Black racism and hate

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Three stories today illustrate the growing hate, violence, and bigotry within the modern black power movement:

These are only a sample of the numerous similar stories in the past few years, most of which revolve around the generally racist Black Lives Matter movement, which only cares about black lives and gets very offended if you note that all lives matter. Consider for example the words of Babu Omowale, the “national minister of defense for the People’s New Black Panther Party” in the third link above:

We know that we are owed land, we are owed monies, we are owed restitutions and we are owed reparations.

In other words, blacks today must be rewarded and everyone else who is not black punished because of something that was done to someone else by someone else, a hundred years or more in the past. And the only reason blacks are owed reparations is because they are black, with everyone else who is not black guilty and therefore to be punished, even though no one today had anything to do with the past injustice of slavery.

While most blacks in America are ordinary people who don’t hate anyone and want to live their lives peaceably, the culture they live within is increasingly focused, like the New Black Panthers, on race and hate. That culture is also increasingly abandoning the ideals that made the civil rights movement a success and led to election of a black man as President of the United States, even though blacks comprise less than 15% of the American population.

The consequences of this will be exactly the opposite of what the Black Lives Matter movement and the New Black Panthers claim they want, a greater respect for blacks. Instead, these movements will isolate blacks and make them a target, an enemy to everyone else in the country. I can’t emphasize how mistaken and foolish this is. Unless the good people in the black community reject it soon and loudly, they — as well as everyone else — are going to suffer badly in future years because of it.

It never pays to view people by their race, ethnicity, or gender. What matters is what each person does. We are not races, ethnicities, or genders. We are each a human being, each with a soul and a potential to do good or evil. We should thus be judged as an individual. Everything else is irrelevant, and if you try to include it you are revealing yourself to be racist and a hate-monger.


  • Narmac

    The behavior of BLM has convinced me of two things.
    1) For reasons that make zero sense to me, the black community has CHOSEN to breed for stupid. Why they would do that is beyond me, but they clearly are doing so.

    2) BLM is correct, the police are clearly not capable of policing black people, therefore the only logical conclusion is to remove the Police from all black neighbourhoods.

  • PeterF

    “Only Blacks Can Police Black Communities”. “New Black Panthers Seek ‘Own Government’ ”

    Sounds to me like they are advocating ‘Separate But Equal”. Didn’t we try that before?

    “We know that we are owed land, we are owed monies, we are owed restitutions and we are owed reparations.”

    Didn’t we try this before too? First with the founding of Liberia, with the only foreign capitol named after a US president? What about ‘forty acres and a mule’? Of course these programs were administered by the federal government which is synonymous with “inefficiency and failure”.

  • Orion314

    People hate speaking truth on this topic, maybe blacks lives matter, some what , but black culture sure as hell does not matter at all. It’s a culture of the willfully, proudly stupid, insanely angry , and , much like the 12th century arab cultures, eons of inbreeding and marrying 1st cousins has brought us to this.. The clash of stone age cultures and the 21st century. I’m sure this will turn out well…..

  • Edward

    PeterF wrote: “Sounds to me like they are advocating ‘Separate But Equal’.”

    I’m not so sure that they are advocating equality. After all, to them only black lives matter.

    PeterF wrote: “Didn’t we try this before too?”

    Yes. But as we all know, the past cannot ever be changed, thus by keeping up the delusion that past unfairnesses to long deceased peoples requires a debt owed to the present unharmed peoples, then they can continue in perpetuity to insist that We the Innocent pay for They the Past Guilty, whether or not those guilty people were any of our ancestors.

    My ancestors weren’t among the guilty, yet institutional racism has been applied against me every time that I have applied to a college and every time that I have applied for a job. My president has declared that I am a racist, due solely to my skin color. How does that unfair declaration ever get corrected? At least the Only Black Lives Matter people have always had their freedom and for almost half a century had their institutionalized racism over me without ever having been slaves and most never had suffered institutionalized racism.

    But I — personally — will forever have been called a racist by a sitting American president. Forever, I will have been officially considered, by the US government, to be a racist. That injustice can never be corrected, no matter the number of mules, acres of land, or mountains of cash given to me in restitution. [No, this is *not* sarcasm. I have been and continue to be officially and institutionally discriminated against, yet many who claim to be have never been, choosing instead to consider routine traffic stops as racism. Hell, even Oprah, when asked about racism against her, had to use an example of an incident in Paris, France — and even that turned out not to be racism.]

