"Tar Baby"

[JD]

I get all my news from ken-jennings.com (TM)!

I vote that this be the website's slogan.

[jaclyn]

In the currently PC leaning society, apparently you can't necessarily refer to facts even in a postive way and not get thrashed for it.

Um, I would say that:

Scores are broken down by race, but Hopkins acknowledged that Jewish students are not a separate category.

Doesn't help his case. Besides, there's a really big problem with taking performance data (test scores) and trying to assign a cause. There's absolutely no data to support what he's saying, as opposed to other potential explanations. For example, have we seen a breakdown of these scores by family income? What about educational backgrounds of the parents? Are the differences between races still significant once you control for those two factors? We don't know; it hasn't been reported here.

So yes, I would agree that saying black and Hispanic children don't have the same work ethic as Asians and Jews (especially when the scores for Jewish children aren't even reported) sounds kinda racist to me.

[gameshowcongress]

So yes, I would agree that saying black and Hispanic children don't have the same work ethic as Asians and Jews (especially when the scores for Jewish children aren't even reported) sounds kinda racist to me."

But he did not SAY that black and Hispanic children don't have the same work ethic as Asians and Jews... he said his own children (who are caucasian) do not have the same work ethic.

I suppose that many in media tend to portray the person being quoted as making a statement that is not there. The inference goes back to the person he is commenting upon.

[jaclyn]

But he did not SAY that black and Hispanic children don't have the same work ethic as Asians and Jews... he said his own children (who are caucasian) do not have the same work ethic.

I suppose that many in media tend to portray the person being quoted as making a statement that is not there. The inference goes back to the person he is commenting upon.

But Owens DID specifically say

"So I don't think Dick Lamm was being in any way racist and I think some of the response to him has been knee-jerk. I think that we need to have a debate on what it is about certain backgrounds that leads to more success."

The speech he was defending?

Last week, Lamm made a speech in which he said he talked "about the fact that I believe Asian and Jewish culture sends signals that do lead to success, and Hispanic culture doesn't put the same emphasis on a whole list of things like frugality, risk, entrepreneurship, innovation."

So no, Owens didn't explicitly make the comparison, but he certainly defends Lamm for making the same comparison. Granted, in this quote Lamm did leave out blacks, so he was only being derogatory towards one culture.

[JenLee]

In the currently PC leaning society, apparently you can't necessarily refer to facts even in a postive way and not get thrashed for it.

First of all, we're not talking about facts, we're talking about widely-held stereotypes. Second of all, for me the issue is the need to generalize by race (or gender or ethnicity or religious group) at all. It doesn't matter if you're making a positive or negative generalization; when you (the collective "you," not you gameshowcongress in particular) make a statement like "Asians work hard" or "Hispanics are lazy" or "Whites can't dance" or "Jews are good with money" or "Women love to shop," you're mass-characterizing a whole swath of people without regard for the individuals that make up that group, and therefore perpetuating a stereotype. It's lazy and potentially harmful communication, and it doesn't do anyone any favors, regardless of how "positive" the description is.

[jaclyn]

You know, I've been thinking about this article for the past day, and it still annoys me. JenLee is right, any type of stereotyping is really problematic, for all the reasons she states. But the other strange thing is that Owens is talking about his own children as well. He says that he wishes they had other values, but who the heck was supposed to instill those? Santa Claus?

Oh, and going back to Lamm's speech, what the heck do "frugality, risk, entrepreneurship, innovation" have to do with test scores, anyway?

[missbitesalot]

Here's an interesting question. Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment. (I promise this will be a serious post. No "lol" "!!!!" or ":P." heh.)

Say you stuck 5 different groups of people in 5 different rooms (from infancy with no outside interference) and documented them for a thousand years (they are free from stereotypy obviously because they are all by themselves and can do whatever they want). If you found that certain traits and behaviors seemed to recur time and again with a high rate of incidence among the general population of each group, would it be wrong to deduce that something was merely inherent to the group?

If history teaches us anything it's that facts can be unpleasant, but they are still facts.

And before anyone gets snarky or goes off on a tangent, the question is that clause with a question mark at the end of it.

