Search Box

Monday, November 17, 2014

When liberals just don't get it

Yesterday, the NY Times ran an editorial, When Whites Just Don't Get It, Part 4. Author Nicholas Kristof bemoans the whites he knows who want to move beyond race, and who are angered at the eternal guilt they are supposed to feel for this country's history of discrimination.

From there Kristof launches into the case for how discrimination continues in this country. As proof, he cites the following two statistics: that non-Hispanic whites have a median household income of $58,270, compared to $34,598 for blacks, and that black life expectancy is four years shorter than that of whites.

Ergo, while whites are still benefitting from the black slave labor of the past, blacks are hurt by their association with whites.

Strangely, Kristof neglects to mention that financially, Asian-Americans do significantly better than whites. According to Wikipedia, the median household income of whites (including Hispanic whites) in this country is $54,857, whereas for Asian-Americans it's $68,088.

Why would Kristof ignore that disparity? And how would he account for it? Is it because Asians don't let whites into their country clubs to make those all-important business contacts? Because of yellow privilege? Kristof is certainly willing to advance social theories to account for the white-black gap, he must have some theory to account for this difference as well.

To find out just how much racism -- or, at least, contact with each other -- has helped or hurt the races in America, one must look outside America to see what the median average incomes are for whites and blacks elsewhere.

Here is a list from on the self-reported median household incomes of the ten richest and ten poorest countries:

Country                     Median Household Income

Norway                   $51,489
Sweden                     50,514
Luxembourg              52,493
Denmark                   44,360
Finland                      34,615
United States             43,585
Canada                      41,280
Australia                    46,555
Netherlands               38,584
Germany                   33,333

And here are the ten poorest:

Liberia                           781
Burundi                         673
Mali                             1983
Burkina Faso                1530
Madagascar                  1013
Sierra Leone                 2330
Rwanda                       1101
Benin                           1502
Togo                            1571
Zambia                         1501

Even a cursory glance at these statistics reveals that whites in the US are doing roughly the same, perhaps slightly better, than their European counterparts, whereas blacks in the US are doing far, far better than their counterparts in Africa.

As far as life expectancy in this country, according to the Kaiser Foundation, whites average 78.9, African-Americans 74.6, Hispanics 82.5, and Asian-Americans 86.5. Again, Kristof seems to have cherry-picked his data. Why do Hispanics have a life expectancy 3.6 years greater than whites? Brown privilege?

Is there some sort of discrimination practiced by Asians against whites which accounts for the gap between those racial groups of 7.6 years? Why is Nicholas Kristof not upset about that disparity?

Again, any such conclusions would be silly unless weighed against how each of those ethnicities do in other countries. Here are the top eleven countries for life expectancy, from the listing by Wikipedia:

Japan                    84.6
Andorra                 84.2
Singapore              84.0
Hong Kong             83.8
San Marino             83.5
Iceland                  83.3
Italy                      83.1
Sweden                 83.0
Australia                83.0
Switzerland            82.8
Canada                  82.5

(Ireland ranks 20th, at 81.4, and the UK ranks 27th, at 81.0.)

And the bottom eleven countries:

Mozambique        48.7
Chad                  48.5
Congo                 47.4
Swaziland            47.3
Afghanistan         47.3
Zambia               46.9
Guinea-Bissau      46.7
Zimbabwe           46.6
Sierra Leone        46.2
Lesotho               46.0
Central African Republic 45.9

Once again, it seems that whites are doing roughly as well as their counterparts in Europe, whereas blacks in the US seem to have benefitted greatly from their proximity to whites. (Nicholas Kristof would undoubtedly be shocked to see these figures, given that blacks in Africa never had to live under Jim Crow.)

Obviously, diseases flourish in the tropics more than they do in colder climates, so that has an effect. And third world countries have poorer health care systems than do the developed nations.

But what accounts for the differences within the US? If it's white racism, how exactly do whites discriminate against Hispanics and Asians to make them live longer? Is it possible that there are differences in dietary habits and exercise between the groups? Might the levels of violence within each community have an effect? Are there genetic factors contributing to high blood pressure and the like that have an effect?

The great unmentionable here is, of course our diversity: our genetic diversity, to be precise. Might that also affect cognitive ability, which might in turn affect income and life expectancy?

As long as liberals like Nicholas Kristof refuse to accept that possibility, they will forever be penning silly editorials about how "racism" accounts for all differences in outcome. And they just won't get it.


Anonymous said...


Liberals will never admit the obvious -- that the primary factors in race group differences are genetics and culture.

Liberals can't admit this. The entire religion that they have created (modern day Liberalism/egalitarianism) is founded on the two shibboleths that: (1) race is a social construct which has no basis in biology; and (2) all cultures are equal.