    When I was in college, in the early 1980s, the management of my residence hall system noticed that people of color were choosing to live together in a sort of self-segregation. A few years later, still in the 1980s, the TV news magazine “60 Minutes” did a story on a similar concept, where on campuses across America, black students were congregating together to socialize. They were not intermingling with other races, very much. Again, it was a form of self-segregation.

    After all that effort to desegregate America, blacks were claiming to be uncomfortable around non-blacks.

    Now we see that Only Black Lives Matter is calling for total self-segregation, driving away others, and forming separate governments and their own state-sized ghettos, completely apart from the rest of America.

    The liberals and progressives have managed to achieve what they could not in the 1960s, America as a bean salad, not a melting pot.

    Poor Martin Luther King. It is unfortunate that his children now live in a nation where everyone is judged by color of his skin, not the content of his character. It is too bad that Only Black Lives Matter do not see that all men are created equal and believe that Mississippi should be black-only rather than “an oasis of freedom and justice.”

    King’s dream was the opposite of what is happening in America today, under the insistence of the very people his dream was intended to be for. King said of his dream, in that famous speech:
    “And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.”

    Instead, it has turned into more of a nightmare than a dream.

  • eddie willers

    So does Obama pull money out of one pocket and put in his other?

  • Orion314

    America’s Tree of Liberty is dying of thirst for the blood of tyrants.

  • Garry

    It seems to me that Narmac and Orion missed the point; we should treat people as individuals and according to their actions, as there is no monolithic black culture (or monolithic white culture, or monolithic gay community, etc.). I think it’s misguided to say that blacks have bred for stupid, or to offer such a harsh blanket statement about black culture. If you limit the comments to the gangster rap culture, Orion, I would concede that you have a point, but it doesn’t apply to the mythical monolithic black culture.

    40 acres and a mule was a program started on the initiative of a Union general, but stopped soon after when it was ruled he had no authority to give away the land. Given that the freed slaves had personally suffered because of the racist policies, I think it was appropriate to give them reparations/means to support themselves. Liberia was a good idea too, for the same reason, although I must admit I’m not very familiar with how it was actually carried out.

    But now, 150 years later, when many of the people demanding reparations can trace their roots back to slavery? That’s a completely different matter.

    I lived 4 years as a civilian in a country where 99% were of a different race than mine (Japan), I live with my wife (who is of a different race) and kids (mixed race), teach summer courses where the only white face in the room is mine, have friends, neighbors, extended family on both sides, and co-workers of different races and sexual orientations. . .

    And I’ve learned that people are people; every race, every neighborhood, every workplace has good people and not so good people, and there is no real co-relation with race.

    One less than stellar coworker once called me racist, saying “you have a real problem with blacks,” and I came back with “you’re mistaken, friend; I have a real problem with a-holes.” That’s my philosophy in a nutshell.

    I never think of my wife as my Asian wife; she’s my wife, period. I don’t think of my neighbors as my lesbian neighbors; they’re simply my neighbors (they have thrown out guests who were too obnoxious about their orientation; I’ve found that people who define themselves solely by their race, sexual orientation, occupation, political affiliation, or any other narrow characteristic are unfailingly obnoxious).

    Martin Luther King spoke the truth, and it’s a shame his viewpoint is no longer in vogue.

  • Garry,

    I think Narmac and Orion314 have unintentionally illustrated my fear when I wrote the following: “The consequences of this will be exactly the opposite of what the Black Lives Matter movement and the New Black Panthers claim they want, a greater respect for blacks. Instead, these movements will isolate blacks and make them a target, an enemy to everyone else in the country. I can’t emphasize how mistaken and foolish this is. Unless the good people in the black community reject it soon and loudly, they — as well as everyone else — are going to suffer badly in future years because of it.”

  • Alex

    Why not let every race, which differ in many aspects, life under its own control and regime? Would this not help to sustain human diversity and prevent deep rootef conflicts?

  • Cotour

    Alex, In a word, NO.

  • pzatchok

    The best way to move forward for everyone is to forgive the past and live in today.

    I’m sorry for what my ancestors did to the black people in general. A few specifically (we didn’t own ALL the slaves). But there is nothing I could do now to make it up to those people.

