Young black males “over-feminized”

John Whyte

Surely there are two issues here? The first is whether or not children (particularly boys) without any father are intrinsically worse off than those who have two active parents. While to me, this seems obvious, saying so opens a dangerous corridor whether or not it is acceptable for a lesbian couple, for example, to bring up a child.

Secondly, we must ask why there is a disproportionate number of black children with no father figure. Is this unique to British black culture? I live in an area with very little non-skilled migrant immigration so I don't know much about this, perhaps some of the Londoners here can help to enlighten me?

I think however, that it is important that members of the black community (do all blacks think as one? Surely not?) are raising this issue as otherwise the liberal elite would shut down any discussion on the matter. I reluctantly await the accusations from the usual suspects that Dr. Sewell has 'forgotten his roots' or 'sold out his people.'

hiro

The libtards you speak of Rod may be a little sensitive to even the mere suggestion of racism because of the historical record of seeing people from other races as animals, genocide, slavery, brutal colonalism, and casual bricks-through-windows, etc, etc. You're right about how that sensitivity does not progress things greatly, but I can see why people start to worry, scream, holler when race is bought into the mix. A lot of people look back at history and say, "never again.", init.

McSweeney

The thing is, Rod, I doubt Dr Sewell also made incorrect use of crime stats and/or stupid comments involving the words "goat curry".
So I'm not sure that your point of view and his are directly comparable.

Cecil Rhodes

Ah the revelation. If one accepts these figures then the question to be asked is why do so many black men desert their wife/lover and child? A friend of mine with an interest in male sexual behavior has read a book about the mating habits of gorillas. Apparently there is always a silver back, a leader, who wants to express his power by inseminating more females in the pack than any other. The author goes on to suggest that this is the case in several human communities. Is this relevant here? I know a Welshman like this.

TomTom

Is this unique to British black culture?

No it is endemic to the USA - try Philadelphia for example. It is facilitated by welfare and condoned by White-owned media. It is the modern 'virtual slavery' that accepts low standards of behaviour from Non-Whites and imposes excessive guilt on Whites in a version of 'The White Man's Burden' to act as whipping boys for the inadequacy of 'lesser breeds'.

It is Neo-Colonialism in the new accepted form espoused by the sons and daughters of the old Colonialists

WetherspoonThree

I am sure that one reason put forward for the disproportionate number of black children with no father figure is that, for West Indians at least, it had its cultural roots in slavery. This always sounded an unconvincing argument from a second rate sociology paper to me but successive governments have been frightened witless to give a opinion on the matter for fear of alienating possible voters or appearing judgemental.
Perhaps the time has now come to 'bribe' all single women between the age of 16 and 25, say £5000 per annum, not to have children until they have reached an age when they are more likely to make an informed choice on parenthood.

Ken Bishop

"no-one dares say a word"

People have been talking about this for decades. It's been in the media for decades too.

rod seacole liddle

You smug oaf, McSweeney; I didn't misuse crime stats. And the piece I was referring to had nothing to do with "goat curry". His last point is the most important one, but one which seemingly passes you by.

Natasha

Great, the more feminised the better, it will bring the crime rate down....

DZ

I do some voluntary work in one country in West Africa (not Nigeria) and the children are extremely polite and well-mannered even in rural areas. Also, I get a very distinct impression that mothers have the responsibility of bring up the children whether they are polygamous, christian, muslim or traditional, and that fathers can be a bit distant.

Just thought I would mention some first-hand observations for interest's sake.

Adam F

I think that there is a problem with feminization of education in general, at the risk of showing my age, when I started school girls out performed boys up until A-level and then boys did better, so it was suggested that education should be made more girl friendly. This has been very successful. So much so that girls and women now out perform boys and men at all levels of education.
This combined with the disappearance of male teachers, and the bake down of more and more families have left boys and young men with out solid role models. I cannot really believe I am saying this but maybe single sex education at school level is a good idea. And more male teachers? I now feel horrible right-wing and need to go for a rest to recover.

Dixon

Hah...so all the hyper-testosterone bad-boy blowlocks is just compensating for being a bunch of mummies-boys!!!! Absolutely brilliant!!!!

Dont get me wrong, Im not commenting on the blackness element, just the idiocy of machismo, whatever its colour.

That said, it does appear your photographer can only frame (literally) black males in the style of a police mug-shot! I think your photographers work needs inspection by the relevant watchdogs. He's givvinem the wrong way looks innit!

Sir Graphus

Hear, hear, Adam F (or as many people write; "here, here").

J. Morgan

Let's remember the more updated and accurate definition of racist:

Racist: 1. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive term for a white person. 2: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, if promoted by white people. 3: a belief that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race, if promoted by white people.

GaryO

Any relation to Brian Sewell, perchance?

Fergus Pickering

Do the girls outperform the boys in private schools. I bet they don't. The girls do better because of all this absurd stuff everyone does instead of exams. Girls work harder but they are not so good at doing stuff off the tops of their heads. That's where the boys score. Or used to score. Education has been feminized, you see.

Dixon

"GaryO
March 17th, 2010 4:55pm
Any relation to Brian Sewell, perchance?"

Hah! Nice one. Sewell the art crit. More likely that other art crit, Edward Lucie-Smith.

