Wattree's picture

    The African American Black Man: The New Neanderthal? (Reprise)

    By Wattree on Fri, 08/02/2013 - 11:32am |
    BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE
      
    The African American Black Man: The New Neanderthal?
    (Reprise)
      
    I was in Los Angeles on the corner of Vernon and Central the other day, just after school let out. If it hadn't been for the fact that I grew up in that area and recognized my surroundings, I would have thought I was in Mexico. What use to be an almost exclusively Black community was now filled with happy, playful - and mannerly - Hispanic children coming home from school, and as I looked around, I saw thriving Latino businesses being patronized by poor, but thriving Latino patrons. I was intrigued, so I decided to take a detour through the neighborhood.
    .
    Now, I don't know whether the area is primarily Mexican-American, or filled with illegal immigrants, but what was clear was that the area was changing. There was a new vitality there. I saw fathers and teenage boys in the yards, both at home and enjoying the love of family rather than hanging out in the street. I saw a neighborhood free of young men glaring at me, or waving me over as I drove by. The neighborhood was no longer threatening. It was a neighborhood that now said family, instead of gangster. It was a neighborhood that was clearly trying to make a comeback.
    .
    It felt good to see my old stomping grounds rejuvenating itself, but I also felt a twinge of both guilt and envy. I felt guilt because my own teenage antics contributed greatly to dragging this very neighborhood down to its previous state, and envy that what comes so easily to most cultures seems to be so elusive to my own. I also felt more than a tinge of fear, because to anyone who's familiar with Charles Darwin's theory on natural selection, it's clear that the Black man is swirling around the event horizon of a massive black hole. If we don't do something to get our young people's attention real soon, at best, the Black man is going to become irrelevant, or at worst, the new Neanderthal.
    .
    According to Darwin's theory of evolution, which at this point is considered more fact than theory to most scientists, nature is in a constant process of selecting which groups or species will survive to perpetuate itself, and which will die out. The concept is called natural selection, or popularly known as the survival of the fittest. In order to insure that only the best, most adaptive, and strongest life forms populate the Earth, nature eliminates the weak to insure they won't procreate and contaminate the Earth with their weak offspring.
    .
    The process of elimination starts even before an individual is born. Every individual starts out with as many as 40 million potential brothers and sisters, all scurrying towards their mother's egg. But most die off before they reach the mother's egg. Therefore, just the fact that you were born means that you're not just one in a million—you're one in 40 million. You were the strongest and most viable of over 40 million others.
    .
    And nature takes the survival of the fittest very seriously. Anyone who has ever watched a dog or a cat give birth to their young have probably seen first hand how brutally serious nature can be in this regard. If you haven't, just ask yourself, when was the last time you saw a puppy born with a birth defect. If you have, it's very rare, because if an animal is born defective in any way, the mother will kill it on the spot—and in many cases eat it. Nature doesn't provide animals with a welfare office, so they know by instinct that they, and their young, must to be able to hold their own weight in this world, or die.
    .
    But a life form doesn't have to have a physical defect for nature to weed it out. Nature will also weed out things that are maladaptive or have an inability to adapt to its environment - like many of us, for example. God made birds to fly, fish to swim, and man to think. If a bird refuses to fly, it cannot survive. If a fish refuses to swim, it will not survive. The very same rule applies to man. If a man refuses to think, he will not survive - and that has become a serious problem in the Black community. Many of our young Black men simply refuse to think.
    .
    It's as though we're on a mission to ensure our own extinction. While the men of other cultures seem to have no problem in stepping up to the plate to solidify the family unit and ensure their children get a running start in life, we're abandoning our children, and referring to the very womb of our culture as "bitches and whoes"; and if we're not killing other Black men over drugs, we're killing ourselves with drugs - and then struttin' around braggin' about it! And even when we aren't killing ourselves, we're making dumb decisions that's causing us to have to spend years at a time locked up in jail like animals. Many of us have embraced a philosophy of manhood that enforces a moral obligation to be stupid. It's like, you're not a true Black man unless you take a pledge to remain ignorant.
    .
    This is a sad state of affairs, because nature is already hard at work weeding the Black man out, and we're giving her all the help that she needs. Every time one gang member or drug dealer kills another, that's nature at work upgrading the gene pool. Every time someone dies of an overdose, nature's right there - "well, I don't have to worry about him fathering anymore weak minded people." And when you go to jail, that also takes your seed out of circulation.
    .
    But the biggest impact is right around the corner. Look around you, Black man. While you're acting a fool nature is also selecting traits in Black women that's allowing them to do without you. Notice that while you're out there saggin' and getting dumber and dumber, Black women are becoming better educated, and getting good jobs. That's right, brother - nature is rendering you irrelevant. You are no longer a suitable mate, so nature is preparing the Black female to do without you - and it's happening right before your eyes.
    .
    So if you're a young brother, you can just standby. That pretty young lady of yours may think your droopy pants are cool now, but as she becomes better educated and gets that good job that you're too maladjusted to be considered for, she's going to begin to see you for what you really are, a looser—and a broke one at that. She's going to realize you're not a suitable mate. And she's going to recognize that saggin' (spell it backwards) doesn't make you a man. In fact, it makes you an embarrassment in the world she wants to move into - and it's not because she's getting uppity, it's because it's true. She wants to live, and she wants her children to live and prosper, but she can't do that with you, because you're a dying breed. As a direct result, their very survival is going to require Black women to go outside of the Black race to find suitable mates.
    .
    That's right - that beautiful young sister that you love so much is going to have to go out and find her a real man, one who's capable of survival in the real world. Then once that starts to happen, what was once a proud Black race is going to become less and less Black with every generation that passes, until the Black man, at least, as we know him, will only exist as pictures on the wall of natural history museums–a relic of the past.
    .
    I can hear the anthropologists discussing us now - in the past tense, of course. They'll probably give us a scientific name like "Africantus Americana Fool". They'll be in the museum looking up at some brother that they found dead of a drug overdose in the snow and then had stuffed. Then the anthropologist will say to a class of visiting students, "You know, it's really amazing when you think about it. They had the intellectual potential to thrive, but they just didn't have any common sense. The major downfall of 'Homeboy' (a nickname they assigned to our species) was that he lacked a sense of community, and had less than rudimentary coping skills. But there's one thing you've got to give him - he was the coolest thing on the planet, while he was around. He didn't have much common sense, but the brother could sho'nuff sag."
    .
    The upshot will be, we'll finally get the attention that we so passionately craved. But the downside is, it'll be on the History Channel.
    *
    I Bear Witness
    .
    I sit, I watch,
    and I grow ever more obsolete
    as I bear witness.
    .
    I bear witness
    to a once vibrant people greedily gulping down society’s hemlock. Even as they claim to be "keeping it real," they continue to maim, kill, and despise their own in hot pursuit of the prime directive with the passion of a sheetless Klan.
    .
    I bear witness
    to Black fists in the air in false solidarity promoted by self-serving poverty pimps as the world looks on and giggle at crooked fingers pointed elsewhere.
    .
    I bear witness
    to the superficial attempt to ban the “N-word” while the new "un-niggas" stand around watching children killing children and fathers drugging sons, as they celebrate, lionize, and enrich those who denigrate the very womb of their culture with impunity.
    .
    I bear witness
    to a generation of lost knowledge, cut off from its roots by Ronnie’s “Just say no” generation of crack, greed, death, and political corruption; A generation where the new N-word is pronounced “Responsibility” and the keepers of the flame completely ignore the destructive power of bitch, slut, whore, and tramp.
    .
    I bear witness
    to the reckless disregard of the words uneducated, irresponsible, and classless. Should we not ban these words as well, or should we ban banning words altogether as we celebrate their meaning?
    .
    Yes, I do bear witness.
    I bear witness to a new world -
    a world where gross ignorance comes disguised as enlightenment, and funky sneakers look down with disdain upon the sweet smell of Florsheim; a world where saggin’ pants and gaudy glitter enable country bumpkins to masquerade as elegant, and the exquisite surrender of eloquence is the very essence of what it means to be hip.
    .
    Where's Langston? Where's Baldwin? Where's Oscar Brown, Jr.?
    We need you stormin' this beach, because . . .
    .
    I now bear witness
    to a world where motherhood stands alone, to be “dope” renders a smile, and posterity is forced to embrace the wind for paternal sustenance; A world where the walking dead strut about rapping the wisdom of idiocy, and we praise the illiteracy of vulgar nursery rhymes as profound; a world where the mother of salvation's final gasp is compared to the pigmentation of brown paper bags.
    .
    Malcolm, Martin, where are you?
    I once stood with a crowd.
    Now seemingly alone,
    I'm forced to bear witness -
    horrific witness . . .
    to the imminent demise of our people,
    .
    And my heart bleeds.
    .