    I am sorry to say it but the American Blacks are the only group in the US that are not much better off than when they got off the boat. In many ways they are still just as much the slave as their ancestors were.

    They cannot blame it all on white racism. They have been free longer in Canada and Europe than in the US. But I do not know of many elected members of those governments being black. Without looking it up, name me a black European or Canadian elected official.

    The lifestyle you live is the lifestyle you have chosen to live.

  • wayne

    agree with your comment to Alex.
    He’s describing South Africa under the Afrikaner’s.
    (I will however say, it didn’t take very long for those alleged indigenous people to utterly destroy South Africa after the Afrikaner government fell. )

  • wodun

    My ancestors were dirt poor when they came to the USA. We were almost wiped out in epidemics and wars, struggled through economic crisis, and we failed as well as prospered. My parents, baby boomers, grew up at times without electricity or running water.

    There is a guy who wrote a book about the Triple Nickle paratroopers and their role in WWII. Rather than fighting in the war, they were relegated to being smokejumpers back in the states. Often, these guys came from poor families down South. They experienced discrimination all over the country.

    At this same point in time my family was also poor and was also discriminated against.

    The author of this book, is relatively wealthy. He is a college professor. He has a good retirement. His family has a long distinguished history of military service.

    When I look at his family’s path, I see similarities with my own. From poverty to all levels of society. Some of us fail, some of us succeed but overall, better than before.

    When I hear people say white privilege, I say for who? When I hear people say that white people start off ahead, I say wtf?

    I don’t think the race agitators of today know very much about what life was like in the past for people of other races and I don’t think they know what life is like now.

    That is a huge part of the problem. They preach a false history and have crazy stereotypes for what white people are like now and in the past. It is made worse because these things are taught in schools to kids. We have a whole generation that has been taught that only white people can be racist and that non-white people are entitled, or required, to be racist against white people.

    How can we have racial equality when Democrat run schools teach racism? When they want institutionalized racism against different ethnicities? When they say this is needed for social justice, who do they want to punish?

    To me, it all comes off as claiming to fight racism by being extra racist and an effort to punish scapegoats as a means of building a political coalition to gain power and wealth.

  • wodun

    The best way to move forward for everyone is to forgive the past and live in today.

    Yes, and to identify as Americans and not skin colors. The constant effort to pit one race or ethnic group against another is intended to divide us and stop us thinking of each other as Americans. You notice that the people who hate our country and want to weaken it are the ones carrying out this long term strategy.

  • Alex

    Contour, Pzatchok and Wayne (I am sorry, all you together sound as reality denying leftists in this point): For the record: Arabs owned black slaves centuries before white man did. Moslems (Osmans, Arabs) owned millions of white slaves only a few centuries ago. Black master owned black slaves even in Africa. Indian master owned Indian slaves in South America before Columbus arrived. There is nothing special with slave ownership related to white man. No reason to be shamed specifically. Wayne: Your statement in brackets confirms my proposal. Look at present South Africa. Horror state for white men. One of most socialist and corrupt country in world. I think every race (which is a value for its own as unique set of gens) has its right for future existence and the pressure to mix it up (which may exist in USA) is pure fascism in my view.

  • wayne

    I understand your point & I empathize, to a degree.
    (SA is a sad situation and IS exactly as you described. Majority of Afrikaner’s were FAR more “indigenous” than the people who currently control SA. Mandela was, above all & everything, a communist.)

    I just can’t support any sort of apartheid-esque situation, because it’s inherently un-American. If you confine the situation to completely voluntary-association, I have zero problem.
    (This “disparate-impact” crap-o-la the Left pushes, is pure Social Engineering and also inherently un-American.)
    (good luck with running Linux & your Programming! )

  • Alex

    In respone to Contour, Pzarchok and Wayne, I linked below some reports containing facts concerning races and South-Africa:

    The Truth About South Africa and Apartheid

    Update: Surviving The Horrific Violence In South Africa

  • Cotour

    Alex, what you illustrate is that the concept of slavery is not an invention of “the white man” but it is a system of conquest, retribution and economic advantage probably related to the earliest human activities. The white man just monetized / capitalized slavery and made it into a “proper” business (to be clear I am not promoting or justifying slavery in any way shape or form). This is a fact of human history, while it is true it does not make it right nor does it indicate that slavery is what should be.