For a Liberal to admit that they were wrong on either of these counts would mean that they would begrudgingly have to admit that all of their beliefs were built on a false foundation. Perhaps more importantly to the Liberal, he would have to admit that the people he has routinely labeled racist, evil, and ignorant are correct; and for he too to be correct he would have to join the "racists". While many Liberals have been able to free themselves from a lifetime indoctrination, I do not expect a mass exodus from the false religion of Liberalism any time soon.

Just look at the comments on Kristof's article. The majority of New York Times readers are in lock step with Kristof on race matters.

- Frank

Anonymous said...

I'm reading an interesting book called CONGO: The Epic History of a People. It's by a Belgian guy who clearly loves the people of the Congo and bemoans their fate under a succession of disgusting dictators.

But he's an honest historian, and he relates that before colonialism tribal practices included cannibalism and slavery.

Imagine what would happen if a sympathetic columnist said that US blacks, while far ahead of their African brethren, spring from a recently savage culture, and therefore have a ways to go, forget about genes. He'd have his head handed to him.


John Craig said...

Frank --
That's a perfect encryption of the situation. A religion is exactly what it is. It's all so absurd it has to be a matter of belief rather than logic. Denying the genetic basis of race is like saying that dogs grow up to be dogs rather than cats for environmental reasons.

The thing is, I don't think that all people who promote this "religion" actually believe in it. If they did, they wouldn't lie the way Kristof effectively has by cherry picking the statistics he uses. I think they have other motivations for keeping whites on the defensive.

I couldn't get the comments for some reason, but I suspect the NY Times censors those who disagree with them.

John Craig said...

Coco --
You're certainly well read. Yes, the Belgians were the most brutal of all the African colonists, worse than the Boers. They literally worked their slaves to death.

One thing no one talks about is that the Africans themselves practice slavery in isolated places to this day, and as recently as 40 years ago, it was not all that rare.

Yes, no one is allowed to be honest about this stuff. We make fun of the Indians for their sacred cows, what we practice is far more pathetic.

Glen Filthie said...


I think your first mistake, John, is taking the NYT seriously. Their job used to be about educating the public and discussing intelligent opinions and viewpoints.
British journalists lost this ability in the 60's and Americans lost it in the late 80's. The media now is about politically correct trolling to sell copy and advertising.
Most white people know the score in private and will say so...but to do so publicly is to get crucified. There is no doubt in my mind that if you were read more wouldn't be long before some social justice warrior came hunting for your head.
In fact I think that is something you may need to give serious thought too as your blog increases in popularity. Would your employer approve of your viewpoints? Or your family? Are you prepared to face a liberal witch hunt? They will play dirty and if they can't hang you with the available evidence they will just make something up!
Look after yourself, John. You risk making enemies with some truly filthy people that will hurt you if given the chance.

John Craig said...

Glen --
I don't actually take what the NY Times says seriously. But occasionally I get so fed up with their lies that I feel I have to say something.

Thanks for your concern, but I'm retired. if I still worked at a corporation I'd never write this.

I'm sure I've already made enemies with this blog, but I think that everything I've said is defensible.

Spychiatrist said...

John, if you're not making enemies then you're not worth a plug nickel, IMHO. Having said that, obviously you're no friend of the world, but rather an astute an honest observer, that in and of itself is enough to make you persona-non-grata with the enemy of freedom---the liberal social justice warrior.

Stay the course sir.

PS. I wouldn't start a fire with the NYT's, nor would I wipe my you know what with it.

John Craig said...

Spike --
Thank you; I intend to.

I was just thinking today, I wouldn't be nearly a interested in race if it weren't such a taboo subject, and if so many people didn't lie about it all the time. It's the constant, hollow propaganda that raises both my interest and my hackles.

Anonymous said...

I have been exploring this subject recently, so, I am learning bit-by-bit about the actual differences between the races (created by genetics and culture, as the commenter Frank said). Interesting.


Anonymous said...

This is another good article, agreeing (having recently been studying the subject of race differences) with what you and your commenters are saying.


John Craig said...

Thank you Birdie.

Steven said...


hooter tooter said...

I don't believe lefties lie when they put forth their beliefs, it's just that the truth is so awful, it can't even be considered. It would be devastating to their psyches. I think of lefties as emotionally disabled, and, just like I wouldn't expect a one armed man to be boxer, I don't expect them to be able to deal with some issues on a rational level. They just can't.

My pet theory its that this 'impairment' isn't really a bug, but a feature of human self domestication. So perhaps the lefties are an 'advanced' form of homo sappy, although not from my point view.

John Craig said...

Hooter --
I think some of the dumber ones believe it, but a certain percentage of sly ones don't. Kristof chose the facts he wanted to publicize very carefully. Why did he leave Asians out of the equation on both household income and life expectancy? Because he knew it would blow his theories to shreds. And if he knows that, then he's lying on purpose.

Sure, some of them are nice. But with a lot of them, they're not thinking these things because they're nice, but rather because they want to think of themselves as nice. But they're not nice, they're just idiotic. Or, like Kristof, they're dishonest manipulators.

Steven said...

Anti-hereditarians usually believe Asians do well because of their Confucian emphasis on education or something like that and the black-white gap is due to discrimination or poverty (past discrimination). Not the most elegant but maybe Kristof believes this and just didn't put the Asian stats in because it could be used against him. He just thinks he knows better.

John Craig said...

Steven --
The Confucian ethic DOES have something to do with it, but it certainly doesn't explain it all. A work ethic does not raise one's native IQ.

Kristof is just intellectually dishonest. I think he knows he's lying, and just enjoys posing as a great, politically correct humanitarian.

Kristof, by the way, is married to a woman of Chinese descent, so it's not as if the Chinese are somehow not on his radar.

Anonymous said...

The funny thing about all this is, why should blacks care if white people "get it" or not? If they were the equals of whites, they would live their lives and not give a damn.

The fact that Kristof is so obsessed with what whites think betrays the fact that he knows black prospects depend totally on what whites think.

Do I care that Chinese people probably think I'm a stupid white chick? Not really.

However if the Chinese should move here in the millions and control the economy, I'd care a lot. I'd be dependent on their good will.


John Craig said...

Coco --
I actually don't think the blacks care that much what whites think and feel (although they care a great deal about redistribution). It's white liberals like Kristof who care so much about projecting the proper attitudes.

Let's hope the Chinese don't move here by the millions. They don't have a lot of good will.

Glen Filthie said...

I think Hooter is on the right track, actually. I once heard it explained another way - it might have been you that said it, John...but paraphrasing the verbage it went something like this:

"Real science has the effect of making smart people feel stupid. Often it raises greater and more difficult questions.

Fake science makes stupid people feel smart. It answers all the questions, it eliminates nagging and troubling doubts."

That is the downfall of the modern liberal, IMHO. He doesn't want to think, and if some bloviating idiot like Al Gore offers to do it for him he will eagerly let him - especially if there is some personal gain in it for him.

John Craig said...

Glen --
Interesting quote; I'd like to claim credit, but it wasn't from me.

I agree that liberals don't like to think, which is why so many of them prefer to recite/chant liberal mantras (while emptying their mind of thought, like good TM-ers).

Steven said...

'Kristof, by the way, is married to a woman of Chinese descent, so it's not as if the Chinese are somehow not on his radar.'

Okay lol.

I'm sure that there are very intelligent people who maintain the environmental view and know about Asian achievement and have looked into it. One of my old lecturers was one. Presumably (some of) the prominent anti-hereditarian scholars are included.

Plus I just wouldn't underestimate the ability of even intelligent people to go with the fashion on this one.

Of course, you may be 100% correct and if so, you're more astute than me! It wouldn't have even occurred to me he might be lying for his own personal selfish reasons.

As for the Confucian thing, I don't know how much of a difference it makes to educational attainment, but it doesn't make much difference to IQ. I think NE Asian adoptees who grow up with white parents end up having IQs in line with other NE Asians. Perhaps its more a case of an intelligent population having a culture than emphasizes education- an intelligent attitude. Jews are the same.

It was actually the case of Asians that originally made me seriously consider the hereditarian position. I found myself so much more willing to accept the Asian advantage is probably genetic than that the black disadvantage is.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Yes, culture is inextricably bound up with IQ. Higher-IQ groups will inevitably end up having cultures that value learning (and intelligence) more.

Anonymous said...

Hope is not a plan! We need to do something about large scale immigration - legal and illegal - into the US.

Unfortunately I don't see it. I recently read somewhere about a libertarian candidate who drained votes from the Republican candidate. This ahole believes in allowing 5M legal immigrants into the US per year. He lies with statistics saying that 5M immigrants is a tiny %age of total US pop. Yeah, but what about after 25 years (1 generation)? That's 125M more people! Then with family reunification, add another 50M. Pants on fire!

He is half Chinese. Surprised? I really hate to turn this into an ethnic shouting match, but facts are facts.


John Craig said...

Coco --
I don't get these libertarians who want near-open borders. I'm more or less a libertarian myself but I want to close them up. Libertarians are for letting people do as they want, and the people of this country want overwhelmingly to have stricter border security and are against amnesty.

I'm also half-Japanese. That doesn't mean I want more Japanese immigration into this country. But unfortunately, most minorities do seem to want more of their own in this country.