[Max Power]

Say you stuck 5 different groups of people in 5 different rooms (from infancy with no outside interference) and documented them for a thousand years (they are free from stereotypy obviously because they are all by themselves and can do whatever they want). If you found that certain traits and behaviors seemed to recur time and again with a high rate of incidence among the general population of each group, would it be wrong to deduce that something was merely inherent to the group?

I would probably deduce a high degree of boredom and insanity, unless this "room" was more of a nature preserve, with plants and wildlife.

Putting on my Serious Hat, your experiment is not a valid analogy for the world, as every culture in the world is influenced by their environment in which they arose. Australian aborigines were "primitive" hunter-gatherers because Australia is mostly a harsh environment with no native crops or easily domesticated animals. Does that mean aborigines are stupider than white Europeans? No, of course not. They simply haven't learned the same types of things.

It's even an worse analogy for American students' test scores. These kids have not been raised in hermetically sealed boxes, away from all other cultures. We all watch the same TV and play with the same toys. Students obviously interact at least somewhat with other races. There are any number of uncontrolled factors that will affect test scores.

[jaclyn]

You* have to be careful with the word "inherent." That seems to infer 100% certainty, which can't exist. You can talk in probabilities, such as the fact that sickle cell anemia is more common in African Americans than in whites.

In missbitesalot's example, you really shouldn't say that Group A is inherently happy unless every person in Group A is happy. It would be more appropriate to say that a person in Group A is more likely to be happy than a person in Group B. Even then, you can't assign a cause. It might not be a genetic trait or even cultural. It could be that the lighting, air quality, or paint color in Group A's room.


* Generic you, to mean anyone.

[missbitesalot]

Putting on my Serious Hat, your experiment is not a valid analogy for the world, as every culture in the world is influenced by their environment in which they arose. Australian aborigines were "primitive" hunter-gatherers because Australia is mostly a harsh environment with no native crops or easily domesticated animals. Does that mean aborigines are stupider than white Europeans? No, of course not. They simply haven't learned the same types of things.

It's even an worse analogy for American students' test scores. These kids have not been raised in hermetically sealed boxes, away from all other cultures. We all watch the same TV and play with the same toys. Students obviously interact at least somewhat with other races. There are any number of uncontrolled factors that will affect test scores.

You either missed the point of my question entirely, or you're intentionally playing dumb—I'm not really sure which. I phrased it the way I did on purpose. It is not supposed to be an analogy for the world. It's a hypothetical situation. I prefaced by saying I wanted to "play devil's advocate," and began my statement and question with "say" and "if," respectively.

I'm so flabbergasted by your non-sequitor reply to my post that I'm not even sure what to say.

I posed a hypothetical situation out of curiosity. I asked a question based upon that situation (which is not analogous to anything--again, just curious to know the answer to my question). How hard is it? Obviously, impossible.

Nevermind, I'll go back to shoving crayons up my nose. (q.v. the Al Gore thread)

[missbitesalot]

lololol

Okay, that makes two supposedly smart people who can't read. Wow. What is the world coming to?

Oh, right, I forgot. Crayons. Nose.

[jaclyn]

If you found that certain traits and behaviors seemed to recur time and again with a high rate of incidence among the general population of each group, would it be wrong to deduce that something was merely inherent to the group?

I'll use a short sentence, then. Yes, it would be wrong to deduce that.

[VirgeZ]

I am just curious after reading a bit of the above. What is a work ethic? I grew up with and am seeing my friends and all the people younger than me "28" learning to not want to work. and it worked, cause they Dont want to work. Its an amazing trend. As far as saying, say, if you were to label each ethnic group without getting into trouble for being racist, which I am not, *being a small portion Indian* and haveing great friends of many enthic back grounds< I am far from racist I would break it down like this.

laziest people. 16-30 white males
second laziest 16-30 white females.

now I skipp to most non lazy

1 - tie. chinese or mexican - seem to be hard hard workers.

2 - japanese. these people go to school all year :S work aholics.



thats all I have I dont know enough about other ethnic groups to decern lol

[Max Power]

You either missed the point of my question entirely, or you're intentionally playing dumb—I'm not really sure which. I phrased it the way I did on purpose. It is not supposed to be an analogy for the world. It's a hypothetical situation. I prefaced by saying I wanted to "play devil's advocate," and began my statement and question with "say" and "if," respectively.