    If you live in a country that still has slavery I will assume that you are an owner and not chattel (property).

    (I would be interested in knowing in what country that you live)

  • wayne

    Alex– I do understand SA quite a bit. (I think our respective comments crossed in cyber-space.)

    I empathize, to a degree, but not fully. But thanks for the links, nonetheless. I’ll put them in my cue to watch.)

    I’d be interested in knowing from where you hail as well, but of course that’s your business and not a requirement. (There’s plenty to like about Europe & elsewhere, but from a nice safe distance. I have a Policy about leaving the Borders of the United States, with the exception of Canada. I just don’t want to be killed because I have an American Passport.)

    If you can run Matlab, we NEED people like you, here! But we are too busy importing low skilled, illiterate , America-haters, by the plane-load.

  • Edward

    Alex wrote: “There is nothing special with slave ownership related to white man. No reason to be shamed specifically.”


    There were millions of white Northerners willing to risk life and limb to free the Southern slaves, in America. Yet the reward that those Northerners get are to have their descendants declared racist and treated badly by the descendants of the freed slaves.

    The 1960s’ Civil Rights Movement was also filled with white supporters, especially from the Northern states. Now they, too, and their children are declared racist by nature of the color of their skin. Where is the gratefulness to these specific people and their descendants?

    Frankly, the Only Black Lives Matter movement sounds terribly ungrateful for the support that those black lives received in the past and present.

    wayne wrote: “I just can’t support any sort of apartheid-esque situation, because it’s inherently un-American. If you confine the situation to completely voluntary-association, I have zero problem.”

    America’s affirmative action laws are the same as South Africa’s apartheid. Both are institutionalized racism, where one race is favored, by government decree, over the other in job, education, and other situations.

    We now suffer from companies being forced into involuntary association with customers they may not wish to associate with, and we individuals are now forced, by law, into contracts — forced into an association — with insurance companies, whether or not we want that insurance.

  • wayne

    Edward– good stuff. (great stuff! Totally appreciate your time, effort, and thought, on any number of Topics!)

    Good point about “affirmative-action,” a truly Orwellian phrase exactly as you describe. As well, your point about forced-association in commerce.

  • wayne

    pzatchok /wodun:
    Good commentary as well. Many interesting points.

    I would add, black-people made significant gains post Civil War in the USA. Democrats largely botched Reconstruction, and Wilson & the Progressive Era, reinstituted segregation/discrimination in the Federal Civil Service and the Military & otherwise fostered a renewal of the Klan, nationwide, in the 1920’s/1930’s. Not to mention Margret Sanger and her Nazi-esque eugenics movement, designed to kill them.
    The left has been incredibly skillfully in rewriting History. This was all largely the work of Democrats.

  • wayne

    I’d be remiss if I didn’t say– many excellent points, as well.

  • pzatchok

    I deny nothing.
    Sympathizing with someone over a single point is not leftist or denial, its being human and understanding another point of view. It confers no extra guilt on me personally for the acts I sympathize with them over.
    I sympathize with the families of the Jews who were killed during WWII. Does that make me guilty of anything?

    And yes members of my family held slaves. I have records of it.

    And you are forgetting the common practice of slavery among almost every tribe of native Americans. Well into the 1800’s.
    Each tribe treated its slaves differently but they were slaves none the less.

    America has the stain of legalized institutionalized slavery inits past but for some reason we are the ONLY nation not allowed to move past it. We are forced to relive it every time a white person and a black person have a disagreement.

  • wayne


    Excellent point about how the USA is not allowed to move past our history.
    It’s the Marxist, Statists, race-baiters & the professional-victims, they won’t let us live it down.

    I understand your global point. Makes good sense.
    ( A better word might be “empathize,” –the ability to put yourself in someone else shoes. understand someone else’s feelings.)
    I’ll go out on a limb and speculate our foreign friend just doesn’t have a complete hands-on knowledge of our ways, history, and geographic development.

    As for the Civil War & the South; I used to be more partisan in my ignorant-youth, until I spent time in the South– “plenty of damn good people were killed on both sides.”

    “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

    Lincoln wrote that specifically to apply toward everyone, not just the North.

    a tangent– how far back can you trace your ancestors?
    My ancestors got here 1898 & 1905, my wife’s family came in 1850, –they got tired of starving to death in Ireland. (and they were mistreated for being Catholic & Irish, until they got fully Americanized, and got the hell out of New York City.)

