Search Box

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Blacks I meet vs. those I read about

I mentioned three posts ago that I generally like the blacks I meet in my hometown more, on average, than I do the whites, since the blacks are generally friendlier and warmer. Blacks seem to be more uninhibited about being friendly, just as they're more uninhibited about most things. I also usually get the sense that when they are being friendly, there's no agenda and no phoniness. (This is often not the case with whites.)

And if people are nice to me, I can't dislike them.

Of course, any black willing to live in an overwhelmingly white town -- like the one I live in -- is not going to be the type who reflexively hates whites. If I met mostly inner city blacks, my impressions would undoubtedly differ.

I also know that as friendly as the blacks I meet are, that deep down, their loyalties are almost certainly racial. I know the percentage of blacks who voted for Jesse Jackson in '88, and for Obama in '08 and '12. For all I know, the friendly blacks I meet may have actually been among those cheering when OJ was acquitted in 1995.

But whatever resentments I feel against blacks is directed at those I read about, not those I meet. I meet friendly, congenial blacks. I read about Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Al Sharpton.

This leads me to wonder what role the media has played in my thinking. I wouldn't feel nearly as much resentment if the mainstream media didn't give a free pass to these lying hypocrites. Nor would I feel as much if there weren't such a huge double standard when it comes to reporting on crime. Nor if the media didn't try so hard to demonize anyone who speaks honestly about racial differences.

The media has overplayed its hand so much that it's almost as if they themselves have been purposely stoking resentment against blacks. Even though their aim seems to be to stoke resentment against whites, or, at least, to make whites feel guilty.

And that results in a large gap between my feelings about most of the blacks I meet and those who make the news. I'd even say -- as I've said in the past -- that while I can think of a number of whites I've hated enough to want to kill, I've never personally known a single black I've felt that way about.

(Had I had a sister who was raped by one, or a parent who was mugged, I might feel differently; but, I haven't.)

I'm aware of racial differences in IQ, and so on. But to dislike anybody because they have a lower IQ would be the height of silliness. Disliking liars and hypocrites on the subject of race, however, is another matter.

The worst liars and hypocrites seem to be in the media. And very few of them are black.


Anonymous said...


I'm not touching this with a ten-foot pole; not in a public forum at least.

But I would LOVE to know where you live. Are you allowed to tell us?


John Craig said...

Gardner --
Connecticut, Fairfield County.

Anonymous said...

I like a person until that person gives me a reason (or reasons) not to like them, then my opinion of that person changes.


John Craig said...

Birdie --
That's the only commonsensical way to approach people. Or, at least, stay neutral until you get an impression of someone's personality.

Mark Caplan said...

Whites and blacks struck a widely understood but unwritten truce in the late '60s. Whites agreed to ascribe all problems in the African American community to racism and oppression and blacks agreed not to burn this m*-f* down.

Whites are certainly holding up their end of the bargain. Here is a list of books written by the privileged white philosophy chair at a university in Charlotte, NC:

Living Across and Through Skins (2001)

Revealing Whiteness: The Unconscious Habits of Racial Privilege (2006)

Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance (2007)

Good White People: The Problem with Middle Class White Anti-Racism (2014)

"She currently is completing a book on the physiology of racist and sexist oppression" [faculty web page].

John Craig said...

Mark --
All obfuscation and cant. It's amazing the lengths to which people have gone to deny the obvious.

Steven said...

Reading the title 'the epistemologies of ignorance' makes me heartily glad I have left university for good.

I think the book should be called 'Race and the epistemologies of ignorance: notes for an ivory tower'.

Peñaflor said...

I think most people in the US are terrified of even touching the question of differences related to IQ because we now identify anything that is good and admirable with the capacity to get ahead. Being able to get what you want matters a lot more now than being a good or reliable person. IQ would expose the collective pursuit of getting ahead as a sham that cannot be justified, because it reveals that there are gaps in intelligence and ability that cannot be overcome by social remedies.

On the other hand, I would prefer to be around people who are more moral and decent than they are intelligent. In fact, I would wager that organizations that are filled with people who are more serious about doing their duty than getting what they desire are superior to organizations where people are more intelligent than they are virtuous. The intelligent people nowadays underestimate the importance and value of trust: they are lions being led by the sheep of petty ambitions. And Napoleon said that an army of sheep led by a lion is superior to one composed of lions led by sheep.

Steven said...

*FROM an ivory tower goddammit. typos!

Peñaflor said...

The titles of those books put into my head the image of the passengers on the Titanic cheering for the iceberg to hit the ship.