Herbert Thornton

Cecil Rhodes (March 17th, 2010 12:44pm) -

"I know a Welshman like this."

Only one?

Incidentally, some 50 years ago, when I lived in Tanganyika (now Tanzania) one of the Provincial Commissioners, (unmarried) was (though it was seldom talked about) well known to be very fond (and understandably so) of the indigenous young ladies. He was also an affectionate father and not ungenerous in providing for his offsprings' education and welfare.

But I believe he was English and not Welsh.

radgie gadgie

Rod,

Why is it at the Spectator, as with the BBC or the Guardian, that any reference to bad personal experiences regarding black or muslim people always fails to be posted? No-one dares say a word? The no-ones, or nobodies if you will, do dare, they are just moderated out of the picture.

hence the strong possibility from me of a BNP vote in the election.

Adam F

Not sure I agree with you Fergus Pickering, its just in general terms (and there are always exceptions) boys and girls get the most out of different styles of education and learning. It is often said that both sexes do better in a single-sex educational environment with pedagogic and assessment techniques can be tailored towards their needs. I am certainly not denigrating the abilities of girls or boys for that matter.

QuiteBigBen

Having been, for a while, a middle class, public school educated white male teacher in a predominatly black inner city secondary school, I was surprised to find that the black children fell into two very distinct groups.

The first group were the Afro-Caribbeans, and it is the boys of this group that Dr Sewell really appears to be describing. The second group, the children from African families, appeared to be much more focussed and much more stable: I don't believe that fathers were present to a much higher degree amongst the African families, but it was clear that family and community networks were much stronger, so that the boys did have more contact with good black male role models than their Afro Caribbean classmates.

This evidence is purely anecdotal, but comparison of the two groups would be a valuable research project for someone.

There was, however, one other factor which is potentially significant: I noticed in this one school an apparent correlation between the blackness of a boys skin and the likelihood of his being disaffected and I ascribed this to being a product of racism. However, two black female colleagues, one a deputy head, told me that it was more directly due to a clear cultural preference amongst black women and girls for light skinned (but NOT white)men & boys. They disagreed that the darker skinned boys were worse behaved, only that they tended to be more disruptive through anger / exclusion whilst the paler boys tended to be more subtly disruptive through arrogance / inclusion. The significance of cultural factors within the black communithy, rather than between the black community and the rest of society may also be worthy of research?

Alexandrovich

Over-feminized? Now I've got this image of a George Mitchell arrangement playing softly behind the poignant monologue of a 21 stone, West Indian Alan Bennett.

Mrs Mugabe

"He suggests that the educational under-achievement of black males is less a consequence of racism than because an astonishing proportion of them emanate from one parent families and all too rarely have a male role model at home. As a result they become “over-feminized”.

Um...does this not also apply to white boys?

I thought this was one of the reasons that England was swirling so merrily round the plug hole to ruin.

Carl

Rod, in summary, a boy needs a smack now and again rather than cultural understanding.

Thanks for saying this.Trevor Phillips better watch out!

Woodbine 'Hideously White' Willy

Sir GraphusHear, hear, Adam F (or as many people write; "here, here").
Well which one do you mean?

Stephanie Tohill

I don't know why Sewell would conclude with 'noone says a word' people repeatedly 'say a word' including our resident race obsessive - Liddle. (Seriously do you do a Google search each week of the words 'Black', 'Afro' and 'Caribbean'?)

I am sick of people claiming 'oooh we can't mention that' when a quick google search would reveal a plethora of newspaper articles on the very same topic.

Anyway, questions to Tony Sewell and our resident race obsessive any suggestions on how the problem is caused (absent parents) and what to do to tackle it? Because that aspect is what I agree 'nobody says a word over'.

And, can we just clarify one point, living in a lone-paren thousehold does not equate to having an absent parent. I was in the 59% of households Sewell references, but it would be a fabrication to call my father absent. He was very much a part of my life. He just didn't live with me.

So yes, Liddle, Sewell and supporters, suggestions?

Stephanie Tohill

John Whyte: 12:30pm

"I think however, that it is important that members of the black community (do all blacks think as one? Surely not?) are raising this issue as otherwise the liberal elite would shut down any discussion on the matter."

a) Contrary to popular belief I can assure you we don't!
b) Elements of 'the black community' do raise the issue I guess, the few times I have picked up a Voice newspaper I have occasionally seen such articles/letters to the editor and I am pretty sure that the discussion is held in majority black churches (I am not religious) and so forth.

It's a discussion which is held often and everywhere, although obviously not in places Liddle and Sewell would like to see it.

Dixon

"radgie gadgie
March 17th, 2010 6:20pm
Rod,

Why is it at the Spectator, as with the BBC or the Guardian, that any reference to bad personal experiences regarding black or muslim people always fails to be posted? No-one dares say a word? The no-ones, or nobodies if you will, do dare, they are just moderated out of the picture.

hence the strong possibility from me of a BNP vote in the election."
Hah!. Thats a good ploy, you are saying "post me comment or I vote BNP". For what a vote in a British election is worth thats as good a use as any. I reckon we should all go and do that at places like the Gaurdian!

Even better, go to a greens web-site and sa "if you dont put this comment up Im going to release an entire 12gram cylinder of CO2". It would be an 88gram cylinder only thats a bit pricey for a single comment.