     
    .
    The Tail Wagging The Dog
    .
    The focus of this article is a critique of the Black popular culture and the negative impact that it's having on Black youth - and through extension, the Black community as a whole - and not the vast majority of Black people who are fully functional and well adjusted. The reason we decided to emphasize the dysfunctional is, due to the focus of the media, the tail is wagging the dog. A 15% minority of the Black culture is dictating the trajectory of the remaining 85%  of the Black majority. So the tact taken here is designed to hold a mirror up to the more responsible segment of the Black community and wake them up to what we're allowing to happen to our culture. We would be remiss, however, if we didn't present at least a glimpse of the Black community that you don’t generally see in the media.
    .
    FACTS THAT THE MEDIA DON'T TELL YOU
    .
    The vast majority of Black people in this country are middle class or above. African Americans are the second largest consumer group in America with a combined buying power of over $892 billion currently and likely over $1.1 trillion by 2012. In 2002 African American owned businesses accounted for 1.2 million of the US's 23 million businesses, and 47% of Africans Americans own their own homes. - U.S. Census Bureau
    .
    So again, the bottom line is, the media focuses on the 15% of Black people who are struggling, unemployed, and/or dysfunctional. But they never discuss the 85% who are gainfully employed, never go to jail, don't use drugs, and are living the American dream just like any other group of middle-class Americans:
    .
    RELATED CONTENT
    .
    .
     Eric L. Wattree
    Http://wattree.blogspot.com
    [email protected]
    Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.
     