  • pzatchok

    “a tangent– how far back can you trace your ancestors?
    My ancestors got here 1898 & 1905, my wife’s family came in 1850, –they got tired of starving to death in Ireland. (and they were mistreated for being Catholic & Irish, until they got fully Americanized, and got the hell out of New York City.)”

    The deepest root.My mothers side 1608 second supply ship to Jamestown. Thomas Graves.
    Fathers side about 1900 from a small village south of Prague. Need to go back there and check church records to find older ancestors.

  • wayne

    Very cool!

  • Edward

    wayne wrote: “It’s the Marxist, Statists, race-baiters & the professional-victims, they won’t let us live it down.”

    An excellent comment. Once again, wayne summarizes the situation in few words. (Once again, I will be verbose.)

    It is terribly unfair that we don’t get to live it down, because nobody alive today was a participant in the American slavery system. American slavery is not the fault of anyone in the discussion today. Yet we continue to be punished for the sins of our (or other people’s) forefathers.

    The worst part of the whole situation is that for half a century, we have had civil rights for all, yet the black community has failed to live up to the potential that that brought. The purpose of the Civil Rights Movement was to create an equality that the Only Black Lives Matter movement denies exists. Instead, they blame others for blacks not prospering as well as the rest of the country, yet it is the attitude of separateness in that community that prevents prosperity. All too often, black children are taught two things: they must not join in the prosperity of free market capitalism and they will never get ahead. This hopelessness is why the black dropout rate is so high among black high school students. This is why so few black adults prosper and choose poverty, EBT cards, anger, and hate. And declare that only black lives matter — demanding apologies from anyone who suggests that any other lives matter.

    It is also why we get dead police officers. And why we get dead black men — they were taught not to follow the instructions of “the man,” including and especially the police officer who thinks that the uncooperative guy in front of him is going to whip out a gun and shoot him, the officer.

    The black community teaches its children poorly, despite the song that says to teach your children well so that dreams can come true.

    It is so sad that so few people took this advice.

  • wayne

    -I for one, enjoy your verbosity! Use as many or as few words as you need!

  • Alex

    Edward: What about if underperforming (in average and at great scale) is not a failure of Black people, because there are more as just differences in skin color between races? For example , significant differences in mental capabilities. Surving in ice age required different mental strenght as typical ilife in Africa, for example you have to cooperate and plan your life better in order to survive winter. 60.-70,000 years separation and Neanderthaler’s gens can make the difference. Please,do not hide the truth as typical leftist.

  • Alex and Edward: You are both making the exact mistake I noted in my original post. You are both focusing on race, rather than individual human souls.

    It is entirely irrelevant what any race’s average intelligence or abilities are. When you hire, you are hiring that individual, not that race. You make your real life judgment on that individual’s abilities, and if you are smart and not bigoted, you ignore skin color or ethnicity, since neither of those things has anything to do with an individual’s abilities.

    By dwelling on race, you only contribute to the racial bigotry that the Black Lives Matter movement is promoting. Very foolish, and very counterproductive.

  • Edward

    I do not subscribe to the hypothesis that there are differences in mental faculties. Every study that I have come across on this topic have measured insignificant differences — and nobody really knows what is being measured, anyway.

    You are correct. The attitudes that I have mentioned occur in individuals in all races. Plenty of individuals of all races are on the government dole, depending upon the abilities and attitudes of those individuals and how well they were taught by their parents (and children).

    However, I still think that the Only Black Lives Matter movement does not appreciate what it has and treats the rest of us unfairly.

  • Alex

    Mr. Zimmerman: The reality differs from your description. You ignore natural behavior. Subject of evolution are groups of individuals, which help to propagate a specific gen set configuration. People tend to life in groups with other people, which are similar to themselves. If you do not like to consider a race as a human sub-species then maybe as a large family, individuals with same descent. It is natural to support your own family more as another one.

    Edward: My information says that are wrong. See below.There are signficiant differences in IQ for example. This is well known for decades and seems to be well established.