I'm so flabbergasted by your non-sequitor reply to my post that I'm not even sure what to say.

I posed a hypothetical situation out of curiosity. I asked a question based upon that situation (which is not analogous to anything--again, just curious to know the answer to my question). How hard is it? Obviously, impossible.

Nevermind, I'll go back to shoving crayons up my nose. (q.v. the Al Gore thread)

I still don't understand the point of your question. Are all the rooms the same? Are all the groups of people roughly the same (w.r.t. proportions of sex, age, health, sex-u-al fertility, and a cross section of needed skills)? You didn't provide much information in your proposal, therefore, I felt it was intended to make a point.

[JenLee]

I am far from racist I would break it down like this.

laziest people. 16-30 white males
second laziest 16-30 white females.

now I skipp to most non lazy

1 - tie. chinese or mexican - seem to be hard hard workers.

2 - japanese. these people go to school all year :S work aholics.

Actually, VirgeZ, what you wrote up there is pretty much a textbook definition of racist, because YOU ARE USING RACE TO DEFINE INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS. I mean honestly: how in the world do you get off calling white males from 16-30 the "laziest people" and yet think you're not racist? It doesn't get much more black and white (heh) than that. Also, just because you are "a small portion Indian" and claim to have "great friends of many enthic back grounds" doesn't buy you a pass to judge everyone else based on their race. The ironic thing about racists is that they come in all colors and from all ethnic backgrounds.

Once more with feeling: if you're assigning [edit: a trait] to an entire people, it's racist (or sexist or ageist or what have you). Period. "But.." Nope. "But some of my best friends are..." Still nope. Still racist. You're ignoring the complex individuals who make up that group and stamping each and every one of them on the head with whatever ridiculous trait you've assigned to the whole.

And in your post you've taken it a step further, judging people not only by their color, but by their age, too. As a woman who, up until two years ago was part of the "second laziest" group, I find your opinion pretty vile, frankly. I work my ass off, babe, and have my whole life. I graduated with honors, I was director of an entire marketing program by the time I was 26... I am not lazy. Capiche?

Furthermore, I'll point to the following folks: Kevin Rose, founder of Digg.com -- 29 years old and worth multi-millions of dollars. Shawn Fanning, founder of Napster -- 19 years old when he invented that wildly successful P2P platform. Bill Gates -- 20 years old when he founded Microsoft, and now has a personal net worth worth in the $50 billion range. Larry Page was 23 when he founded Google with Sergey Brin, who was also 23. Seeing a pattern here, chief?

My point is that it's wildly inaccurate, ridiculously judgmental, and totally bigoted when you make sweeping claims for an entire group of people based upon cultural stereotypes. Gah. :roll:

[missbitesalot]

Dude, I know you have cognitive skills. It's a very simple question. Dodging behind semantics/technicalities is a lame tactic for people who don't want to answer something. Jaclyn, thanks for answering.

Max: I'm amazed at how hard this is for you. It reminds me of that FedEx commercial, "so simple, even an MBA can do it."

I'll lay it all out for you.

I said 5 different groups (you can define in your own mind how they are "different" but there are 5 of them), separated from each other, documented (say, on video tape) for 1,000 years. You notice in reviewing the documentation that, say, at least 75% of each group exhibits a certain behavior or some kind of physical/mental trait (e.g. in one group it may be height, in another it might be amazing dexterity, or still another group may be more musically inclined, or ugly, or whatever).

Do you think if 75% (or more) of them exhibited a certain trait that it would be wrong to say something like, "That group sure is tall."

??????

If you have to make it that hard then you obviously don't want to answer it—what I want to know is why. I think I already have my answer.

[JenLee]

Also, VirgeZ, in case you were unclear on what the term means, which is the only reason I can think of why you might not think your views are not racist, allow me to point you to the Wiki entry for racism:

Racism refers to various belief systems maintaining that the essential value of an individual person can be determined according to a perceived or ascribed racial category and that social discrimination by race is therefore justifiable.