    Comments

    I see what you're trying to say, Eric, but your reference to Darwin in this context, however metaphorical, is disturbing. White supremacists have long invoked pseudo-Darwinian notions to justify their racism, and I can easily imagine some racist nodding his head as he reads this and concluding that the black men are criminal by nature. There are still echoes of this idea floating around the American court system (or I should say the Texas court system).


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 08/02/2013 - 12:14pm

    Michael,

    While I understand what you’re saying, I’m not going to limit my ability to express certain concepts over my concern about what some idiot might say. Racists are irrelevant to me - and I mean racist of every stripe - because they’re racist through ignorance, and on a subliminal level they know that.

    One of the primary reasons that people become racist in the first place is because they recognize their innate mediocrity as individuals. As a result, they want to believe that in spite of that, they’re special by virtue of the color t-shirt they were born in. That’s why racists hate Obama so intensely - his superior intelligence is a slap in the fact of their desperate need to hold on to their delusions of grandeur.

    So why should we limit complex thinking in order to defer to the lowest common denominator of society? That’s like checking with your dog before making an important business decision. Yeah, I know. It’s a brutal metaphor, but when it comes to people who embrace ignorance as a way of life I’m something of a bigot myself. There are only two kinds of people in this world - good people, and bad people - and I consider anyone who lacks the intelligence to recognize that fundamental fact of life as beneath me, and therefore, don't warrant any more consideration in this, or any other discussion, than my dog. 


    by Wattree on Sat, 08/03/2013 - 1:58pm

    History is full of brilliant racists--scientists, artists, philosophers, statesmen, and theologians. These people were hardly the "lowest common denominator of society." And unfortunately, many of these people found pseudo-darwinian race theories persuasive.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sun, 08/04/2013 - 12:23pm

    Michael, you said, "History is full of brilliant racists--scientists, artists, philosophers, statesmen, and theologians. These people were hardly the "lowest common denominator of society." And unfortunately, many of these people found pseudo-darwinian race theories persuasive."

    There are exceptions to every rule, but as a rule, bigots are ignorant - that’s why they’re bigots. It’s no accident that the most bigoted part of the nation is in the Southern Bible Belt, which is also the most undereducated part of this country.

    And with regard to these so-called "Brilliant" men, we should never confuse credentials and fame with intelligence. Some of the greatest minds I’ve ever known held court while sitting on empty milk crates in the parking lots of ghetto liquor stores, while some of the weakest minds I’ve ever known roamed the halls of academia in pursuit of credentials over knowledge.

    There’s a huge difference being "learned," and being intelligent. To be learned is merely having the ability to regurgitate the words of other "learned" dead men, while intelligence is having the ability to take the words being regurgitated by the learned, and then manipulating them in a unique and meaningful manner. Thus, many of the men that we regard as brilliant were merely verbose. That’s the point that I’ve been trying to make regarding Dr. Cornel West.

    So I would modify the above comment to say, history is filled with illustrious idiots who have been given far more credit for brilliance than they deserve. What we refer to as history is nothing more than the romanticized account of ordinary men engaged in routine stupidity. Even as we speak they're in the process of modifying history to reflect Ronald Regan as a towering icon that he never was, and was incapable of ever becoming.


    by Wattree on Sun, 08/04/2013 - 10:50pm

    Is Aristotle an "illustrious idiot"? Thomas Jefferson? Woodrow Wilson? Or if you want a more recent example, how about James D. Watson, who discovered DNA? But just to keep the scope relatively narrow, let's focus on the "science" of racism--the folks who tried to establish a scientific basis for white supremacy. Some names that you might recognize from the list: Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Voltaire, and your friend Charles Darwin. Sorry, but these bigots were far more intelligent than you or I.