Dixon

"Alexandrovich
March 17th, 2010 7:28pm
Over-feminized? Now I've got this image of a George Mitchell arrangement playing softly behind the poignant monologue of a 21 stone, West Indian Alan Bennett."

Crikey mate, cant say I fancy your concept of the feminine ideal...Alan Bennet!

Dixon

QuiteBigBen...now you are going into very deep waters. I know an Afro-Carribean woman who is a social-worker. She expresses views about Africans that would land her in prison if she were white. Challenged on this she just says "But its true". Yet I'm quite sure she would not tolerate the same comments directed at her own community.

This is the most nasty and dangerous thing about the denial of debate in this area. It only applies to white people. I have seen it stated in all seriousness by otherwise intelligent people that only white people are racist. Because white people hold the power. Which is like saying that once Hitler was trapped in his bunker and powerless he was no longer a racist! It means, in effect, that any amount of racism goes unchallenged in Britain as long as its not committed by whites. This is especially true where language (or patois) permits the expression openly of avowedly racist incitement so long as its targets (guess who) are unable to understand and cite it in complaints.

Wilhelm

Mrs Mugabe squeeks

''does this not also apply to white boys?''

No.

Lee Jakeman

An anti-racist, surely, is just a racist turned upside down?

Confucius

Come on, Rod, spell it out. The GUARDIAN. You can do it.

The only way to conquer a fear is by facing up to it, you know.

Write out "the GUARDIAN" a hundred times. You'll feel so much better for it.

John Whyte

Stephanie Tohill 9.10pm

I think you've confirmed some of my suspicions. As I mentioned in my 1st comment, this article touches on a subject/subjects that I know very little about due to my geographical location. I've often questioned the idea that you can describe ethnic groups as 'communities' as if they were one voting bloc and are all of one mind. Ideas like this among my fellow whites (although I hate describing them like that) are hugely detrimental in terms of providing solutions to the problems of minority groups.

Surely however, this is an issue that is simply more prevalent among, rather than unique to the black community? As I said, thanks again for the information, particularly about the discussion in churches.

Mrs Mugabe

Herr Wilhelm. Perhaps you'd care to explain why it doesn't.

James Murphy

Natasha says, "Great, the more feminised the better, it will bring the crime rate down...." - Er,sorry to knock your PC bi-focals off your nose, Natasha, but surely the point is that young black male crime rates are rising under the current 'feminised' cultural dispensation? - Guess there's none so blind as those who won't go to Specsavers...

Jared Gaites

They sure as hell don't look over feminized.

Iain

TomTom at 1:20pm: "Is this unique to British black culture?"

It certainly applies to Bermuda although I suppose you could argue that Bermuda is still British in some respects. However, Bermuda is 60% black, has a government which is essentially black, and has one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world.

In recent years, this tiny, wealthy island has managed to acquire a gun-toting gang culture of its own.

And, before anyone suggests it, Bermuda is NOT in the Caribbean.

hiro

""no-one dares say a word"

People have been talking about this for decades. It's been in the media for decades too."

A point the likes of Rod misses. The media, and pretty much everyone else, including "libtards", bang on and on and on and on and on and on about effnics. Most of the articles are like Rod's, saying, "Why can't we call the darkies up on their behaviour? etc", whilst the other half are calling the darkies up on their behaviour. This idea that there is no immigration debate, or there is no way you can have a pop at the darkies, is absoloute bollocks. There's pages and pages of darky related moans etc on Rod's blog alone. Playing the victim is fine, but it's even worse when there is no crime to be a victim for!

Andy Gill

"It helps with the white libtards if a black person, such as Dr Sewell, is saying it, mind."

Not really Rod if the comments on Tony Sewell's article are anything to go by.

They aren't above dusting off the old Uncle Tom argument, or at least its politically correct equivalent.

Richard

'And it does not matter how mildly you might express yourself (not always a forte of mine, I admit)'

Plain speaking Rod always putting his foot in his gob!!

Murgatroyd

The Liberal Left is corrupt, self-serving, and utterly beyond redemption.

I wouldn't trust anything written in the G@+*d$%n - even if it is by a black man.

Iain

hiro at 3:46pm: "People have been talking about this for decades."

But which people, and where? The problem is, MPs are saying one thing and sections of the press are saying another, usually with a bit of mutual name calling thrown in, but there is no forum where the issues can be debated honestly and in depth so that effective policies can be devised. The BBC could provide such a forum but clearly doesn't.

Stephanie Tohill

Well said Hiro. The Liddlites don't appear to realise this. Or at the very least are ignoring it.

Andy Gill - I have read the original article and all the comments on it. I have wholly missed Sewell being accused of being an Uncle Tom (or it's "PC equivalent"). Where are such comments. There is plenty of disagreement, which is to be expected, people are free to voice disagreement.
I just don't see what you claim.

Wilhelm

Mrs Mugabe

'' Perhaps you'd care to explain why it doesn't.