    Race, Genetics and Intelligence | Helmuth Nyborg and Stefan Molyneux

    Race, Genetics and Intelligence | Richard Lynn and Stefan Molyneux

    Race, Evolution and Intelligence | Linda Gottfredson and Stefan Molyneux

    The Bell Curve: IQ, Race and Gender | Charles Murray and Stefan Molyneux

    Stefan Molyneux Low IQ Cultures Don’t Mix With High IQ Societies

  • Alex: All of this data is irrelevant (and I say that bluntly having actually read several of these books). I’m sorry, but we all live our lives dealing with people on a one-to-one basis. Unless you are exactly what defines a racist and a bigot, you don’t analyze whether you will like a person or not based on group statistics, no matter how accurate those group statistics might be. You decide based on the person themselves.

    Or at least you should. As I say, deciding you will reject someone based on their race or ethnicity and not who they are themselves is nothing more and nothing less than racism. That’s its literal definition, not the absurd name-calling used today by the left for anyone who disagrees with them. Moreover, it is generally very bad policy, as it will blind you from seeing the good or bad in the person standing before you, because you only see their race or ethnicity.

  • Alex

    Mr. Zimmerman: You asked for reason of underperformance of a complete ethnic group (Blacks). Therefore, the individual (to which you refer) is not relevant to answer your question, but the whole group. I did it. Also government or large companies consider whole groups in its policy in order to plan.

    Now, we have scientific results that show that Blacks as a group have a much lower IQ as Whites or Asians (about two standard deviations below). However, IQ is most important property, which decides about lifetime success in Western society, that is the answer to your question, even you do not like it due to ideological reasons.

  • Alex wrote: “You asked for reason of underperformance of a complete ethnic group (Blacks).”

    No, I did not ask that question, in the slightest. I noted that the culture and social community of blacks is more intensely focused on race than it has in the past, and this is a bad mistake. Note that I am marking a change for the worse, which proves that things could also change for the better. The stats you cite are irrelevant to this cultural evolution, completely.

    You decided instead to rewrite what I wrote to hijack this discussion as a tool to do exactly what I was decrying: the bigoted urge our modern society has to make everything an issue of race. I find that disturbing, and not something I want to see on my website.

  • Wayne

    I as well, am extremely familiar with the whole “IQ” thing, and it’s dangerous route to go down.

    “Over here,” in America we tried very hard to set up a Society & associated Political Institutions, that rejected treating people as monolithic groups.

    This came up not too long ago, and is definitely worth a repeat:

    Colonel Joshua Chamberlain’s speech

    The Disorganizer & Divider-in-Chief not withstanding–
    “…here, we judge you by what you do, not by who your father was…”

  • wodun

    People tend to life in groups with other people, which are similar to themselves.

    Maybe ideologically or culturally but humans have a long history of mixing between different ethnic groups going back to the Neanderthal and Denisovans. There is an evolutionary advantage to mixing different gene pools.

    All of us represent hundreds of thousands of years of the mingling of different groups.

  • wodun

    Something else to consider is that life in Africa was just as hard as life up North, if not harder. This BBC series is pretty good, The Incredible Human Journey,

    Can’t remember if it is this one or the Canadian knock off version that goes into great detail about how hard life in Africa was/is. At least up North there was water and food. The challenges were different but the human spirit is the same.

  • Alex

    Wodun: You follow same line as typical leftists, because major property of leftism is the tendency to equalize differences between men, if necessary by brutal force and death.

    I could answer more in deep to your statements, but it was forbidden by Mr. Zimmerman. Therefore, I am ending my contribution to this blog and say good-bye, but not without presenting the following interesting link (its title alone says much) to you:

    The White Man’s Disease: The Fantasy of Egalitarianism

  • wayne


    There’s a huge difference between the radical-egalitarianism of the left, where they try to impose & force equality of outcomes, and our concept’s of equality-before-the-Law. (“All men are created equal.”) Outcomes however, are not guaranteed, despite our current Divider-in-Chief.

    Highly recommend — July 14th edition of The Classicist, with Victor Davis Hanson (20 minutes)
    Wherein he talks of multi-racial Vs. multi-cultural societies, and how the left has completely mucked-up everything in the here-and-now.

    I’ll touch on evolutionary-biology lightly –but do not want to go down that road in depth.
    -By the time there are Populations living both near the equator or further north, “evolutionary-adaptation” is essentially “fixed” to a high degree. (again I don’t want to argue minutia)

    Personally, I enjoy your commentary on Space and science. We differ on political matters, but “so-what.”