    You might also consider your own Darwinian logic for a moment. If racists were all idiots, then shouldn't they have gone extinct long ago? Why then are there so many racists in the world after 5,000 years of civilization? Or to put it another way, if only idiots were racist, racism wouldn't be much of a problem. The racists would just hang out on the fringe with the other crackpots.

    To the contrary, racism is so dangerous precisely because it is so seductive. It pervades entire societies, sweeping in brilliant thinkers along with uneducated idiots. When you dismiss racism as nothing but the fancy of the fool, you underestimate the immense power of the most toxic force in human history.


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/05/2013 - 10:03am

    It isn't just black youth. Baltimore is approximately 2/3 African-American, but if I ride the light rail in the middle of the day, I see many more drug-addled young white people than black people. Maybe they're just less afraid of being seen wasted in public.

    To hear them talk on their cell phones, you'd think they have the world by the tail, but then they start begging for change to pay the fare.


    by Donal on Mon, 08/05/2013 - 11:20am

    Michael,

    There’s a huge distinction between the statement, "Dogs have fleas," and "ALL dogs have fleas." ."In response to his assertion, I'd like to acknowledge that there are exceptions to every rule, but as a rule, and by definition, bigots are ignorant - that’s why they’re bigots in the first place. Further evidence of that is, it’s no accident that the most bigoted part of this nation is in the Southern Bible Belt, which is also the most undereducated part of this country." http://wattree.blogspot.com/2013/08/about-racists-ignorance-and-irreleva...

    Michael, you also said, "Some names that you might recognize from the list: Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Voltaire, and your friend Charles Darwin. Sorry, but these bigots were far more intelligent than you or I."

    You should speak for yourself in that regard. I don’t make that assumption. I never give anyone else’s ability to think priority over me own. Such assumptions are the result of social indoctrination - or being educated in WHAT to think, instead of HOW to think.

    "And with regard to these so-called "Brilliant" men, we should never confuse credentials and notoriety with intelligence. Some of the greatest minds I’ve ever known held court while sitting on empty milk crates in the parking lots of ghetto liquor stores. On the other hand, some of the weakest minds I’ve ever known roamed the halls of academia in pursuit of credentials over knowledge. Socrates, who is widely acknowledged as the father of modern thought, was among the former. By today's standards he would have been considered a shiftless hood rat who didn't want to do anything but hangout on the block and cut it up with his homies.

    "So there’s a huge difference being "learned," and being intelligent. To be learned is merely having the ability to regurgitate the words of dead White men (according to our educational system, White men seemed to be the only ones who had an original thought), while intelligence is having the ability to take the words being regurgitated by the so-called learned, and then manipulating them in a unique and meaningful manner. Thus, many of the men who we regard as brilliant were merely verbose. That’s the point that I’ve been trying to make regarding Dr. Cornel West.

    "Thus, I would modify the above comment to say, "History is filled with illustrious idiots who have been given far more credit for brilliance than they deserve." Because much of what we refer to as history is nothing more than the romanticized account of ordinary men engaged in routine stupidity.

    The fact is, if we'd wash the goober dust out of our eyes and looked at history objectively, we'd find a few significant flashes of insight interspersed between vast expansions of gross stupidity. Even as we speak there are people in the process of modifying history to reflect Ronald Regan as a towering icon of political brilliance that he never was, nor, was he capable of ever becoming. Even as we speak there are people in the process of modifying history to reflect Ronald Regan as a towering icon of political brilliance that he never was, nor, was he capable of ever becoming."

     


    by Wattree on Mon, 08/05/2013 - 4:02pm

    It is not an assumption. I do not call them brilliant because someone told me that they were brilliant. I call them brilliant because I have read and studied their work. I can assure you that they were far more intelligent than you or me, and that is no slight on either of us.

    But let's talk about goober dust for a moment. In my experience, those who have the most goober dust in their eyes are those who never question their own beliefs. They believe what they believe no matter how much contrary evidence is presented to them. A goober-blinded white supremacist, for example, will never acknowledge the possibility of intelligent black people. If he sees a successful black person--a judge or a professor or a president--he will blame affirmative action or some other bullshit. At most, he will acknowledge some exceptions to the rule. He is so committed to his racist ideas that he will hold onto them no matter what.