Nah.

call me dave

More cultural enrichment:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258935

thedarknight

There is a blogging teacher, also black, who makes similar argument. I tried posting a link to her blog on Con Home, but it was deleted. How absurd, a black person stating a theory that black under-achievement is due to cultural trends that are reversible is seen as racist. What a ludicrous tyre round the neck of common sense PC has become.

hadrian

It seems to me as a mere retired teacher of some decades that this 'feminisation' business is not exclusively a 'black problem'. There are many broken white homes as well, remember, and they too evince this tendency. What tendency, exactly? One of over dependency, over self indulgence, demanding instant gratification and the sullen attitude of hurt disappointment that accompanies these when it dawns the world does not revolve around self. Where parental checks to this are not applied, as especially in broken homes but also in 'spoilt brat' homes, the results are there to see all too clearly in the classroom. And with our culture of no blame/no punishment/excuse all little wonder any self discipline, meaningful civilised behaviour, or work ethic are cultivated. Our nation's a sad mess and the P.C. conspiracy of silence/denial, 'breathe not a word of this' brigade will ultimately bring our society to its knees.

Stephanie Tohill

Call me Dave.

Sorry I am at a loss as to how that is an example of cultural 'enrichment'

Or is it that you mean it in the same manner used by Liddle: To describe anything negative down by a brown person?

I am not sure how an attack by a dangerous dog, or, rather somebody using a dangerous dog to attack someone is somehow 'foreign' and/or due to 'multiculturalism'

Do you even know where the boy is from or are you assuming not British due to the fact he's a darkie?

Iain,

I get it now. When you mean it is not being spoken about you mean it is not being covered where YOU want it to be covered.

Which is altogether a different thing.

I mean how you can go a week without seeing an article on 'absent fathers' in the British press is beyond me. You've noted it should be discussed on the BBC so how often would be sufficient for you to feel that 'it is being discussed'?

daniel maris

We don't need to take moral stances on this, we simply need to put in place strong incentives for reasonable behaviour. So - all children born to girls under 18 taken away and into adoption. Anyone seeking funding from the state for children they bear up to the age of 25, to be required to live in supervised accommodation where their care for the child can be monitored.

Child benefit to be paid only to parents aged over 25. To be
graded so that at a base of 100 (current) it would be 130 for first child, 70 for second and negative (-50) for third child. Third children should also be subject to social services inspection as to whether adoption is appropriate.

If you want to do something about the problem you have to take some tough decisions.

Iain

Stephanie Tohill at 10:30pm:

Yes, of course there are places where I want it covered - what's wrong with that? Government would be a good place to start.

The press tend to preach to the choir and, in any case, an 'article' in a newspaper is not a debate.

The BBC could organise serious debates on a range of issues, covering ALL sides of the arguments, but it won't.

Eddie

The problem is, everyone is terrified of talking honestly about certain issues if they ever involve black people. Why? A terror of being accused of racism, yes - and it is true that IF you're a teacher and state certain opinions, you could be suspended.

Best to stick to the facts, as DR Sewel does: black boys fail at school. FACT. Most street crime is done by black males.

WHY WHY WHY!? Let's have an honest debate here.

I agree that PC has become a heavy tyre around the neck of common sense and truth...

Old Slaughter

'his community'

What community is he in Rod? Unlike you to go for petty bureaucratic euphemisms.

This type of language use is as much part of the problem as anything else.

AngloWelshDragon

@ Fergus Pickering
"Girls work harder but they are not so good at doing stuff off the tops of their heads."

What an outrageous remark. I always prided myself on doing as little schools work as possible and then doing blisteringly well in exams. I am so glad I was educated before the days of mudules and course work. I would have been far to lazy to have achieved anything above mediocre!

Eddie

Girls do not work 'harder' but work in a methodical, please-the-teacher, risk-averse (frankly dull) kind of way. Like cavewomen gathering.

Boys tend to like facts, knowledge, competition and do indeed excel - males on average have higher IQs than females and dominate the higher levels. Males are the hunters.

The modern education system is utterly feminised are rewards plodding mediocrity - hence the stat that shows girls as a whol doing 10% 'better' than boys - because most are extremely mediocre, average and dull. The genius and exciting thinking - and high level thinking - usually comes from boys, as do most Firsts and the high levels of the A grades.

Our education system is institutionally misandrist.

hiro

Rod - straight up question. Do you think young black males fail because they are biologically thicker than their white breadrin? That their low IQ, in general, is inherent and caused by biology, not by culture, society, etc?

Dixon

Daniel Maris...Im confused, where exactly DO you stand on that recurring issue here, the Islamisation of Britain? Because if you think its an issue, it doesnt make the least bit of sense to suggest ways of discouraging third children, as you do. On the contrary, we need to knock up ( pardon the phrase ) as high a birth rate as we can if the demographic inevitability of a Muslim majority is to be averted.

Whats more, the size of a family has no bearing on this issue. Big families do NOT mean under achievement: I came from a family with eight children.Our father was a carpenter who spent the last 20 years of his life on benefits. BUT, among us now are a school teacher, the regional director of an engineering company with an annual turn-over of £500 million, the engineering director of a large water company, an author with six titles to his name and a mathematician with an Erdos number of "1". The others are also succesful.

Your perception of the world seems to be based on "Shameless".

There also seem to be several bona-fide neanderthal males commenting here whose knuckle dragging is manifest in a wingeing over the fact that girls do better in school. So much clap trap about the merits of boys doing things on impulse ( for fexxs sake, thats WHY we have every social problem we are supposedly discussing ) and it being the fault of "the system" sounds like the most pathetic spinning you would expect to hear from some lib-tard apologists for a criminal breed. Thanks but no thanks, as a male I dont need your pathetic attempts to justify male inadequacies. If I do well on a course, I dont think its because Im a pansy.