... Such racial prejudice usually includes the belief that people differ in aptitudes and abilities (such as intelligence, physical prowess, or virtue) according to race. Most individuals who use the concept of racial categories believe that different races can be placed on a ranked, hierarchical scale. It may also be defined as the act of separating groups according to these ascribed race categories. In doing so the term receives the appropriate -ism ending. Meaning the practice or act of doing such as desribed above. By definition one who practices racism is known as a racist.

(emphasis added)

Is it clearer now for you? Is your saying "white males 16-30 are the laziest" any less racist than if I were to say "black males 16-30 are the laziest" or "indian males 16-30 are the laziest"? Not a damned bit.

[Max Power]

missbitesalot, I'm not trying to be dense just to evade the question. You asked a scientific-sounding question, so I tried to point out the flaws in your science experiment. That is one of the few things I am good at. You don't even say how large these 5 groups are or what they are provided in their "rooms" (though I guess musical instruments are provided.)

But in the interests of answering your question, Yes, it would be wrong to conclude a particular trait exhibited strongly in one group is inherent to that group. A good study would probe WHY that particular trait was so prevalent.

[VirgeZ]

ok ok I have to clear this up real fast. If I said, for instance every peice of @#)$( White person is lazy between these ages. that is racism. If I simply state the FACT that more 16-30 white males are lazier than other people, its not racism its a fact.

lol thats alll. NOt racist. I am knowledgeable about the fact that some poeple of every race varry in every degree. but there are majorities.

If the majority of white males 16-30 are lazy, *which is fact* then its not racist to state a fact is it?

I am not saying its my opinion, or in any way being racist. its a fact. white people in general have grown lazy. its a fact. its not racism.

[JenLee]

Ohh, I get it. Since you think it's a "fact" that white males 16-30 are lazy, then, so it's not racism? That's your assessment? And that fact is based on... what, exactly? Scientific research? Please, enlighten us all. Or better yet, because I'm in that "second laziest" group, why don't you be a peach and you use your dizzying intellect to dig that up for me, because I gots me a couch to laze on and bonbons to eat. Thanks!

Here's the thing, genius: there are a whole bunch of folks I could introduce you to down South where I grew up who would be more than happy to assert that it's a "fact" that black men are lazy, stupid thieves who rape women. And that odious, horrific sentiment, by your own standard, wouldn't be racist simply because African American men represent the majority of inmates in our Mississippi prisons, and African American kids generally don't score as well as white kids on standardized tests.

white people in general have grown lazy. its a fact. its not racism.

It sickens me that you can't see how completely irrational and hateful that thinking is.

[VirgeZ]

oh wait in my haste I didnt distinguish, and perhaps I am wrong, on further thought its just americans of all races who are fat and lazy, not white people. sorry. I suppose its like americanititis to be fat and lazy. sorry, its not just white people. but since america is mostly white people and mostly lazy.. it kinda works out that way, but I suppose that white people other areas arent necissarily as lazy.

due to many many various news papers and magazine saying, that White Americans are fat and lazy I guess I assume they are right with all they'r servyes n stuff. Maybe american white people are not fat and lazy, but when I go to wal mart it sure looks like they are.

[JenLee]

VirgeZ? Seriously? Shut up. Just shut. the hell. Up.

Every single post you make on this board makes you look more and more stupid.

Then again, silly me -- I should hardly get worked up over someone who can't even spell right. "all they'r servyes n stuff"? Seriously? I mean, dude -- it's the height of laziness right there not to spell check your own work. You really are a one-man brain trust.

[VirgeZ]

I am going to assume that people who take offense to this are white american s who are in denial however, I am a bit overweight, have a very lazy job, and am, somewhat lazy. to be an internet addict, is somewhat, to be lazy. most people on blog sites are and there for are. but who am I to judge

I am not judge ing or being racist I am simply telling it how it is so to speak. Like doctor Phill. and people like him couse of it lol

[JenLee]

Once again, VirgeZ -- if you're so sure of these facts, I invite you to provide us with proof that's a tad more reputable than whatever idiotic sentiment you've most recently pulled out of your own ass. Try backing up your moronic claims about rampant white laziness with, you know, some hard facts for a change.

[Till_We_Have_Faces]

The weird thing is I hadn't even heard about this until I saw this thread. I get all my news from ken-jennings.com (TM)!

Now that is truly sad.