    Eric, I have cited for you a few examples of brilliant racists. There are many, many, many others. Historically, most people were racist, including the best and brightest of them. Yet in the face of such evidence, rather than question your own belief that it is impossible for a bigot to be intelligent, you have found excuses for why they must not be intelligent, or else you have dismissed them as exceptions. So I ask you, who here has goober dust in his eyes, the one who is willing to accept evidence or the one who disregards it because it does not fit his beliefs?


    by Michael Wolraich on Mon, 08/05/2013 - 5:34pm

    Michael,

    Brilliance entails being an efficient and logical thinker, and racism is illogical. Therefore, by definition, a racist is less than brilliant. Period.


    by Wattree on Tue, 08/06/2013 - 1:23am

    Dude, Aristotle is the father of Western logic. Everything you write about "efficient and logical" thought, you owe to Aristotle. He is one of if not the most brilliant human being in history. He could out-think and out-logic you all day long.

    And yet he was racist, sexist, and elitist. So how do we parse that contradiction? In the spirit of Aristotle and Eric Wattree, let's apply a little logic.

     

    Eric's Theorem:

    Premise 1: All brilliant people think logically

    Premise 2: Racist thinking is illogical

    Conclusion: All brilliant people are not racist

     

    The Aristotle Conundrum:

    Premise A: Aristotle was brilliant

    Premise B: Aristotle was racist

    Conclusion: Some brilliant people are racist

     

    So how do we resolve this contradiction? Which premise do we reject? You seem intent on rejecting A, but that would require a very perverse definition of brilliance, seeing as Aristotle essentially invented the logical exercise in which we are now engaged.

    The fallacy, I suggest to you, is in Eric's Theorem. The premise, all brilliant people think logically, does not entail that all brilliant people always think logically. Indeed, I would argue that no one always thinks logically, not even the great Eric Wattree.

    To put it another way, even Aristotle, one of the most logical thinkers the world has ever produced, made mistakes. And racist thinking was one of his biggest mistakes.

    If we now cast our eyes back over history, we can easily see that the mistake of racism was not an exception. Before the 1950s, most brilliant people made the same mistake that Aristotle made. Indeed, it may be the most common mistake in history.


    by Michael Wolraich on Tue, 08/06/2013 - 11:28am

    Michael, you said,

    "Aristotle is the father of Western logic. Everything you write about "efficient and logical" thought, you owe to Aristotle. He is one of if not the most brilliant human being in history. He could out-think and out-logic you all day long."

    You’re making several unwarranted assumptions. First, I’m the father of my ability to think, and I don’t owe Aristotle shit. I would think the same way even if Aristotle never lived. Aristotle didn't INVENT logical thought, he merely DESCRIBED it. So what you’re actually saying is, if I don’t except your definition of brilliance there’s something wrong with my thinking. That’s the height of hubris.

    We should never assume that because a person is celebrated, that he’s brilliant. If you tell me a person is brilliant, and I later find out that he believes in talking snakes, I’m going to challenge your assumption. A brilliant person thinks brilliantly. That’s simple logic. So if the person is prone to make stupid assumptions - and a racist mind-set certainly falls into that category - BY DEFINITION, he's less than brilliant, I don’t care what his name is, or how celebrated he’s been throughout history.

    Just because a person has a given skill in one area, that doesn’t make him brilliant; it simply means that he's skilled in a given area. But based on what seems to be your definition of brilliance, my mechanic is undoubtedly one of the greatest minds of all time.

    This is not the first time I’ve been involved in a debate regarding this issue. I’ve been in debates with people where they’d say something like, "Well, Martin Luther King said . . ." The implication is, because MLK said something that's at variance with what I’m saying, that should end the debate. But my response is, I don’t care what Martin said. I disagree with him.

    I’ll challenge the thinking of ANYBODY if I think they’re wrong. I don’t care if it’s Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Aristotle, or Jesus Christ. While you might consider that arrogant, I consider it independent thinking - and we need a whole lot more of it in this country.

    Thus, while I'll listen to Albert Einstein in the area of mathematics or physics, when it comes to any other area of knowledge, his opinion is no better than anyone else's, because I recognize that man is notorious for giving people more credit than they're due - especially after their dead. If you doubt that, go to any deadbeat's funeral. You won't even recognize who they're talking about.

    Taking that into consideration, Aristotle died 300 years before the birth of Christ, and every admirer who wrote about him over these two thousand years added to the myth of what he represented. So do I question his brilliance? You damn right I do. I question everything - that’s called critical thinking.