IN ANY CASE, the intellectual level of these males of hurt pride appears pee-poor given that if as they say the educational system is biased towards the feminised, then "feminised" boys should do well in it...the whole thrust of the article is that they dont!

Doh!

Eddie

Dixon - you seem not to have read what I wrote, and just parrot the spurious 'girls do better than boys' as though that were a fact, and that boys were failing! Not true. Girls succeed in a feminised system because everything is geared to their way of doing things, and the bar has been lowered so the mediocre pass - and there are more females in that middling group than men. Boys and men dominate the higher levels of IQ and achievement, at schools and elsewhere. Overall girls do 10% better BECAUSE of the mediocre girls succeeding; but boys succed despite the anti-boy methodologies of schools. Perhaps you should defer to thos who have experience of educational methods eh...???

The article is a response to the feminised upbringing of black boys - which makes them insecure and macho because they have no role models'. It is not asying that because they are brought up in an over-feminine home that they should succeed in a feminised school system! DOH!

Herbert Thornton

The idea that young black men in Britain are "over feminised" through being brought up solely by their mothers is preposterous.

Indeed it's a great deal more preposterous than another theory that may not be based on such a weak foundation.

For the last half century, much of the meat eaten by people in western countries - chicken and beef especially - has come from poultry and cattle that have been deliberately fed with food containing overly generous amounts feminising hormones to ensure that their flesh is more tender than it otherwise would be.

That, the theory suggests, accounts for a general feminisation of the male population, for the kind of changes in the female population that has given rise to, e.g., women's rights groups, and an increasing incidence of lesbianism. It has also produced in both males and females, the kind of mental changes that are a necessary precursor of the Political Correctness Syndrome (PCS) which is now so prevalent.

At the same time, ask yourself - are these phenomena so noticeable in parts of the world that are less exposed to this dietary hazard? They seem to be remarkably absent in the more extreme and aggressive populations such as we see in Afghanistan, Somalia and Sudan. The phenomena are moreover, hardly noticeable in other countries that have healthier diets than the west - e.g. Russia, China and Japan. In Britain on the other hand, the phenomena have become the norm, noticeably so in British institutions, governmental and judicial, not to mention the Church of England and the British literary milieu. Indeed, in the BBC and the Guardian, having PCS seems to be a sine qua non of employment. Even the Spectator has allowed the phenomenon to establish a good foothold.

I noticed that there was a politically correct outcry recently because somebody had referred to Goat Curry. Goat Curry isn't a problem. What matters is the state of mind of the people who imagined that referring to it was a problem.

Of course all the foregoing may be baseless, and if you fancy a chickenburger, go ahead.

Dixon

Eddie, you are just repeating what you said before! Its exactly what I was reffering to.

Dixon

Herbert Thornton, is your post yet another send-up ( they seem all the rage round here ) or do you really come from Royston Vesey?

Given the sort of deranged balderdash spewing from so many on this topic ( ie, feminism caused by chicken feed and the land is awash with lesbians ) it causes me some pause for thought that these are largely the same people I have been agreeing with on other topics month in and month out!

Herbert Thornton

Dixon -

What can I say? I certainly remember that a cousin of mine who was a farmer, did, around 1950, adopt the practice of regularly implanting hormone pellets under the skins of the young chickens that he was raising.

For all I know, the theory that the practice has led to the effects mentioned may be completely crackpot. I'm neither a biologist nor any other sort of scientist, so who knows?

My own inclination is to assume that even if beef and chicken do generally contain undesirable feminising hormones, they are probably destroyed in the cooking process. At any rate, I haven't stopped eating them - and so far as I can tell, I haven't become politically correct.

daniel maris

Dixon -

You can't base government policy on anecdotes. I've no doubt yours is a fine family and I've no problem with single parents. I know lots of single parent West Indian mothers who are wonderful and really hard workers. I am not stigmatising anyone, I am just saying that if you want better behaviour you have to give strong incentives to good behaviour. At the moment the incentives encourage idleness and idiocy.

As for Islam, it is true that part of the problem in the UK is the much large birth rate of the Muslim population.

It is a moot point what effect the policy I propose would have. I think we might see quite a dramatic reduction in the family size of Muslims. At the moment it is much large than the rest of the population. With this disincentive policy I think the gap would reduce.

But you have to combine this with other policies e.g. requiring women to work before they can claim on the social security system; banning arranged marriages overseas etc.

Eddie

Dixon - yet again you misunderand the whole point of the article. I can only assume you went to a bog standard comprehensive so spent all day in circle time when you should have been learning how to read... As a former teacher and writer on educational matters, perhaps I could help you catch up?

The point being made in the article is this:

Black boys have no fathers at home so are brought up in a 'feminised' way; this means they are so insecure about their maleness that they act macho and gangsta and look to the boys in gangs as their father figure - and many become violent gay-haters and hate women too. Generally messed up. This is true, in my experience - though one must realise that the education system fails ALL working class boys really by NOT having vocational options and not being selective and by being so lacking in male teachers - who are mostly at boys schools, selective schools and the top state and private schools. And Yes, boys do suffer terribly from our single mum culture - ALL stats show this, so the PC feminists should read them perhaps.

