I cited the analysis and discussion in this bestselling book, Freakonomics. Uh, it's on the closely related topic of abortion and crime. Well, there is a campaign making hay of my remarks and taking them out of context and totally reversing my obvious meaning. The author of Freakonomics, Steve Levitt, engages the theory that abortion reduces crime, and he also discusses, as I did, the racial implications of abortion and crime. And he does that in an extended debate on Slate.com. I was referencing this debate and pointing out how tricky it is to argue for a pro-life position because of economic benefits. I was pointing out that abortion shouldn't be opposed for economic reasons any more than racism should be supported or opposed for economic reasons. Immoral policies are wrong. And they're wrong because they're wrong, not because of an economic calculus. One could just as easily have said you could abort all children and prevent all crime, uh, which is certainly true, to show the absurdity of the situ -- of the proposition. So let me repeat: These are matters which scholars talk about, which people write books about, which are debated in public policy relations among abortion, crime, and race. That's what we were talking about. Sensitive area, absolutely.
As a philosopher, I was showing the limitation of one argument by showing the absurdity of another. I was showing the fallacy of a proposition by using what's called an argumentum ad absurdum or an argumentum ad finum. But in sum, let me just re-state what I said yesterday: The whole idea of aborting anyone to reduce crime is, as I said on the air yesterday, "impossible, ridiculous, and morally-reprehensible." That should end it. That should be clear enough to anyone with an open mind. This whole thing is ridiculous, totally without merit. People will keep yelling about it, but -- you have a comment, Seth [Liebsohn, Morning in America producer]?
"As a philosopher..."
As a philosopher??? In fact, I teach philosophy and the kinds of arguments used by Bennett do a disservice to the profession.
His initial statements were not just “misstatements” but were an attempt to argue for a particular position. His statement asserting (and if you read and listen to his words this was an assertion) that aborting black babies would lead to a reduction in the crime rate can be characterized as a poor argument at best and racist at worst.
I suspect that what Bennett was attempting to argue is something like:
Assumption: Poverty results in increased rates of crime.
Assumption: A higher percentage of people of color live in poverty than whites
Assumption: Reducing the crime rate is a positive goal
Conclusion: ?????
Why include the second assumption? If Poverty results in a higher crime rate and if reducing the crime rate is a positive goal then the simple conclusion is that we reduce the Poverty rate. Adding the second assumption, as Bennett does, and then coming up with his conclusion to this argument (get rid of black people) bespeaks of a twisted personal view of the world.
“As a philosopher…”???
Give me a break..
I fear for our philosophy students.
Who said anything about poverty? The discussion is about the relationship between race and crime.
I'm not a philosopher but let's try this:
Assumption: Reducing a specific high crime population would decrease the overall rate of violent crime.
Statement of Fact: Blacks are involved in more violent crimes than whites.
(Remember: To be called a "fact" it must be possible to prove or disprove the statement. It is possible to have a false fact - in which case the argument falls apart)
Conclusion: Reducing the black population would reduce crime.
Ethical Question: Is this a realistic or ethical solution?
Answer: NO.
You apparently missed my point.
When faced with an argument that is clearly missing parts you can attack the argument as stated. However, you can then be accused of creating a “straw-man” and winning by defeating a false position.
It is common practice in philosophical analysis to try and make the other position as valid as possible. This is what I did in Bennett’s case. If his argument is that black people are genetically predisposed to commit crime, then his argument can be very easily ignored.
However, using previously stated positions that are similar to Bennett’s, I attempted to add the unstated assumption about poverty to try and make sense of what Bennett might be saying. This makes his argument stronger and thus avoids the “straw-man” charge.
However, even attributing this stronger argument to Bennett does not make his position any more valid. He still comes to a conclusion that is not based on the facts.
This kind of process is commonly found throughout the history of Philosophy.
Tsoho: you added the element of "violent crime" to Bennett's claim. Bennett never specified violent crime. Is this your attempt to justify what he said by changing his original parameters? Perhaps because white collar crime and shoplifting are more perpetrated by Caucasians?
And could you please point out the data that states that blacks commit more violent crime than whites? I would be very interested in knowing how 12 percent of the population (black) surpasses the white majority in this area.
My interest is not in justifying Bennet, but in attempting to portray his position more accurately.
According to the transcript on this page, Bennet explains his statement by saying:
"Steve Levitt, engages the theory that abortion reduces crime, and he also discusses, as I did, the racial implications of abortion and crime. And he does that in an extended debate on Slate.com. I was referencing this debate ..."
So I went to Slate to look it up [link to www.slate.com] and I read the following statement by Steve Sailer.
"Still any realistic theory about abortion and crime must deal with the massive correlation between violence and race. As you note, African-Americans have three times the abortion rate of whites. You don't mention, however, that, as Janet Reno's Justice Department flatly states that "blacks are 8 times more likely than whites to commit homicide." Therefore, blacks commit more murders than whites in total as well as per capita."
The website that Sailer references for his statement is: [link to www.ojp.usdoj.gov]
I assume that Bennet is talking about this when he mentions the Slate discussion even though it is not Levitt that said it.