    Aristotle was just another celebrated writer - as was Voltaire, and/or Shakespeare. In fact, many consider Shakespeare the most "brilliant" writer in the history of English literature, but personally, I’d rather spend a day in jail than have to agonize through an entire day of his plays. At least in jail I could sleep through the day, or read Harpers or Time Magazine.

    But of course, there are many who would be shocked by that statement, and they’d write me off as uncultured. But from my point of view, that attitude betrays the fact that such people are more indoctrinated than they are educated. They’ve been taught WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think. If I was that narrow-minded in my thinking, I’d insist that anyone who didn’t appreciate Thelonious Monk was undereducated and without culture. But since I was educated in HOW to think whether than WHAT to think, I’m not that big a fool. http://wattree.blogspot.com/2013/03/beneath-spin-eric-l.html 


    by Wattree on Wed, 08/07/2013 - 3:18am

    Of course, you should think for yourself. I did not write and would never write that you should believe something because Aristotle or anyone else said so. Just because someone is brilliant does not mean everything that they said was true. That holds for Aristotle as it does MLK Jr. But it's one thing to say that Aristotle and MLK Jr. were wrong about some or even many things. It's another thing to say that they were not brilliant human beings.

    Now, if after reading Aristotle's work and studying a little of the history of philosophy, you thoughtfully conclude that he's overrated and not as brilliant as people make him out to be, I can appreciate that. Similarly, if after listening to Thelonious Monk and other jazz musicians, you conclude that Monk is overrated, I can appreciate that too.

    But if you dismiss Aristotle's intelligence without having attempted to understand what he wrote, or if you pooh-pooh Monk's talent without having tried to appreciate his music, that does not make you a free thinker. It means that you are speaking out of ignorance.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 08/07/2013 - 9:22am

    Michael,

    My educational background is in psychology, and part of the curriculum to obtain my degree was in philosophy. But those readings notwithstanding, even as a kid my major interest was human thought, so long before I was even out of high school I was familiar with the writings and concepts of Aristotle. I ran across him in an attempt to gain more information on Socrates, and as I’m sure you know, since Socrates did next to no writing, most of what we know about him we know through the writings of Plato, Aristotle, and Xenophon.

    But the primary intellectual influence in my life was Ralph Waldo Emerson. The reason for that is I stumbled upon him at 13 years old, in my formative years, and before I became an intellectual cynic. In fact, he made me an intellectual cynic. He said something to the effect that "It is Easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion, and it is easy in solitude to live after one’s own; but great is the man, who in the midst of the crowd, keeps with perfect sweetness, the independence of solitude."

    I embraced that philosophy as a child, and it’s the position that I’m arguing in this debate. Emerson would say, the primary reason that Aristotle is considered brilliant is that he had the courage to actually say, what we know in our hearts to be true. But if you know it to be true, that makes you just as brilliant as he is. You simple lack his courage. So it isn’t so much Aristotle’s brilliance that’s celebrated by man, but his courage. And if we go down through the ages, we’ll find that the same is true of others that we celebrate - at least, those involved in philosophy, or what I call the speculative arts, and that includes Martin Luther King. The Black community is filled with preachers like MLK and Malcolm X. They just happened to be the one's selected by history.

     


    by Wattree on Wed, 08/07/2013 - 6:22pm

      I'm surprised to hear someone say that Emerson made him a cynic. Emerson was anything but cynical.


    by Aaron Carine on Wed, 08/07/2013 - 6:23pm

    Aaron,

    I said he made me an "intellectual cynic." Which means that I’m very suspicious of general consensus. Emerson was both a contrarian, and a critical thinker.


    by Wattree on Wed, 08/07/2013 - 6:42pm

    Aristotle is considered brilliant because he was brilliant. He essentially created the fields of logic, metaphysics, ethics, physics, political science, and literary criticism. You have to be willfully blind to consider the scope of his innovations and not see that.

    But perhaps we should speak of another brilliant man, Ralph Waldo Emerson. He was a great poet, philosopher, and abolitionist. And he was a racist.

    The least knowledge of the natural history of man adds another important particular to these; namely, what class of men he belongs to—European, Moor, Tartar, African? Because Nature has plainly assigned different degrees of intellect to these different races, and the barriers between are insurmountable.

    There's more.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 08/07/2013 - 6:58pm

    Michael,

    Surely you realize that you have to measure a man’s attitudes in the context of his times. Using your standard, every White American of that time was a racist. But you selected an interesting quotation to make your point. Now, tell me. What makes you assume that he’s not saying that Whites are intellectually inferior to the Moors? Hmmmm . . . You see, even today we suffer from racial hubris.