  • Edward

    Has anyone else noticed that the Only Black Lives Matter group chanted that what they wanted was dead cops and that they wanted them now, but now that they got their dead cops, they don’t have enough shame to be embarrassed or sorry about their own behavior?

    Maybe that is what the left does in your country, but in America, the left currently pretends to equalize but makes sure that differences are emphasized and demonized. That is why our president has said that racism is in the genes of all whites. He emphasizes the color difference and demonizes one color.

    Please continue to comment, on this site. Mr. Zimmerman did not forbid either you or me to express our opinions, that is not his style, he merely stated that we both commented contrary to the point of his original post: that it is the content of a person’s character that matters, not the color of his skin.

    The Only Black Lives Matter crowd believes very strongly, states emphatically, and insists that everyone else hold their opinion that it is the other way around — if necessary by brute force or death. *That* is how the left thinks, in America.

  • wayne

    I’d echo what Edward said– please continue to comment here at BtB.
    I find your Space/Engineering comments interesting, although we do differ on some Political stuff, (some major some minor,) but I find those comments interesting as well, for the most part.

  • Alex

    Edward and Wayne: Thank you for your kind words. I appreciate it.

    Mr. Zimmerman: I would like to correct you in two statements.
    I say (in contrast to you):

    1. Man is not made equal (by nature).
    2. USA was founded by white men (gentlemen) for white men originally in 1776. USA was intentially foreseen not for everyone.

    My personal view: A future non-white USA is somewhat else, but that what have been I imagined as USA formerly.

  • Edward

    I would like to correct you in two important places:

    First, the statement “all men are created equal” is meant not to mean in strength, ability, intelligence, or other attributes, but equal under the law, and the word “men” is English generic for human. It meant that slavery is unlawful because it assumes that slaves are not created equal. The American Declaration of Independence was carefully crafted, in 1776, to allow for a future abolition of slavery, despite the necessity of including colonies that were dedicated to the slave system. It is why the Declaration did not use the popular phrase, at the time, “life, liberty, and property.” Had they declared property as an unalienable right, then the slave owners would have had the right to never give up their slave-properties. However, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” allowed for the slaves to have the right to pursue happiness, rather than be slaves. There were other phrases originally written for the Declaration, but they were more anti-slavery than the South would agree to, and it was necessary for the South to join the North, if there were to be eventual freedom in America.

    Hidden among the complaints listed in the Declaration is that King George would not permit any colony to outlaw slavery or to change laws allowing more ability to free one’s own slaves, which some Northern colonies tried to do:
    “He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”

    So important was this concept, to the founders, that it was the first grievance listed in the Declaration of Independence.

    Second, the USA was founded by gentlemen for all men (including women and children). Had the USA been founded for only gentlemen, then the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence would have been written very differently.

    Freeing the slaves in the South, which was so economically heavily dependent upon the practice, was a problem that the Northern Founding Fathers built into the US Constitution. The problem to solve was getting the Southern colonies into the Union so that the practice could be abolished by law, because if they did not join the Union, then there would be little ability to affect the practice.

    One important part of the Constitution abolished importing slaves, after the first two decades. Twenty years, rather than immediately, was a necessary compromise in order to keep the South. Counting slaves as 3/5 of a free man was intended to prevent the South from having an overwhelming majority in Congress, which would have prevented the North from abolishing slavery — this is why it is called the Three-Fifths Compromise. However, there were major political battles in Congress, as new states joined the Union, over whether they would be free or slave-states. Making them free states favored the North’s abolitionist movement, and the South fought bitterly for new slave-states, in order to stave off the inevitable abolition of slavery in the US.

    Slavery was becoming too expensive to keep, in the South, and slavery was on its way out when Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin. Thinking that the cotton gin would eliminate the need for slaves, Whitney was enormously surprised when it did the opposite, making slavery much more profitable again, destroying decades of careful work by Northern abolitionists and setting back the plans of many of the founders.

    Ironically, easing the work on the slaves turned out to be a cruelty, not a kindness.

    You have fallen into the trap that the left sets for many people: believing the American Founding Fathers were evil, selfish, old, white men writing contemporary, not eternal, human concepts. In truth, they realized that liberty for all was better than tyranny for most or some. They realized that when the American colonies acted independent of the King, they prospered, but when the King imposed his rule on them, they foundered.