The SECOND AND QUITE SEPARATE point I AM MAKING is that the education system - now ruled by PC G-reading women like never before - is feminised in its attitudes, methodologies, assumptions, structure and aims, so it excludes boys because it has not been designed with their needs and innate learning patterns in mind. I could easily design a system where girls would so 10% worse overall.

I think perhaps only those with a real understanding of eduction and learning can get this issue. Not you then, Dixon.

Roger Thornhill

Rod,

It is not "anti-racism", but just plain old racism. It is no less evil, in fact it is probably more so as it has the veneer of righteous indignation and the mob about it.

Wilhelm

Hiro . march 19th, 4:01pm

Correct.

Herbert Thornton

I think that Rod has got it largely right.

However, Tony Sewell's piece in the Guardian and some of the people posting comments seem, to me, to be over-analysing the problem in psychological terms with such conviction that they have got carried away on their own tide of believable plausibility - as when Sewell says - "The current government policy of rolling out role models to black youngsters is another attempt to externalise the problem that lies within." But Sewell is completely mistaken when he says that "the main problem holding back black boys academically is their over-feminised upbringing." Nonsense, Mr Sewell. The main problem is the existence of black gangs.

O.K., so on becoming adolescents, black boys brought up by their mothers turn begin to look around for father figures. They will, as Sewell puts it "seek out an alternative. This will usually be among dominant male figures, all too often found in gangs." That is doubtless true.

But if we are looking for an effective remedy surely common sense should tell us that the most basic and necessary action is to deal resolutely with the gangs. Forming such gangs should be made a crime if it is not one already. Stamp them out. Get rid of them.

That of course would result in politically correct idiocy chanting "Racism" - even though it's nothing of the sort.

Dixon

"Eddie
March 20th, 2010 7:30am
Dixon - yet again you misunderand the whole point of the article. I can only assume you went to a bog standard comprehensive so spent all day in circle time when you should have been learning how to read... As a former teacher and writer on educational matters, perhaps I could help you catch up?"

No I passed the 11-plus and went to a moronic grant-aided private pile whose kiddy-fiddling dorks in gowns were obsessed with its 500 year old traditions and how many of its alumni were generals, scientists and captains of industry. Maybe I did miss out on English, as we had twice as many hours per week of Latin and Rugby was accordeed a higher status, but I have written six books all published.

You, on the other hand, appear to be exactly what you say you are, a bog-standard schoolteacher ( possibly once a Latin-obsessed dork in a gown ) and just keep repeating the same thing in different ways without comprehending that its circular.

I recommend that you should sit down and read what you wrote the first time, whilst trying to think of at least three ways in which it could be interpreted, before barking about how my interpretation is "wrong".

Ex-schoolteacher, by god, doesnt that mortar board fit!

Dixon

Daniel Maris, I think the issues you want to address are cultural. Part of the point of citing my family is the part about the unemployed father. BTW, you are wrong about it being a "fine family", all the high-flyers in it are utterly unpleasant people. Bullies mainly, whose success is directly related to their easy attitude to stepping all over other people. My point in citing them was that I dont think your views are based on real cases. My family was a real case ( you can say that again ) that contradicts your perceptions and I dont know how you can assume it to be exceptional without objective data.Perhaps you have such data. I dont know.

Wilhelm

Afro Caribean population of UK 2.5 %

Afro Caribean prison population of UK 10 %.

George Opene

As a black person, i don't view "over-feminised" comment as pejorative. What the kids need is enculturation - through education. Period.

Fergus Pickering

Wilhelm, I think most people in prison all over the world are from the lower social classes, and in Britain most Afro-Carribeans are from these same classes, so it may not be entirely a race issue. The same thing is true of fatherless families, is it not, and poor whites here have much the same problems as Afro-Carribeans, don't they? I'm no expert, but isn't this so? I don't think the ACs have the horrible dogs.

Eddie

Yes Fergus, true.

Unfortunately there are so many who wish to racialise every single issue - because their career, income, sanctimony, moral sense of self and racial identity is predicated on doing so.

Most black people who came to the UK were lower class, uneducated West Indians or Africans, and their children are of the same working class. The same is true of Muslims; compare with the professional, middle class Hindus from India.

A social class issue is yet again racialised by PBPs - 'professional black persons'.

Wilhelm

Fergus me old son

Are you suggesting that poor people cause crime ?
Thats very insulting to people who are poor.
There are poor people in China and India who dont go around stabbing each other.

Its a lack of morals that cause crime.

Wilhelm

Type into YouTube

Ireland They did not show this in our news

Fergus Pickering

Wilhelm, I am not suggesting the poverty causes crime. I am saying that most criminals (people in jail) are poor. I think this is what is called a statistical correlation. Are you telling me that this is not so, that most people in jail are rich? Well of course you are not. And as for this 'insulting' ploy, forget it. I have heard it is insulting to today's hard-working children to say their A levels are devalued. What do YOU think?