    Ralph Waldo Emerson was an abolitionist who suffered from a severe case of hubris, as did Lincoln, and every one of America’s founding fathers. However, Emerson wrote the following poem:

    "But, laying hands on another to coin his labor and sweat,

    He goes in pawn to his victim For eternal years in debt.

    To-day unbind the captive, So only are ye unbound;

    Lift up a people from the dust, Trump of their rescue, sound!

    Pay ransom to the owner And fill the bag to the brim.

    Who is the owner? The slave is owner, And ever was. Pay him."

    So if you want to insist Emerson a racist based on his hubris for the sake of debate, we can do that. But considering the context of his times, it’s intellectually dishonest, and I don’t have the time to take part in such rhetorical games. I could get into the distinction between a dedicated racist and the arrogant presumption of hubris, but I’ve decided not to waste the time.

    I engage in discussions as an educational exercise, while you seem to approach it as a sporting event. But in spite of that, I’ll try to salvage the time that I’ve wasted by trying to turn this into a teaching moment - just in case this is read by someone who’s actually interested in the exchange of ideas.

    What you’ve demonstrated here is the primary reason that I’m not into sports. The only mature and constructive form of competition is to compete against the person you were yesterday, so I make it a point not to play in sandboxes, or engage in spitball fights. I don’t have the time for that sort of thing, because we only have so many seconds on Earth, and I have no intention of wasting them in that way:

    http://wattree.blogspot.com/2011/02/is-our-competitive-spirit-helping-or...

     


    by Wattree on Wed, 08/07/2013 - 10:19pm

    If you read both pages of the diary entry that I linked to, you'll see that Emerson makes quite clear which race he regards as superior.

    And yes, of course Emerson is a product of his times. That's the point I've been arguing the whole time--that history if full of brilliant, rational free-thinkers who also happen to be racist, just like Emerson. And frankly, I've had a hell of time getting you to acknowledge it.

    So what? This simple historical observation tells us something very important. The fact that so many intelligent people have been racist shows just how dangerous and seductive racism can be. If someone as astute and open-minded as Emerson can have racist beliefs, then anyone can, no matter how intelligent.

    That's why it's dangerous to dismiss racists as irrelevant idiots whose opinions matter no more than a dog's, as you put it. Because when you do that, you underestimate people who are smarter than you think, and you underestimate the power of an evil idea that still dominates much of the world.

    As for sports, I don't know what you're talking about. If you don't realize that I engaged in this entire debate for educational purposes, then you haven't been paying attention. I'm sorry that you consider it a waste of your time. In that case, I will not waste any more of my time on you.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 08/08/2013 - 1:00am

    Michael,

    There’s a big difference between a dedicated racist and a person who is simply the product of the presumptuous attitudes of their times, and to try to conflate the two is intellectually dishonest at best, and devoid of nuanced thinking at worse.

    If you go back to my original statement, I didn’t say anything about underestimating the malevolence of racists. I said that we shouldn’t allow our concern for them to control the public debate.

    And finally, I thought about this discussion last night and came to the conclusion that much of the vitriol could have been avoided if I hadn’t been so dismissive of your views. I want to apologize for that. Sometimes my attempt to get to the bottom line spills over into arrogance. The point of writing is to communicate, and arrogance obstructs that effort. So if I’ve gotten anything from this discussion, it’s the need to work on that.


    by Wattree on Thu, 08/08/2013 - 8:56am

    Eric, I appreciate that and apologize if I offended you. I can be pugnacious in debate (which is a euphemism for obnoxious).

    I find that good communication results in two people's views coming closer together even if they never agree, and I hope that we've done that to some extent. 

    To the point, I'm not sure what exactly what you mean by a "dedicated" racist, but I gather you have in mind a certain kind of unreflective, irrational bigot. I agree with you that there is little point in bothering with folks like that.

    But what I've been trying to get you to take seriously is the danger from more thoughtful but still poisonous forms of racism. Emerson, as one example, was influenced by the pseudo-Darwinist race theories that I initially warned you about. He wrote, "It will happen by & by, that the black man will only be destined for museums like the Dodo." But he meant something much different and much darker than you did in your post.

    I gather you feel that these days are forever behind us--that "intellectual" racism of this sort is gone and will never return, leaving only a few ignorant bigots. I hope so. But I remain on my guard. It was not very long ago that the whole world was racist--including people like Emerson. Even today, outside of a few advanced nations that have (mostly) transcended these ideas, such views are all too common.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 08/08/2013 - 11:52am

    The above comment has made me respect you as a writer more than anything else I have read by you on this site. Pontificating or preaching style essays and debate can be wicked fun to read. But after a while, following one writer, that grows tiresome, and a reader yearns to know there's also some thoughtfulness there and what those thoughts are, not just the pronouncements from the milk crate podium.


    by artappraiser on Thu, 08/08/2013 - 1:06pm

    Thank you, @Michael, ArtAppraiser, I have very good advisers.

