Diane Lane and The Outsiders

TOM had a post on The Value of Motherhood (it was the Feast of The Holy Family this Sunday). Stacy McCain's post brings up Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein's The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (1994). It has to be one of the most misunderstood books out there. While I know people (especially on the left) get apoplectic in discussing the genetic issues in that book, what is really interesting is Murray's work on nurture, which is addressed in his later work Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010 (2012) looking at the growing rift between working class Caucasians (Fishtown, Pennsylvania) and upper middle class Caucasians (Belmont, Massachusetts).

We can debate all day whether there are genetic differences. The Bell Curve correctly identifies data and results, but not their cause. Personally I tend to go with P.J. O'Rourke's take on the subject:

People are all exactly alike. There's no such thing as a race and barely such a thing as an ethnic group. If we were dogs, we'd be the same breed. George Bush and an Australian Aborigine have fewer differences than a Lhasa apso and a toy fox terrier. A Japanese raised in Riyadh would be an Arab. A Zulu raised in New Rochelle would be an orthodontist. People are all the same, though their circumstances differ terribly.

Okay, O'Rourke over states it a bit, but it's culture that matters more (children lacking stimulation in infancy have lower IQs---which would corollate to Murray and Herrnstein's findings). I suspect there is a good component of environment too (children fed on crap processed food and lead paint chips have lower IQs and cognitive function too). These are issues that transcend race as demonstrated by Murray's Coming Apart book.

You can't have a serious discussion of class structure in America and nature and nurture without addressing those seminal films that proceeded the Bell Curve: Trading Places (1983) and The Outsiders (1983). Apparently most people are miserable (and whiners), so I guess we all have that in common.

Okay. There is someone with superior genes who also looks great in jeans (or really pretty much anything)--Diane Lane.

EBL: Diane Lane (September 2012) and Diane Lane (October 2013) For some reason these posts get a lot of clicks (far more statistically than other EBL posts). Why is that?

Rule 5 and FMJRA

Instapundit: Let's hope 2016 is better than 2015

IMAGE CENSORED

Ok, this post does reference The Outsiders...

Was John Derbyshire's "talk" racist?

I would encourage you in reviewing this to leave the pejorative meaning of the term racism aside and just focus on the definition of the word racism:   

According to Merriam-Webster:

Definition of RACISM1
: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race2
: racial prejudice or discrimination— rac·ist  noun or adjective

So was John Derbyshire's "Talk" racist or an example of racism?  Yes it was, in parts.  Here is probably the most controversial part of his article:    

(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”

Here is a rebuttal to Mr. Derbyshire's "talk" at National Review:  

CenterRightMargin    04/09/12 15:56 0 votes Vote up!

Dear Mr. Lowry, You did the right thing. Mr. Derbyshire's post was intelligent, and contained elements of truth. Elements which resonate. However, enmeshed and inseperable from the truth therein where racism and racist-based-falsehood. For example, however true the IQ (and standardized test) score differences among the races may be, the assumption that racial characteristics themsleves account for those differences is not merely racist, but aslo highly unlikely. Genetics generally determine potential, not outcome. Outcome itself is determined by many other factors - family environment, in utero environment, education, chance, character, G-d. To ignore that, and to ignore the vicious impact of the degredation of the family and profoundly negative impact of the racialist-victim industry on black America in order to make broad based stereotypes is simply not acceptable --- particularly where the "right" is attempting to broaden it's appeal. The same can be said for crime and related traits. These are not "racial" traits (though genetics may play a role in any individual's likelihoods) - they are personal traits that evolve in a person through the course of their life. We have a duty as Americans, marked by the sin of Slavery and government sponsored racism (Jim Crow, etc.) to act in a manner that consistently repudiates the crimes of our ancestors. That does not mean being for affirmative action, nor does it mean taking all racial humor, etc., out of the public square. But it does mean not engaging in mean-spirited, over-broad attacks on an entire people based on the color of their skin. Even where the left does the same. That is not acceptable, and I am glad that NRO acted accordingly. respectfully, CRM Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

I agree with CRM above on how IQ testing results do not automatically lead us to the conclusion Mr. Derbyshire came up with.  Andrew Sullivan has expounded the same positions (roughly) Derbyshire has.  I would argue that the positions of The Bell Curve that Derbyshire and Sullivan both expressed agreement with, have been under cut in party by Coming Apart (Charles Murray's follow up book that focuses on differences between Belmont, MA and Fishtown, PA).  Of course the left does not attack Sullivan anymore since he supports Barack Obama and attacks Republicans, Sarah Palin, and Christians.  So all is forgiven.