Malcolm

Wilhelm: "Afro Caribean population of UK 2.5 %

Afro Caribean prison population of UK 10 %"

^A statistic that proves the systemic and institutionalised racism in the entire justice and legal system in this country - from the parliament down. Let's not forget, it is the royals and parliament who conceived, implemented, industrialised, capitalised and perpetuated racism to the extent of commiting the worst crime in all of human history: the African holocaust, all just to make a profit. It is they who are the real racists, with the most to gain from its on-going perpetuation, and the most to fear from repercussion (hence the incarceration policy).

Where do you think the quarter of the world's wealth that was looted during "empire" has gone? These people still own vast amounts of land, resources etc in African countries for God's sake. Do you think the true benefactors - the biological heirs of these blue blood types - wish to see true Black progress around the world? What would that mean for their ill-gotten gains? And since they control the entire "system" in this country, it is their will that is propagated down to and executed by their minions i.e police, judges etc. This fear based racist policy is even more profound in America.

So that is the context in which you must view that statistic.

Noa Zrk

George Opene

"As a black person, i don't view "over-feminised" comment as pejorative. What the kids need is enculturation - through education. Period".

Please explain what "enculturation" is and why the kids need it.

Noa Zrk

Wilhelm says

"Its a lack of morals that cause crime".

No, it's a lack of effective punishments that cause crime.

Wilhelm

Malcolm

Ho Hum !

Alexandrovich

Malcolm: I read your post with interest, twice in fact. However, I detected no irony so must conclude that it is unmitigated crap. Every sentence.

Herbert Thornton

Just to keep the pot simmering, there's an article in today's National Post that looks at this kind of problem and that stresses the importance of two-parent families -
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=2710072

David Ossitt

Alexandrovich

“Malcolm: I read your post with interest, twice in fact. However, I detected no irony so must conclude that it is unmitigated crap. Every sentence.”

Here here!

David Ossitt

Noa Zrk

“Please explain what "enculturation" is and why the kids need it.”

Noa; I suspect that he thinks it means:-

“The adoption of the behaviour patterns of the surrounding culture”.

It is of course utter crap but then, much that is spouted by those who try to explain reasons behind crime, is just that, crap.

Crime needs to be punished effectively, this means all crime at every level, and always naming and shaming.

Baron Pippin II

Noa Zrk @ 10.04 gets it in one.

The pseudo-liberal criminal justice system doesn’t punish effectively. Locking people up ain’t punishment, it’s just politically the most convenient means, albeit an expensive one, of keeping the miscreants temporarily from committing crime.

Prisons are no longer places of punishment, but costly congregations for re-do this and re-do that. Prisons don’t work in a sense that they ‘reform’ the most dangerous individuals. Hence the high recidivism. Unless the criminal feels pain, he cannot feel cleansed, and hence cannot rejoin the society after release.

Punishment and pain derive from the same Greek word. The one used to be a part of the other. The pseudo-liberal nutters have succeeded in removing the pain element from punishment. The society has given up on the last preventive measure that not only imposes a doze of retribution on the criminally minded, but also serves as a powerful deterrent to others.

Why do you reckon Britain under Churchill and before kept capital punishment on the statute books, ha? Was it that the society was so blood thirsty that it dispatched the most vile criminals for pleasure? Nope. Capital punishment saved lives. No doubt about it. It may be abhorrent, but it less distasteful than letting those who harbour evil to murder almost at will.

Are you aware that the average time a murderer spends inside is just over nine years? Two, now retired, Chief Justices had publicly expressed their wish, when in office, to have it cut to seven years. Why seven? Why not five, or two? After all, since 1965, only 120 murderers who got released serving their tariff murdered again? This only includes those who murdered within two years of release and, of course, got caught. Given that the population of the country stands at around 60mn, the doubling or trebling of the 120 figure matters little to the majority. I reckon we should all support this noble, heart warming initiative.

Noa Zrk

David Ossitt, Baron Pippin, Alexandrovich;
Wot you say chaps, with knobs on.

As they say, there's life in the old Blog yet!

Stephanie Tohill

Iain, March 19th

Ok so we have moved from stating 'this issue is never discussed' because you seem to have realised it is b*ll*x to stating it is never discussed by government which I suspect is also b*ll*x. There is government engagement with what Liddle would term 'Community' groups to tackle the problem. Government also saw fit to oversee the creation of the Trident crime force so we can safely dismiss your assertion that they are not discussing it which brings us to your last point: The BBC organising a debate, I presume on 'single parent black families'. I am sure this would make for fascinating TV but how often do you want this to occur. Once? Once a week? Bi-annually? And what would the poitn be? What is the outcome you are seeking? I don't want mealy mouthed words, but actual concrete selections of what debate you wish to see and what outcome you expect from it.

Eddie,

Nobody claims that poverty CAUSES crime. People just highlight that globally the most dangerous/crime ridden parts of town are always, without exception the socially deprived parts. Your comments about China and India are laughable as they also have violent crime. Or who else do you think are being placed in Indian jails? Who is it the Chinese are executing?

Stephanie Tohill

Apologies to Eddie, The later part of my post was, meant to be directed at Wilhelm.

However as he has clearly shown himself to be a racist in the traditional sense (the belief that our behavioural characteristics are determined by our pigmentation levels) I am probably wasting my breath

Baron

Stephanie Tohill @ 11.30

You what, live on another planet? Virtually any comment by the pseudo-liberal fruitcakes on the causes of crime links it with poverty. The government policies have persistently been to eradicate poverty, or rather ‘social impoverishment’ and hence reduce crime.