     
    Working with people with different viewpoints is a wonderful thing. Why are people so uncomfortable when they're not on the same page all the time? The worst thing you can do is make a person feel like what they're feeling is not valid. It's how they feel, whether you agree with it or not. Life is not always a Kumbaya. It's very interesting.
    Good advice, Kai, and I'm going to remember it Once again you're proving that your mother and I raised two kids who grew up to be better than ourselves, and I take great pride in that.
    Are you being mushy Poppi? Awwwwww so cute!
     
    • Kai, I'm always mushy when it comes to you and Eric. You represent my biggest success in life. If I don't accomplish anything else in life, raising you two let's me and your mother go out as winners.

    by Wattree on Fri, 08/09/2013 - 1:35am

    Crime is going down virtually everywhere except in urban pockets of poverty. I was recently in Woodstock, MD in an all Black neighborhood with upper middle class incomes. Crime was something that you saw on TV or in the news.

    If you defund schools, take away jobs for those without college degrees, pack people into impoverished areas and fight the war on drugs on only one largely dark-skinned battlefield, you get the results that we have today.

    Poor Black males can pull up their pants and clean up their language, they will still be poor and Black. Many good jobs go to those with contacts. If a working person with contacts can vouch for you on a resume, you have a step up. 

    If you get to the right college and impress the right professor, it may only take a phone call or letter to set you on your way to employment or a graduate education. With the right setting, you are unaware of options other than college. The village around your middle class life sets the pattern you follow.

    Hadiya Pendleton was on her way to success. The murderer who took her life in all likelihood couldn't have found DC on a map. If we consider the neighborhood where the murderer grew up unworthy of attention, then we can expect more crime.education and employment are the basis for decreasing crime.

    If you have the invcome to support food, clothing, transportation and family, you won't be tempted to commit crime or to view yourself as worthless. Even JayZ is rapping about not using drugs and applying yourself to business/ success. He notes that you have to envision yourself as successful before you start your journey. We send too many messages that Black youth are unworthy.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Mon, 08/05/2013 - 2:56pm

    When using Darwin's models, it is helpful, I think, to remember that he was trying to understand why species change when so much infrastructure is in place to reproduce the previous generation as it was before.

    When reading "social Darwinists", the most striking aspect of the analysis is their equation of the processes of nature to life within a specific society. One doesn't have to understand all the secrets of nature and society to recognize that such an equation is absurd. The equation elevates this or that particular form of life as the measure for all others.

    But the more deficient defect of social Darwinism relates to what I said in the first paragraph. Darwin challenged the idea of species as a form of identity since it is individual lives, made or not made on their own terms, that live to see another day. This is just no country for racial identity. It barely lets us hold to being homo sapiens.


    by moat on Mon, 08/05/2013 - 11:25pm

    I ran across a new study on racism in intelligent white people, and it reminded me of the conversation you and Wolraich were having:

    Smart enough to know better: Intelligence is not a remedy for racism

    Among Wodtke's findings:

    • High-ability whites were more likely than low-ability whites to reject residential segregation and to support school integration in principle, and they were more likely to acknowledge racial discrimination in the workplace. But there were only trivial differences across cognitive ability levels in support for policies designed to realize racial equality in practice.
    • In some cases, more intelligent whites were actually less likely to support remedial policies for racial inequality. For example, about 27 percent of the least intelligent whites supported school busing programs, compared with 23 percent of the most intelligent whites.

    I'm assuming that intelligence was measured in the way that it usually is — through an IQ test. I also acknowledge that IQ tests are very imperfect measures of intelligence.


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 08/11/2013 - 8:10am

    Of course, I do wonder a bit about their methodologies. E.g., what does "supporting school busing programs" actually mean? Where I grew up (Clarkston, Georgia), the m-to-m (minority to majority) program was still busing black students into the high school I was teaching at, even though black students had become the plurality (no race was the majority). I'm not sure that would've been true if they'd stopped the busing program, but I would expect so.* So, if I expressed reservations about the busing program vis-à-vis Clarkston, would they include me in the "racist intelligent white people" group?

    *This is not a success story, however. Unfortunately white flight is the primary explanation for this change in demographics, along with the self-fulfilling prophecy of reduced property values. This in turn led to the quality of education at Clarkston falling to the point that they were willing to hire me as a teacher.


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 08/11/2013 - 8:17am

    Latest Comments