  • Edward,

    Very nicely put. Saves me the job of answering Alex.

    For Alex I would only add one thought: You need to read a bit more about the Founding Fathers and British history. These men were seeped in the philosophy of government and the concept that all humans, white, black, male, female, have natural rights that supersede all governments. They wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, with these philosophies deeply in mind. To write, as you do that “USA was founded by white men (gentlemen) for white men originally in 1776” is to illustrate to everyone that you really don’t know that much about the American Revolution, the men who made it happen, and the culture that supported them in their effort.

  • Edward

    Good point, Robert.
    The Founding Fathers based their documents on the self evident truth that our rights are natural rights or God given rights — enjoyed by all peoples. From that basis, the Bill of Rights is not a document granting rights upon men but declaring that our natural, God given rights cannot be abridged or infringed.

    Other similar documents, such as the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, grants rights upon men, and the UDHR allows room for the UN to remove them in its Article 29 part 3, “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

    The US Constitution does not allow such wanton elimination of our rights at the whim of government. This assures that the Constitution applies to all, not just the gentlemen (or groups that insist that only their own lives matter, not anyone else’s).

  • Alex

    Edward: You misunderstood to some degree. I did not refer to contrast of man and woman at first place, but white man and others. I remembered that I learned that American “founding fathers” owned also slaves, so Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and George Washington for example. I have been at Andrew Jackson’s home and farm land some years ago, nearby Nashville for myself. There, I learned that Jackson himself owned about 90 slaves at once. It is my deep impression, that such men never could meant a non-white America as that what they wished to establish.

    The Naturalization Act of 1790

    “That any alien, being a free White person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States, for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…”

    I learnt: The original US Constitution divides the population of the US into three categories: (1) Negro slaves, called here “Other Persons”; (2) Indians; and (3) “We the People,” meaning, obviously, White people, if we subtract Blacks and Indians from the total population.

    “Three-Fifths Compromise”

    “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

  • wayne

    you are digging yourself into a deeper hole by focusing on “race” exclusively, as it relates to the formation of the United States of America.

    Edward (and others) have previously addressed the 3/5 compromise— the counting of slaves, for the purpose of representation, as “3/5” of a vote. This was done expressly to prevent Southern States from dominating the Legislature.

    Many, but not all the “Founding fathers,” owned slaves. In the case of George Washington he acquired slaves from his wife & was prohibited by law to free any of them during his life.

    “Indians,” were considered members of their own sovereign & respective “Nations.” (and it should be noted– the democrat’s were largely responsible for breaking every Treaty we ever signed with “Indians.”)

    You make a fatal error in History, if you think America was engineered for “white people only.”

  • Alex

    Hello Wayne,

    regarding so-called white privilege, this analysis may be very instructive to show misconceptions of the truth about white privilege: Jon Stewart vs. Bill O’Reilly

  • Wayne

    Hey Alex– almost missed your post.
    I did watch the linked video & I would have to take issue with large portions of the premise & many of the factoids.
    I get your point, we are just going to have to agree, to disagree.

  • Alex

    Hey Wayne, I just found this video, which displays facts about Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton. I learned that Democrat Party was originally the party, which supported slavery and even supported Klu-Klux-Clan.

    Hillary Clinton’s America | Dinesh D’Souza and Stefan Molyneux

  • wayne

    Yo, Alex–

    Pretty much anything from Dinesh is good stuff.

    >democrat-party messed up Reconstruction after the Civil War, they largely broke every Indian Treaty the USA ever signed, Wilson re-segregated the Federal government & the Military, FDR “rounded up” the Japanese and, as localfluff remarked recently, “filled the detention center’s.”
    Even in the 1960’s, if it wasn’t for Republican’s, civil-rights legislation would not have passed, even though the dems controlled the house/senate.

    Pretty much everything the left accuses “republicans” of doing, they did it “first & worst.” They just have figured out how to convince everyone, it wasn’t them.
    (The “black-vote” was historically & collectively a solid 80-90% republican, that’s also part of the reason the democrat-party worked so hard to stop black-people from voting in the South. They voted for the “wrong” people.)

    tangent– the Republican Party “symbol” is often displayed an Elephant, but on printed Ballots, at least in Michigan, they show a portrait of Lincoln.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *