We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Attitudes change

Gene Expression takes exception to my earlier posting:

Of course, I beg to disagree. Let me give you an example of how race does matter, ripped off from Steve Sailer: “You’re a 5’0″ tall female walking down the street. Coming down the street on your side are four black men loudly talking to each other. On the other side of the street you see four Chinese men, again, talking loudly to each other. What do you do?”

To which I answer: “In which year?” Just to have a bit of fun with this, I’ll posit the thoughts running through our midget blonde’s matrilineal side heads:

1930: “Don’t they know their place? If one of them touches me daddy’ll have them all lynched!”

1950: “What is this world coming to? I’ll have to tell daddy so the police can arrest them.”

1970: “They’re probably angry over white hegemony. I’d better cross the street for safety.”

1990: “The one in the middle is kind of cute.”

2010: “Didn’t I go out with him once?”

2030: “I’d swear that was cousin Lonnie!”

9 comments to Attitudes change

  • One can only hope Dale’s comments would be true, but unfortunately the thoughts would much more likely be, even today: Now where the hell do I go to get out of this!

    It would be lovely to believe we’ve come further than that, but it’s simply NOT true.

  • Dale must have more faith in humanity than most of us.

    I would correct Dales comments from the woman in his example in the 1990’s to exclaim “the one in the middle is kind of cute” to a more realistic “the one in the middle is kind of cute, but which one would piss my parents off the most without cutting off my tuition

    Perhaps in 2030, race will become irrelevant, but it will happen only if races themselves become irrelevant, as a result of miscegnation and mongrelization. It might in the US, but is very unlikely to happen anywhere else, least of all unintegrated europe..

    And even then, just look at the Indians, who, despite several centuries of racial mixing, have managed to carve out sub-racial categories for themselves, just for the fun of it..!

  • Oh I don’t know. If both groups are “talking loudly” to one another, they’ll be too busy with their argument to even notice the woman. Unless she’s quite the looker… And unless the “loud talk” indicates neighborhood unrest of some kind. And unless…

    You see the problem with these neat little arguments? Life isn’t so neat. How about an example of how “race does matter” being the idea that a good argument is to set up a hypothetical scene of Helpless Lone Tiny Female (he didn’t specify race) inching timidly down a street occupied on each side by Ominous Groups of Loud Men of Color or Other Foreignness?

  • dale’s point is good. i think “race” might disappear-but only among the elite classes who have $$$ and education in common. the majority of humanity will stay put with the ties that bind-faith, family and folk.

    to see why interracial mixture might not work the way we imagine, look at latin america. there you have centuries of racial mixture-and you still have white elites in every since country and racism is common if more nuanced than in the north.

  • one more thing-i tend to think race is like religion-it changes, and people keep thining it will go the way of the dodo, but it always remains as an ineffable part of the human condition.

  • Quite honestly, I think you people are out of touch with reality. Attitudes change – facts do not.

    Check out the FBI Uniform crime reports and the National Criminal Victimisation survey’s data on violent offenders by race:

    60% of violent crimes were committed by (whites + hispanics), Hispanics 12.5% and Whites 69.1 % of population —> 60% of violent crimes committed by the (white + hispanic) 82% of population
    40% of violent crimes were committed by blacks, 12.1 % blacks in US —> 40% of violent crimes committed by the black 12% of population

    Source: FBI UCR, table 43
    (Mixed Race, Asians, Amerindians omitted – accounts for 6% discrepancy)

    Note that the FBI reports violent crimes for whites + hispanics together, which dramatically inflates the apparent rate of violent crime committed by whites.

    One other important point to note is just how high the black violent crime rate is in absolute terms. The black 12% of the population commits about 40% of the violent crimes, while the other 88% of the population commits about 60% of the violent crimes. That means that the black violent crime rate (offenders per capita) is about (.40/.12)/(.60/.88) = ~5 times the non-black crime rate. Again, if the FBI didn’t mix white and hispanic offender data, we could compare the black rate to the white/hispanic/asian rates. We would most likely find that the black rate is much higher than simply 5 times the white rate, as the above figure lumps hispanics with the non-black population. We would also find that the white rate is higher than the Asian rate, which is the lowest in the country.

    If your goal is to avoid victimisation, you need to include race. Asians offend at lower rates than whites, and blacks offend at much higher rates.

    Before you say that the police are framing blacks (but not Asians) out of hatred, see the NCVS data here.

    The crime data cannot be attributed to a large scale “framing” of criminals, because the profiles reported by victims in the NCVS (National Criminal Victimisation Survey) match those of the offender population as reported by the FBI UCR.

    In other words, for this match between the NCVS and FBI UCR data to be fraudulent, those claiming to be victimised by blacks would actually have to be victims of whites. Needless to say, victims interested in justice or retribution would have little incentive for such misrepresentation.

    Before you say that poverty causes crime, check here:


  • To continue:

    Dale makes two errors.

    First, he believes that racial differences are no more than skin deep. This is demonstrably untrue – see virtually every post on my blog, but perhaps start here.

    People should be treated as individuals and not members of groups if and when it is practical (e.g. college admissions), but not when it is impractical (e.g. airport security, police work).

    Second, Dale believes that racial intermarriage will somehow smooth out all interracial conflicts. This too is false. For one thing, such campaigns don’t remove racism – witness Brazil or Mexico. For another thing, genetic engineering will be far more effective in blurring racial boundaries – at the cost of introducing generational conflict, as new models with vastly higher intelligence supplant the old…

  • Frank Sensenbrenner

    Dale’s right, in a way, immediately. Many individuals are unfamiliar with the concept of race, as opposed to nation or ‘tribe’. In the UK, if I criticize Scotland, some brand me as a racist, although genetically, the Scots are very similar to the British. It’s not that racism will go away, but its venom will be injected into tribalist battles between sects.