John Craig said...

Penaflor --
Having worked on Wall Street, I can attest to some of what you say.

(I am a libertarian though, and think a certain amount of competition is good -- and really, inevitable -- for a society to function effectively.)

John Craig said...

Steven --
The problem with Autocorrect, as I've found many times, is that it turns an obvious typo into an actual word which doesn't quite make sense in the context. I know there's a way to turn Autocorrect off, but I've forgotten how to get there.

Steven said...


Its not intelligence vs virtue. Being more intelligent doesn't mean you are less trustworthy and hard working. Intelligence is very important to success as an independent variable.
Thus its better to be virtuous AND intelligent.

Peñaflor said...


I agree with you, but my point is that our society has lost sight of what it means to be a good person. We no longer praise people for their goodness, but only for those qualities that help them get ahead - not only intelligence but also looks, confidence, etc.

I wager that earlier periods were less hung up on intelligence, in part because technology had not advanced as far as today's technology, and in part because a person's character had much to do with his or her virtue.

Steven said...

In the past they were not able to measure intelligence and most of the population were uneducated farmers. 'Getting ahead' probably wasn't such a thing as people were mostly born into a class or caste.

Jane Austin, as an example of a Victorian upper class person, often remarked on the acuity and cleverness (or lack of) of her characters. People have probably always noticed intelligence differences.

I like this part of what you said:

"society has lost sight of what it means to be a good person. We no longer praise people for their goodness, but only for those qualities that help them get ahead - not only intelligence but also looks, confidence, etc."

Jane Austin, of course, was also interested in the moral nature of her characters, their goodness.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, Connecticut. Near the sound? I miss New England.

By all means, take people as they come and judge them as individuals.

But when you head into more multicultural environs, be aware of your surroundings.


John Craig said...

Gardner --
Not too far from the Sound. Are you from New England? (Where?)

As far as those multicultural milieus, I've been lucky in the sense that I've always had protective camouflage. I'm nothing but an over sheltered, upper middle class, neurotic Eurasian mama's boy. But for some reason, at least when I was younger, I looked like a tough Puerto Rican. So people generally didn't bother me.

BTW, I think with that linked video you were just "touching this [subject] with a ten foot pole."

Spychiatrist said...

"I'm nothing but an over sheltered, upper middle class, neurotic Eurasian mama's boy."

Nothing in your writing leads me to believe that you're a neurotic John.

You seem to be well grounded in reality here in Amerika 2015.

John Craig said...

Spike --
Thank you. (Though I'd say the mere fact that I keep a blog betrays at least some neurotic tendencies…)

Ambrose Kane said...

All good points John. In spite of the things I write about, I too don't 'hate' blacks or dislike them merely because they are black.

There have been some that I've liked and many which I haven't - and this coming from a man who has spent a lot of time in various situations with them. My opinions are based on what I've actually experienced working in their communities and dealing with them face-to-face as a city police officer.

In spite of a myriad of bad encounters with blacks, I can't say I actually hate them or despise them (though I do with the truly vile ones). Their skin color, in fact, has nothing to do with any of my opinions. I'm more drawn to one's actions, one's conduct, one's morality and decency.

I have an immediate affection and respect for blacks who are honorable, level-headed, and genuine - probably because I'm surprised by it since it seems rare (relatively speaking).

Still, as you already know, black dysfunction has gotten so pervasive that it's very easy (if one allows themselves) to hate all of them without exception. I think it's important to check oneself over this and yet to be honest with the facts of how far too many blacks speak, act and live.

Lastly, in my opinion there's a whole lot of white academic types writing about the social problems that blacks face who don't engage these people on any long-term, personal level. Their opinions are formed solely by what they read, rather than what they experience in face-to-face interactions - and there's a big difference between the two! Those blacks whom they do come into contact with are university students, professors, or higher-caliber blacks who, unfortunately, are not representative of the greater majority.

These are the kind of 'professors' that one of your readers (Mark Caplan) has noted in his comments.

John Craig said...

Ambrose --
That's a pretty good summation of the situation. For all that people like you and I resent the mainstream media for their one-sided portrayals and their lies about race, it's important to keep an open mind and judge every one as an individual.

The problem with those university professors and cloistered journalists is not that they don't experience rioting and mugging firsthand; all you have to do is keep your eyes open to see what the statistics are on those types of things. It's that they intentionally blind themselves to the facts because they somehow believe that it makes them better, or somehow more "noble," as people. It's pathetic, really.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Ambrose Kane's comment, appreciating what he wrote.