However, I also disagree with CRM that Americans are marked with the "sin of Slavery and government sponsored racism."  People who are alive, who participated in Jim Crow, may have some culpability that they have to address in their own hearts.  I am pretty sure people who participated in slavery in this country are no longer alive.  I would only state we all should try to deal with the issue honestly.  That said, I do believe we have an obligation to treat people equally when it comes to race.  And that is reflected legally in the 14th Amendment.  There is a legacy of slavery that still exists and that we all need to overcome, but expressing it in terms of "sin" is not helpful.  It just is.  And yes we should deal with it.

Some on the right have criticized National Review for firing John Derbyshire.  Bob Belvedere said Rich Lowry was cowardly to do what he did.  I agree this was handled poorly (both by Derbyshire in not giving NR a heads up of what he had planed and the initial response of some people from NR).

If you are working for an organization and write an article (presumably without prior knowledge to National Review) to some other organization and they disagree with it, typically that organization has the right to fire you. That ultimate deicison is between National Review and John Derbyshire.  You are all completely free to agree or disagree with that decision.  I do not agree with everything National Review does, but I am not going to criticize them over the firing.  I personally found the tweets on Saturday night by Lowry and Ponnuru unnecessary.  But given Derbyshire did not warn them this was coming, they should get a degree of slack.

I do not know what is in John Derbyshire's heart over this, but he views were his own, and it appeared to me he was not trying to hurt anyone.  As Crack Emcee advised, if it bothers you, "nuts."  I know the left has a hard time wrapping their heads over this, but Derbyshire having racist views does not mean Derbyshire was intending to be malicious.  The suggestion that merely having a racist thought in your head makes you evil is wrong.  You are evil if you do evil acts or are trying to get others to do evil acts (and I am unaware of John Derbyshire doing any such acts).  Because many people, I would suspect most, have at times had a racist thought or said a racist comment.  And this slander that the tea party, conservatives and Republicans are full of racists is a lie.  It is not true.  And the suggestion that Robert Stacy McCain and Dan Riehl are racists is false.  Yes of course you can find examples of racism across the political spectrum.   Many liberal people have such thoughts too.  I know because I have heard them say it.  We should not respond with lashing out, but rather trying to understand and (perhaps) persuade people.  But it would help if the left stopped name calling.

I recognize that many would find point 11 above to be offensive.   How about trying to calmly and rationally discuss the points Derbyshire raised?  If you disagree, by all means disagree with facts and arguments.  I suggested that at some liberal sites and mostly the response I got was I was promoting racism by defending Derbyshire (as they smugly said most conservatives do), or raising false arguments.   One liberal commentator went so far to say racism can only be perpetrated by Anglos and Northern Europeans.  Then again, one commentator at this site said I was either ignorant or dishonest in not accepting John Derbyshire's conclusions as facts.  But talking about this can be a good thing if done in good faith.

Prior EBL posts:
Maybe a little Star Trek would be appropriate...
John Derbyshire got fired for his "Talk" so where is the outrage over Marion Barry's comments?
John Derbyshire's Talk, you have no right to judge...
John Derbyshire's Talk...

Update:
John Derbyshire's interview with Gawker...
Mark Steyn on Derb

On the career-detonating column, I don’t have anything terribly useful to add. But Derb’s wife is Chinese and his children are biracial. And I can see why, in a world in which a four-time mayor of America’s capital city can disparage your own family’s race (“these Asians coming in . . . those dirty shops . . . they ought to go”) and pay no price, a chap might come to resent the way polite society’s indulgence of racism is so highly selective.

The Other McCain:  Everyone's gone crazy... 
Instapundit and Roger Kimball:  So much for that frank conversation on race...
John O'Sullivan at the Corner...

John Derbyshire's "Talk"

The "talk" John Derbyshire gives to his children.  If that site is not working, Twitchy has it screen capped.   Update:  John Derbyshire's "talk" and advice to those who want to discuss race in America...      

This will get a lot of press.  I disagree with some of the points John Derbyshire stated.  I am very skeptical of the intelligence argument made and even data from Andrew Sullivan's promoted The Bell Curve does not support Derbyshire's conclusion.  There are difference in population groups, but Charles Murray's new work Losing Ground shows that cultural factors (in that work Murray limited himself to statistical studies of white populations) can result in amplifying negative behaviors.  But maybe Derbyshire and Sullivan are right.  The data and methodology can be argued.  So argue it.  If they are wrong, show they are wrong.  With data and facts rather than hysteria.

Or perhaps humor?

The views expressed are very common.  Many of the people who will denounce him (of all races) say some of the points Derbyshire states all the time in private.  I know because I have heard them say it.  I am not defending that as right, but I know this happens.  And I know a lot of you think and say similar things.  Matthew 7: 1-5 comes to mind.  Perhaps before reacting with over the top indignation and faux outrage, we could use this article to engage in some introspection and civil discussion?  


I have heard liberals who work in social services say exactly the same things Derbyshire is saying (it usually starts around the second or third drink after a trying week at work).  And racism on the left is generally worse than racism on the right.  That is my own personal observation.

And here is another open secret that anyone who travels knows--racism and xenophobia is by far worse in the rest of the world.  By worse I mean prevalent, open, notorious and its harmful effects much greater

Derbyshire's story has already been denounced by Rich Lowry, Ramesh Ponnuru, and Jonah Goldberg.   I am sure there will be a stampede tomorrow.

I hope the discussion about this is civil and objective.  Somehow I do not see that happening.

Update:

• Dan Riehl's post on the left's attacks of John Derbyshire

It may not be pretty to read, or come close to some ideal, but how much of what Derbyshire wrote is mostly true in a still too significant portion of America's population, black, or white? And why is the left intent on only dealing with it by screaming and freaking out, when only a calmer, more sensible conversation over time is the only positive way in which to deal with it? It's as if the left, not the right, is absolutely determined to ensure that racial division will always exist in America? Why is that?Perhaps it's just as seems to be the case with Chuckles. Racism is only truly worth addressing if and when you believe you can somehow attack people with whom you disagree politically. Honestly, just how noble is that? Not very, in my opinion, for what it's worth.

• The Other McCain:  Using Derbyshire as a verb...
• EBL:  Spinning into Butter...the left's obsession with raaaaacism
• David Weigel at Slate
• The Raw Story's ABL has a response...
• ThinkProgress reached out to Derbyshire to verify that the column was not meant to be satire. “I’d call it ‘social commentary,’” he said.
• Protein Wisdom on Derbyshire's post...

Some of what Derbyshire said in his article I didn’t agree with; some of what he argued I take no position on, because I’d need to see the evidence cited expanded on a bit and given a more rigorous test; but what is indisputable is that the article was set up as a talk he’d have with his kids about race, and the opinions he’s formed — and that he’d pass on to his children — were his, while the reasons he’s developed them he sourced w/ links. That is, he tried (within the constraints of the format) to show his work.That his article brought out some unsavory types in the comments — WHY WON’T DERBYSHIRE TAKE ON THE KIKES? — has less to do with his article and more to do with certain people who are always drawn to such pieces.
It was in many respects a brave article — and that can be true whether you believe Derbyshire a racist or not. But given that it was written in the context of bounties on George Zimmerman, or Spike Lee Tweeting out home addresses, or Al Sharpton — who is invited to Easter breakfast at the WH — actively working to incite violence and subvert the justice system, well, it expresses a kind of anxiety that exists in the culture right now.

• Lisa Graas on what she says to her kids... 
• Bob Belvedere at Camp of the Saints...
• Rich Lowry:  Derbyshire and NRO parting ways...
• Instapundt on Derbyshire's firing...
• Where is the outrage of the left over Marion Barry's racist comments?

The Crack Emcee over at Althouse has this take:

 The Crack Emcee said...

Another PC witch hunt? Great. People love being hypocrites nowadays.

I read it, I liked it, and if you don't, nuts. The truth hurts and outrage from idiots doesn't make them right.

Good luck, Derb - keep hitting them where it hurts.

4/7/12 3:23 PM

• 
  
  

  Maybe a little Star Trek will help?
• Instapundit and Roger Kimball:  So much for that frank conversation on race...
• John O'Sullivan at the Corner...