Based on Sailer's statement I felt that it was fair to add "violent" to crime, and it was fair to use the specific "Statement of Fact" that I used.
Again, I am not justifying Bennet. A fact can be wrong. The data from the Department of Justice only goes to 2002 and might be outdated. I don't follow the crime rate close enough to know. My goal is to see the debate carried out honestly.
Here is what Levitt wrote:
I am interested in your views on the paper and its analysis, but also on the broader topic of the coverage of scientific research in the popular press, particularly when it relates to sensitive subjects like abortion, crime, or RACE. Do you think any good comes from a public discussion of academic studies such as this one? What, if anything, could be done to make such public debates more productive?
Of course is any republican mentions race, media matters immediately calls them a racist. How about taking a hint from the author and let everyone talk about race without the whining call of racist every time a discussion starts??
When republicans can talk about race without their bigoted biases (even when they are craftily veiled) that's when they'll stop being called racists...
I'd love to hear their true feelings about issues of race... Of course we can always ask Trent Lott about those...
Cons just don't seem to get it. Even with the qualifier Bennett used, "That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do," the contraversial statement still is a horrible thing and FALSE thing to say.
The main point that Bennett made with his statement, though indirectly, is that he believes that black people are INNATELY prone to committing more crime than other people. If you believe that Bennett's contraversial statement is true then by definition, you must believe that my preceding sentence is true.
Bennett's comments have been posted all over the inter-net for months. There was a study done, that did show that as Blacks have more and more abortions the crime rate has dropped nationally.
The first study that I found is not about black people having more abortions, but addresses what happened after abortion was legalized in general.
[link to pricetheory.uchicago.edu]
I could find no study that exclusively addresses abortions among black people only.
Please read my post just above to let you know where I stand on this issue.
"There was a study done, that did show that as Blacks have more and more abortions the crime rate has dropped nationally."
It's because of correlation to the poor, not to their race though. The poor are more inclined to commit crimes, for obvious reasons, and those in poverty are disproportionately black.
First of all, his comments, this was not a mistake. This is what Mr. Bennett feels. And now he tries to clarify, not the meaning, but the words.
He believed it as an idea worth repeating, perpetuating, and mouthing off, “I do know that if it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you..” If it is, as he stated, as morally reprehensible.., if he did not believe it, why repeat it? Apparently, because he did repeat it, this is his belief.
He said. “..would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do” Here he talks about this as a morally reprehensible thing to do. He talks about the act, the “thing to do”, which has nothing to do with what he had said, or his thoughts. Bill Bennett was excusing the act, not his thoughts. If he thinks morally reprehensible excuses what he had said, and is in his heart, or meaning, he is wrong.
I do not know if Bennett said what he meant and meant what he said. But this has certainly opened quite a can of worms, a very incisive can of worms with regard to race in America.
In all liklihood, facing the truth about race differences would help remoralize society.
"...What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us... . I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. ... If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! ... And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also."
-- Frederick Douglas, black activist
motorwolf said:
"In all liklihood, facing the truth about race differences would help remoralize society."
And what differences would you be referring to? Seeing that remark - I just wonder - do you mean differences that make Black people "unworthy americans"?
Seems like that's where the conservatives always go - dropping comments like Bennett did..
"motorwolf said:
"In all liklihood, facing the truth about race differences would help remoralize society."
And what differences would you be referring to? Seeing that remark - I just wonder - do you mean differences that make Black people "unworthy americans"?
Seems like that's where the conservatives always go - dropping comments like Bennett did"....by spintronic
===========================
Spintronic, I'm sure motorwolf can answer you better himself, HOWEVER I just couldn't let your post go by WITHOUT comment.
Perhaps "facing the truth about race differences" simply means having an HONEST dialog...because at least HERE at MMFA the rhetoric back&forth seems to be leading to a lot of anger and misunderstandings.
Also your rather caustic observation about Conservatives "dropping comments like Bennett did" SEEMS rather ridiculous when it's YOU that attempts to put words in motorwolf's mouth by saying:
"I just wonder - do you mean differences that make Black people "unworthy americans"?"
I haven't seen ANYWHERE that motorwolf made ANY such "observation". "Unworthy Americans" are YOUR words, not his.
BEFORE you accuse others....BE CAREFUL of your OWN accusations!
That aside, MY own personal opinion of this "incident" is that whatever Bennett claims he MIGHT have been TRYING to get across....HIS statement DID sound racist. BUT keep in mind--HE speaks for HIMSELF--not the ENTIRE Republican party.
I don't particularly like Bennett--He's a pontificating buffoon IMO....BUT to paint ALL Conservatives as racists, just because they OFFER various opinions that MAY NOT mirror yours EXACTLY-- is as SMALL-MINDED as me suggesting that ALL Liberals are somehow ANTI-AMERICAN, because a few Radical Far-Left groups OFTEN attack the USA.
==========================
On a happy note: NY YANKS win A.L. East!!!! :-)
"Perhaps "facing the truth about race differences" simply means having an HONEST dialog"
He does seem to be suggesting that black people commit more crime simply because they're black though, if you look at his other post. Maybe Spintronic jumped to conclusions, but I'm not sure he didn't land in the right place.
"He does seem to be suggesting that black people commit more crime simply because they're black though, if you look at his other post. Maybe Spintronic jumped to conclusions, but I'm not sure he didn't land in the right place."...by brabantio
Which other post?...I see only TWO here...and NEITHER in my opinion would justify spintronic to make such a leap and "land" where he did.
IF I missed something...please let me know...I've got to go light the grill. Be back a little later.
Really? When he argues that poverty isn't the root cause of crime, and talks about honesty about racial differences, you don't think he's suggesting that race is the key factor there? If not then I hope he explains himself, but in the meantime it's certainly a reasonable interpretation of his posts.
"Really? When he argues that poverty isn't the root cause of crime, and talks about honesty about racial differences, you don't think he's suggesting that race is the key factor there? If not then I hope he explains himself, but in the meantime it's certainly a reasonable interpretation of his posts."...by brabantio
brabantio, I think you're getting away from MY original point (go back&read my post)
Spintronic wrote the following to motorwolf:
"I just wonder - do you mean differences that make Black people "unworthy americans"?
Now whether motorwolf is suggesting race or poverty as being the KEY factor does not, IMO, add up to him advancing the IDEA that Blacks are somehow "unworthy Americans"? (THOSE are spintronic's WORDS.)
"Unworthy" meaning undeserving or lacking in value.
Where is motorwolf saying THAT?
Where are you drawing THIS conclusion from?
I do think motorwolf is TRYING (by the data he posted) to say that Poverty does not necessarily equal a high CRIME RATE...of course it appears some of the data is a decade or so old .
Again I think spintronic took a leap here and his interpretation of motorwolf's posts were not reasonable or accurate...IN FACT I think they were INFLAMMATORY.
Again, IF you read the posts I don't see how you can draw ANY inference to him suggesting that African American's are UNWORTHY AMERICANS.
""Where is motorwolf saying THAT?"
I think the key word here is "remoralize". That really does have some powerful connotations to it. A clear suggestion of that is that black people are a factor in DEmoralizing society.
"I do think motorwolf is TRYING (by the data he posted) to say that Poverty does not necessarily equal a high CRIME RATE"
Well, I think it's more than that. If you read the thread he posted in response to, I was responding to someone who was saying that as there was a rise in the abortion rate among blacks there was a decrease in the crime rate. Now when I say that's correlated to poverty, not race, he says "dead wrong". Does he say what does affect the crime rate, if not poverty? No, but he does post racial percentages! Without any alternate explanation, his reaction to my comment certainly implies he believes that race is the main factor there.
So if he in fact does believe those two things, which again I think is a fair interpretation, then he really doesn't seem to be valuing black people very highly in our society. I am theorizing that the word "unworthy" came from an interpretation of the quote that Motorwolf posted, particularly this section;"If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! ... And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also". In light of that particular passage I think the term "unworthy" is quite understandable!
"I think the key word here is "remoralize". That really does have some powerful connotations to it. A clear suggestion of that is that black people are a factor in DEmoralizing society."...by brabantio
Actually I don't think "remoralize" is even a "word"?...but I "think" I know what he's getting at. Now IF you pull it OUT of context it COULD mean what YOU are TRYING to suggest...but here's motorwolf's complete sentence:
"In all liklihood, facing the truth about race differences would help remoralize society."
Now I still believe he could be suggesting that an HONEST dialog about our "differences" and "facing the truth" about those *differences* could HELP IMPROVE relations between us--and those "differences" don't have to mean anything more than how we view some things with a different perspective....now keep in mind I'm TRYING to interpret someone (motorwolf) else's thoughts, perhaps he'll return and either CONFIRM or REJECT what I'm saying.
Now it's THAT particular statement that Spintronic INTERPRETS this way:
"And what *differences* would you be referring to? Seeing that remark - I just wonder - do you mean differences that make Black people "unworthy americans"?"
THAT STATEMENT is where Spintronic takes, IMO, a GIGANTIC leap....
Then YOU interpret it this way:
"A clear suggestion of that is that black people are a factor in DEmoralizing society."
I don't see it THAT way at all--first, one would need to be certain that the OPPOSITE of "remoralize" (which isn't even a "word") is de-moralize....BUT again it would help if motorwolf could EXPLAIN his thinking here...
Let me give you a couple of "for instances" of what I'm getting at:
IF he had written (on an entirely a different topic) that he SUPPORTS the Iraq War....would you AUTOMATICALLY ACCUSE him of calling those that didn't support the war of being UNWORTHY AMERICANS? That to me is a LEAP and putting WORDS in someone else's mouth.
Or If YOU say that poverty leads to a HIGH RATE OF CRIME, and I wrote: Are you saying POOR PEOPLE are UNWORTHY AMERICANS? Wouldn't YOU consider that a gigantic leap in logic for me to SUGGEST that YOU are accusing the POOR of being UNWORTHY AMERICANS, or undeserving or lacking in value?
And is it a given that poverty is what generates crime? There are MANY honest poor people...and there are SOME very dishonest RICH people. The Rich simply steal their employees pensions rather than their TV sets....
Crime knows NO barriers...it covers all races and economic conditions. I don't know IF anyone can POINT to any ONE factor and say for certain it leads to crime.
YOU and I may NOT agree with motorwolf's opinion on what does or doesn't lead to HIGH crime rates...BUT to suggest he considers Blacks to be UNWORTHY AMERICANS or UNDESERVING or LACKING IN VALUE is IMO just an DISHONEST ATTEMPT to apply a SINISTER meaning to a STATEMENT that NEVER suggested ANYTHING of the sort.... and is just ANOTHER example of how the Left tries to blow something OUT OF PROPORTION in order to accuse the Right of RACISM.
Again, motorwolf can BEST explain HIS own motives/opinions...I'm just saying let's NOT assign a nefarious connotation to them without absolute proof of exactly what he meant.
I'm NOT defending motorwolf's point of view...just POINTING OUT that we shouldn't AUTOMATICALLY assume what another person "means"--when it's not clearly spelt out.
"Now I still believe he could be suggesting that an HONEST dialog about our "differences" and "facing the truth" about those *differences* could HELP IMPROVE relations between us--and those "differences" don't have to mean anything more than how we view some things with a different perspective....now keep in mind I'm TRYING to interpret someone (motorwolf) else's thoughts, perhaps he'll return and either CONFIRM or REJECT what I'm saying"
I was not trying to pull anything out of context, I simply don't see how the context helps your argument. What "differences" could he be talking about, based on the original post, and the topic of the thread?
"I don't see it THAT way at all--first, one would need to be certain that the OPPOSITE of "remoralize" (which isn't even a "word") is de-moralize"
Do you have any alternate theories as to what he meant, at all? I honestly think you are defending a lost cause here. Just because the word is not in the dictionary does not mean that he didn't have a meaning for it in his mind when he typed it. What else do you think it might mean? Either he's talking about restoring morale (which doesn't make quite as much sense regarding society) or morality. Now, if the honesty in discussing differences restores either of those two things, then it is fixing a problem. What created the problem, then?
"IF he had written (on an entirely a different topic) that he SUPPORTS the Iraq War....would you AUTOMATICALLY ACCUSE him of calling those that didn't support the war of being UNWORTHY AMERICANS? That to me is a LEAP and putting WORDS in someone else's mouth."
No, unless he provided an accomanying quote which clearly suggests so!
"And is it a given that poverty is what generates crime? There are MANY honest poor people...and there are SOME very dishonest RICH people."
I could be wrong, but on a national level I believe the correlation is pretty well established. Naturally there are many honest poor people, most people in general are not criminals.
"BUT to suggest he considers Blacks to be UNWORTHY AMERICANS or UNDESERVING or LACKING IN VALUE is IMO just an DISHONEST ATTEMPT to apply a SINISTER meaning to a STATEMENT that NEVER suggested ANYTHING of the sort.... and is just ANOTHER example of how the Left tries to blow something OUT OF PROPORTION in order to accuse the Right of RACISM."
Interesting, with this long and loud tirade of yours, that you have not addressed the issue of the quote. It not only is clearly prominent in Motorwolf's original post, but I brought it to your attention. Yet, you skim over it completely. Without addressing that point you have no right to preach in such a manner.
"Interesting, with this long and loud tirade of yours, that you have not addressed the issue of the quote. It not only is clearly prominent in Motorwolf's original post, but I brought it to your attention. Yet, you skim over it completely. Without addressing that point you have no right to preach in such a manner."...by brabantio
I did NOT address the Quote BECAUSE it had NO relevance to YOUR argument.
brabantio, the quote was made by Frederick Douglas, a black activist, NOT some White Supremacist. You took two lines from the quote "out of context" and "interpreted" it as being racist...when IN FACT it was written by an African-American who appears to be declaring a DESIRE for Blacks to determine their OWN fate without the WHITE man's "social engineering"
=============
"...What I ask for the negro is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice."
Justice. Not "special treatment"...just "JUSTICE"...a seemingly fair&simple, yet profound request, and hardly racist.
"The American people have always been anxious to know what they shall do with us... . I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us"
Stop "trying to fix us...you've caused us more harm than good" Mmmmm, a strong request for self-determination?
"If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! ... And if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also."
Give us CREDIT as a people WHO like YOU will SUCCEED OR FAIL...and who do NOT ask for a CRUTCH.
================
This is the QUOTE you want to HELP JUSTIFY your&spintronic interpreting the statement by motorwolf as saying that Blacks are UNWORTHY AMERICANS??
HOW???
Again, HUGE LEAP.
I'll stick to MY opinion:
THIS is just an DISHONEST ATTEMPT to apply a SINISTER meaning to a STATEMENT that NEVER suggested ANYTHING of the sort.... and is just ANOTHER example of how the Left tries to blow something OUT OF PROPORTION in order to accuse the Right of RACISM.
Sadly, you are so BLINDED by your ideology YOU can't look at this with an open-mind.
And quite frankly, I'm tired of trying to explain, and re-explain. We are NEVER going to agree.
As you know (about me) even though I'm a Conservative, I have on MANY occasions agreed with the OTHER SIDE'S point of view....so I'm hardly CLOSED-MINDED.
BTW I noticed YOU IGNORED my example:
If YOU say that poverty leads to a HIGH RATE OF CRIME, and I wrote: Are you saying POOR PEOPLE are UNWORTHY AMERICANS? Wouldn't YOU consider that a gigantic leap in logic for me to SUGGEST that YOU are accusing the POOR of being UNWORTHY AMERICANS, or undeserving or lacking in value?
How is THIS that much different than what spintronic was accusing motorwolf of?
I'm watching football...IF you decide to reply, I'll read it later. HOWEVER, I may choose not to respond....
"I did NOT address the Quote BECAUSE it had NO relevance to YOUR argument."
If you really believe that your comprehension is in serious disrepair.
"the quote was made by Frederick Douglas, a black activist, NOT some White Supremacist. You took two lines from the quote "out of context" and "interpreted" it as being racist"
Remarkable! You look at one section of his comment, and don't see the problem, then you look at the other section, and don't see a problem with it. You don't seem to want to look at his entire post though. Since you've failed to address my questions about the "remoralize" section, I'll take that you have abandoned your attempts there. You can't seem to defend his comments on that section, to in any way explain how what he said could mean something other than that black people are somehow hurting society.
So, hopefully you've accepted that much. Now, with that in mind, he's using that quote to establish...what, exactly? Black people are demoralizing society, but...? None of your explanations, which of course are probably exactly what Douglass meant, fit into that mold. That's why the quote is relevant. It's not that I'm taking it out of context to suggest something for my own purposes, it's that there is no logical reason for that quote to be there if it means what you say (which is the true intent of Douglass' words).
"BTW I noticed YOU IGNORED my example"
There's no context to draw those conclusions in that case. Since it was such a poor comparison, your example was worthless. If you were to say that we need to lock up poor people in order to remoralize society and then provided that quote, it would be a different story (and no I'm not saying that Motorwolf was necessarily talking about imprisonment).
The entire point is that it is a reasonable estimation of Motorwolf's opinion. If you can't explain the "remoralize" part, and can't explain how the reasonable interpretation of Douglass' words fits in with that, then you can't yell at someone for coming to the obvious conclusion! Now, if you want to be his lawyer, and say that it's possible that he simply meant honest dialogue and was espousing equality in society, fine. It is possible, but it seems like a stretch, to make those two assumptions together. In addition, you never addressed the other post he made, which doesn't help your case. If he really expresses himself that badly, then he has to expect to be interpreted that way, and it's silly to defend him so vehemently.
In addition;
"even though I'm a Conservative, I have on MANY occasions agreed with the OTHER SIDE'S point of view....so I'm hardly CLOSED-MINDED"
I'm well aware of that, I honestly just think you dug yourself a hole in trying to assert that Spintronic's assessment was somehow unreasonable. It's simply not. I'm not closed-minded either, I just choose my battles very carefully, and on several occasions I have argued with other liberals. I'm not blinded by anything, I just don't believe your interpretations make sense when you look at the entire post, and so Spin's interpretation seems perfectly reasonable. If you don't respond I understand, but I think I'm being fair to everyone here, so I resent your comments regarding my behavior. You seemed to get caught up in the notion that this was an example of something blown out of proportion in order to accuse someone of being racist...there is no need for you to lash out just because that impression is being shown to be questionable.
"Since you've failed to address my questions about the "remoralize" section, I'll take that you have abandoned your attempts there. You can't seem to defend his comments on that section, to in any way explain how what he said could mean something other than that black people are somehow hurting society"....by brabantio(Sunday October 2, 2005 03:53:33 PM EST)
"The entire point is that it is a reasonable estimation of Motorwolf's opinion. If you can't explain the "remoralize" part, and can't explain how the reasonable interpretation of Douglass' words fits in with that, then you can't yell at someone for coming to the obvious conclusion!"...by brabantio(Sunday October 2, 2005 03:53:33 PM EST)
"I'm well aware of that, I honestly just think you dug yourself a hole in trying to assert that Spintronic's assessment was somehow unreasonable. It's simply not."...by brabantio(Sunday October 2, 2005 04:28:50 PM EST)
=================
brabantio, since "remoralize" is NOT a word, you and I are left to "guess" what definition motorwolf had in mind. I gave to you not once, but at least twice my "interpretation" of the POINT I felt he was TRYING to get across...YOU gave me yours. Am I correct? Are you correct? I don't BELIEVE that EITHER of us can say with CERTAINTY.
We BOTH agree my analysis of the QUOTE was correct...and can we BOTH concur that it was a POSITIVE quote, not a NEGATIVE?
Why then would motorwolf serve up a *negative* statement and then include a *positive* quote? Just a thought...
I remain UNCONVINCED that what he wrote should have been "interpreted" as suggesting that African-Americans are UNWORTHY AMERICANS. It was a leap.
I have NO agenda here. I've already denounced Bill Bennett's remark as racist...I've already said that I don't BELIEVE race has anything to do with Crime Rates.
I BELIEVE it's pretty obvious that Spintronic DOES have an agenda...He would like to make EVERY Conservative sound like a racist.
As you are arguing his case and I am arguing motorwolf's...I guess that makes us BOTH sort of "lawyers" or "advocates". Hopefully THEY will BOTH return and DEBATE their own case.
"since "remoralize" is NOT a word, you and I are left to "guess" what definition motorwolf had in mind."
I really don't believe there is a long list of options there. It's not gibberish, you can discern a meaning from it if you are willing to.
"Why then would motorwolf serve up a *negative* statement and then include a *positive* quote? Just a thought..."
Well, he wouldn't. That's the point. It's meant to be positive, but in the context it didn't make any sense that way, that's why it's reasonable to take it as a negative, improper use of the quote. You can't believe that just because someone quotes Douglass that they're not a racist, any more than you would believe that someone who quotes the Bible MUST be a good Christian.
"I guess that makes us BOTH sort of "lawyers" or "advocates"."
I think neither one of us like to see someone attacked unfairly, and I really think you should be able to understand Spin's reaction. I hope Motorwolf isn't a racist either, but from the two posts he wrote I expect to be disappointed there. Maybe Spin does make this accusation too often, but that doesn't mean they're wrong on this one. If you based your reaction on their hollow accusations of this sort in the past, then I understand your reaction better.
I hope Motorwolf isn't a racist either, but from the two posts he wrote I expect to be disappointed there.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I think the fact that he has twice used the term "miscegenation" is a big clue that your expectation is warranted :)
"I think the fact that he has twice used the term "miscegenation" is a big clue that your expectation is warranted :)"
Yes, I was just coming here to alert Jeter to this gem by Motorwolf;
"You know, you evangelical hypocrites have always been part of the problem. You DO know that most Christians and the Hollywood establishment, sworn enemies, BOTH push for something as impossible as racial equality? Essentially, watching reruns of 'Save the Last Dance' or listening to some fire and brimstone diatribe on equality results in the same thing: multiculturalism, miscegination, biracial infants and two lost racial bloodlines."
Like I said...maybe Spin jumped to a conclusion, but they seemed to land in the right place! We both seemed to have picked up the tone and meaning of the posts fairly accurately.
"I think the fact that he has twice used the term "miscegenation" is a big clue that your expectation is warranted :)" ...by wanderwoman
"Yes, I was just coming here to alert Jeter to this gem by Motorwolf;"... by brabantio
=====================
brabantio or wanderwoman could one of you direct me to the quote by motorwolf that you're both discussing? I CAN'T seem to find it on THIS thread.
I am DISGUSTED with myself for defending THIS person...MY only defense being I am NOT familiar with motorwolf's other "work", having NEVER come across his posts here before...whereas I am familiar with Spintronics posts and his sometimes unwarranted "accusations" DIRECTED at Conservatives.
"I CAN'T seem to find it on THIS thread."
It's on another thread;
[link to mediamatters.org]
I wasn't familiar with his other work either, but am getting increasingly nauseated the more I hear from him.
"I wasn't familiar with his other work either, but am getting increasingly nauseated the more I hear from him."...by brabantio
Thanks for the link brabantio...that was certainly "enlightening" :-/
Guess I really was DEFENDING the wrong guy...
In my haste to chastise spintronic for what I felt was a BIASED, OVER-REACHING & WRONG conclusion about a Conservatives's motives, I think I may have ended up defending a "white sheeter"...A big DUH to me on THAT one. :-(
Live&Learn I guess....Hey brabantio, You&Spintronic turned out to be right about motorwolf...I'll certainly be on the lookout for any future stuff he posts.
"In my haste to chastise spintronic for what I felt was a BIASED, OVER-REACHING & WRONG conclusion about a Conservatives's motives, I think I may have ended up defending a "white sheeter"..."
Well I do understand it if you have a lot of experience with people who are quick to that conclusion too often, particularly if Spin is one of those people. I didn't think of that when I originally responded. I'll watch for people doing that as well in the future, because that does happen, and often that judgment is wrong.
If I've done the link right, here's the other comment:
[link to mediamatters.org]
"If I've done the link right, here's the other comment:
[link to mediamatters.org]"...by wanderwoman
============
Thanks for the link wanderwoman.
I do believe MY "career" here as a Defense Attorney is over. I'm officially retiring...for now ;-)
As a Conservative I SOMETIMES get "annoyed" at certain Liberal posters here that attack us ALL as mean-spirited, cold-hearted, selfish, and racists. BUT this time I went after the WRONG guy.
This motorwolf is a piece of work...I feel like a fool for defending the guy :-(
IF you could see the egg on MY very red face you'd KNOW how stupid I feel....
IF you could see the egg on MY very red face you'd KNOW how stupid I feel....
by jeter2 - Monday October 3, 2005 12:51:19 AM EST
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Don't feel too bad, jeter, I think you were trying to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, and most of his posts have danced around the issue. I'd like to think that kind of racism was a thing of the past...but unfortunately it's still around.
I apologize for "going off the cuff" like i did in my initial post - but - the way that motorwolf used the Frederick Douglass quote - It really did rub me the wrong way.
If I haven't said such before, I admit to being biased with regards to conservatives views/ideas on race in america. It seems to me that they often go down the "blame the victim" path.
I've seen posts on here from regulars that reinforce those impressions.
I do my best to be a reasonable person, but there are some things that I cannot simply ignore.
The bigger picture in my mind is until we can all "sit at the same table" and air things out... We'll just keep going through these cycles with no advancement made with regards to addressing issues of race here in the USA.
The events surrounding hurricane Katrina and Bennett's comments just go to show there is still a lot of mistrust and misunderstanding on all sides...
by spintronic - Monday October 3, 2005 03:27:29 PM EST -
spintronic, I originally THOUGHT you'd wrongly accused motorwolf...as it turned out you were 100% correct about the guy. I SOMETIMES get heated when I see some Liberals lump ALL Conservatives together (in a negative way) and accuse them of a variety of sins without just cause.
You OBVIOUSLY read motorwolf's mindset better than I did. I apologize for thinking otherwise.
I think motorwolf used to be called frog-legs or something like that. A real freak. He is just the next incarnation of the same banned spirit I suppose.
I agree it's a reasonable conclusion in the context of issues that have been discussed throughout all the threads related to this topic, which includes the following.
1) Blacks have a Higher Crime Rate.
2) Blacks have a higher poverty rate but the conservatives here dispute that a correlation between poverty and crime exists.
3) Assuming that number 2 is true, than the high Black crime rate isn't due to poverty.
4) We should have a real honest discussion about "race differences".
5) Criminals have no value.
Number 4 implies that crime rates in the AA community are due to genetic imperfections unique to their racial group. It's rationalizations like these that have led to incidents of state sectioned discrimination and incidents of genocide throughout history with the Holocaust being probably the most extreme case of this. The Holocaust was preceded by intellectual discussions about racial differences, just like this one. Many of the posts here are quite unnerving for one belonging to the scrutinized group, but I won't panic yet. I will however monitor this debate closely. Maybe I should listen to Limbaugh's show so that when he gives the go to exterminate the cockroaches I'll be prepared.
Motorwolf,
It always amazes me how you a White Supremist can always find quotes from historical African American figures YOU believe affirms your philosophy. People have historically misused bible quotes in this manner as well. I am a great Fred Douglass fan, the statement is a profound one, but it was filtered through my non-racist brain. So Lord only knows how this was interpreted by someone like you.
(("There was a study done, that did show that as Blacks have more and more abortions the crime rate has dropped nationally." It's because of correlation to the poor, not to their race though. The poor are more inclined to commit crimes, for obvious reasons, and those in poverty are disproportionately black. by brabantio - Saturday October 1, 2005 10:39:57 AM EST))
Sorry pal. Dead wrong.
WEST VIRGINIA
Lowest crime rate in America:
Crimes Reported per 100,000 (1992-1993) 2,532.6 Rank 51st Violent Crimes 208.4 Rank 48th
Almost the lowest per capita income:
Per capita income (2000) Source:Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce $21,738 Rank 49th Disposable personal income per capita (2000) Source:Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce $19,156 Rank 49th Median income of households(1993) $22,421 Rank 50th
[link to quickfacts.census.gov]
West Virginia - 95% White, 3.2% Black
Median household income, 1999 $29,696 (USA National Average - $41,994) Per capita money income, 1999 $16,477 (USA National Average - $21,587) Persons below poverty, percent, 1999 17.9% (USA National Average -12.4%)
Can I ask why your statistics vary so wildly in the years they're taken from?
Im not sure I get your point. WV 95 percent white low crime rate...hmm are you trying to disconnect the race from the crime?
I dont belief that's possible, and anyone here that believes otherwise is in denial.
I have this firm believe that Black people, not all of them of course, have some how managed to disassociate themselves from moral standards. I have this observation to share.
I currently live in an area that has a good sized population of Hispanic people (Dare I say Mexicans?). I have lived in areas with lots of black and hispanics (LA and Atlanta).
The observation I had the other day came to me when I was watching the stuff going on in New Orleans. What struck me was that there are a large number of black women toting a hand full of kids around, and with very few "men" in site.
Then I observed the hispanics that live in this apartment complex (95 percent hispanic). One might say that these hispanics are in poverty as well. The huge difference here is every one of these hispanic familys have a man in the house, a father figure.
The other differences are hispanic men are not afraid of hard work. Now on to my comparison.
I have the belief that black people have failed themselves. If you spend your entire life blaming someone else for your situation, you inevitably fail to accept any responsibility yourself. Is it white america's fault that theres so many poor black people? No.
People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have done more harm to the black community than good. It's been so long since black america has had to work for something, they may have forgotten how, and now only stand in line waiting for the Gov to pay their way (paid for by those of us who pulled ourselves out of the poverty zone).
My observation is this: Until Black America can accept responsibility for themselves and pull their collective asses off the government couch, their situation will never change, and they will never earn the respect of the rest of us. The choice is theirs really. Continue being welfare recipients, or do like the rest of us do and work your way out and up.
What Black america needs to get back is the core family values. There is no job harder than raising a family and sticking around when it gets tough.
Of course you're going go call me a racist but in all the places I've been (17 states and nine countries) I've seen more black racists than white ones.
Why is it that racists always need to accuse blacks of being the real racists? It's never sufficient for them denounce blacks as lazy and immoral -- they have to accuse blacks of being racist, too.
Most of western Europe provides affordable daycare for all mothers (single and partnered). There is no stigma of "illegitimacy" for children born outside of marriage: in fact; marriage rates have been plummeting faster than birthrates. There is universal healthcare. Western Europeans expect that their governments are there for reasons other than to make war and protect big business. And crime rates are much lower than they are in the US.
Of course, you probably attribute this to Europe being mostly white, as you've seized on this opportunity to school the black community on how they should pick themselves up by the bootstraps and get on with it.
Most of the African-Americans I know work hard. And those who are unemployed (and there are many) want to work: you are obviously misinformed about how well welfare pays, as no one could live above the poverty level on aid. I know African-Americans because, guess what, they're my family. And for you to generalize about any ethnic group is as offensive as someone saying "all men are potential rapists".
Fortunately, we are NOT trying to emulate the failed policies of Western Europe, so your premise is faulty.
Western Europe has lower crime rates, universal health care and higher standard of living per capita (as well as lower trade deficits): these are products of failed policies? Please explain.
"Western Europe has lower crime rates, universal health care and higher standard of living per capita (as well as lower trade deficits): these are products of failed policies? Please explain."
They don't have cowboys, chewing tobacco or "Git-er-done."
"My observation is this: Until Black America can accept responsibility for themselves and pull their collective asses off the government couch, their situation will never change, and they will never earn the respect of the rest of us. The choice is theirs really. Continue being welfare recipients, or do like the rest of us do and work your way out and up."
Are you a racist or just an A-Hole?. I'd say both. Either way, I couldn't give a flying F about having your respect. Lord knows I have none for you. The important thing here is that I respect myself and that's plenty. I'm happy, healthy, and I have a great family. In addition, I've never received the infamous "black government check' people like you speak of. Maybe you know something that I don't.
I notice the May 9, 2005 issue of The American Conservative has an article titled "Pre-emptive Executions?" by Steve Sailer who consistently drags race into his criticism of Levitt's original paper. This article may be the source of Bennett's foot-in-mouth problem.
Bennett defense continues to expose more right-wing Republican racist thinkers. For example, Bay Buchannan tried to defend Bennett's racist view about aborting "black babies" to Donna Brazil (heard briefly on CNN Friday.) If only Donna had turned to Bay and said, "Say WHAT?"
Bob Wilson
Lets chatnge the comment and see what happens; suppose Bennet had sugested aborting all the Irish babies, or all the Italian babies, or all the babies born into families w incomes less than 30,000/yr. (Its been a while since I looked up the official poverty line but I think it is around 30K for a family of four). First, just as a mater of reduction in numbers, crime would be reduced. If you took the pregnancies represented by any particular group and eliminated them then the growth in population would be reduced by that number and the stresses due to overpopulation would be lessened. Quite aside from the co-effect of reducing the representation of that group in the population.
In short, it does not matter if you choose your group on a racist basis or not, crime that results from population pressures would go down.
It has been my personal opinion for years that abortion is a just a racist way to get certain groups to shrink as a percentage of the populace. Why else would you have abortion treated as a political right instead of the medical procedure it is supposed to be? Why is a pregnant 14 year old able to get an abortion without parental consent when she can't present herself to the emergency room for a emergency appendectomy without getting either parental consent or a court order? If abortion were only a medical concern, between a patient and her dopctor, as Roe v Wade suggests, then it would be subject to all the same restrictions normal operations are.
well, if abortion is just a medical procedure, then why are so many people trying to ban it. i don't see protesters outside clinics trying to stop face lifts. big contradiction.
Regardless of whether or not Bennett was using an argumentum ad absurdum, his statements are still racists. The morally reprehensible part of his statement is the premise, that eliminating blacks from society would decrease the crime rate. That statement is just not true, not defendible and is racist. Here is why.
It is illogical to assume that just because a higher percentage of blacks actually do commit criminal acts than other groups, that they will in the future, or that the color of their skin has anything to do with whether or not they commit criminal acts. I could do a study of people based on what cereal they eat for breakfast, and discover that people who eat Cap'n Crunch commit more crimes than people who eat Count Chocula. Does this mean that there is a correlation between eating Cap'n Crunch and crime? That would be just as ridiculous as concluding as Bennett did that there is a correlation between blacks and crime.
And remember, he argues that aborting black fetuses would reduce the crime rate, which implies that he believes this correlation is genetic, that blacks are geneticaly pre-disposed to commit crimes. That is a racist view, pure and simple.