Well, if poverty were truly the real cause of crime then the housing stock of this country prior to the war would have consisted mainly of prisons. Get it? Many, very many went genuinely hungry before the war, and yet crime levels were miniscule compared to today’s. Just read Orwell’s ‘Down and under in Paris and London’, in my view the gem of the guy’s writing, but almost never mentioned by the pseudo-liberal retards because it totally debunks the standard explanation of poverty as the real cause of crime. The good dr. Dalrymple had it right: the real cause of crime is the conscious decision of the criminal to commit it.

Wilhelm

Poverty doesnt cause crime. Everyone has a concience, everyone knows right from wrong, everyone knows you shouldnt stab another youth for his mobile phone because its got a bit of bling bling.

Fergus Pickering

To say that poverty causes crime is surely to say that poor people are immoral, or at least more immoral than rich people. I think this is at least arguable. Do you want to argue it Stephanie? But if you are a true leftie then you don't believe there is such a thing as personal morality, do you?

Baron

You still with us, Stephanie?

another thing on your skirmish with Wilhelm:

Leave India and China alone, these two are getting more prosperous and, more to the point, no society can ever eliminate crime altogether, it’s cutting down the rate of crime we’re talking about.

Just ponder the Yemen, a country often on our screens displaying poverty aplenty, well, certainly buckets full compared even to the recession stricken Britain, agreed? What do you reckon then is the aggregate crime level in a country ranked amongst the world’s 25 poorest, where more children die at birth than survive, and 45% of the population live on $2 a day?

It’s 1.2 crimes per 1,000. The comparable rate for the UK is 85.5 per 1,000.

Shall I give you a hint why the massive gap? In the Yemen they chop off the hand of those who steal. Barbaric as it may sound, and it certainly is even for me, it seems to work wonders.

I’m far from advocating the same treatment for the army of our miscreants. My point doesn’t take sides. It merely states that in a country that treats criminals unbelievably harshly the population, starving and dying, lives virtually free of crime. In a country that has dispensed altogether with inflicting pain on those who harbour evil, the law abiding burghers bear the brunt of the barbaric behaviour of the criminals.

Go figure.

David Ossitt

Stephanie Tohill

“The later part of my post was, meant to be directed at Wilhelm.”

“However as he has clearly shown himself to be a racist in the traditional sense (the belief that our behavioural characteristics are determined by our pigmentation levels) I am probably wasting my breath”

A cheep and nasty shot, but typical off a hand wringing, soft on the outside but rotten to the core on the in, left wing, lets all hug an ethnic, liberal.

Pray tell; if a traditional racist (as you put it) is all to do with pigmentation levels, what is a non-traditional racist all about?

Or are you just spouting a load of bollocks because it is an easy and very nasty way of putting someone or someone’s opinions down?

If all of the plane bomb terrorists are young darker skinned Muslim types; then you lot are happy that seventy year old white men and women are selected to be body searched at airports.

If 95% of knife crime, is committed by young black men, I suspect that you would call it racist if more black men than white are stop and searched.

It is not it is just the sensible thing to do.

Wilhelm is big enough to defend himself but you throwing the racist word at him, is a low and very nasty way with words, please stop it.

Wilhelm

Stephanie squeeels waaaycist.

Are you going to make that your life's work, calling people waycist, luv ?

The word ' waycist ' is soo devalued now, its
worthless and meaningless.

So there !

Maddy1

It is not poverty but wealth that causes crime! We are going to see an unsustainable cost for your Huntleys and co in the forseeable future. If they d onot want to execute these people at least they can be sent to profit making industries in Gulags on South Georgia!

Thucydides

@Wilhelm, March 24, 10.25 pm
Stephanie Tohill did not squeeel waaaycist; she called you a racist, for your belief that black males are biologically more stupid than their white counterparts. You may think this is of no consequence – and, of course, the beauty of the anonymity afforded by the internet is that you are free to write whatever you want. For my part I think that it is a disgraceful opinion to hold, and I am interested to see that none of the usual Speccie posters could bring themselves to agree with you on this point.

David Ossitt: your inability to spell/type only further undermines your rubbish arguments. In no way was it a “cheep [sic] and nasty” shot by Stephanie, but an accurate statement that Wilhelm is a racist. The rest of your post, about terrorism and crime, is irrelevant.

David Ossitt

Thucydides

“David Ossitt: your inability to spell/type only further undermines your rubbish arguments. In no way was it a “cheep [sic] and nasty” shot by Stephanie, but an accurate statement that Wilhelm is a racist. The rest of your post, about terrorism and crime, is irrelevant.”

I miss spelt ‘cheap’, other than that my spelling typing and grammar are perfectly adequate; to call Wilhelm a racist, because he holds different opinions to you is shabby.

The rest of my post that you dismiss as irrelevant; was me simply pointing out that, even to make comment of known facts can in some eyes be, wrongly considered racist.

Baron Pippin II

Thucidides @ 1.39

Not for me to fight Wilhelm’s corner, it’s your kicking him for his views that smells more than what he said, I'm afraid.

I take it you aware that the man whose name you adopted for blogging said: ‘When one is deprived of one’s liberty, one is right in blaming not so much the man who puts the shackles on as the one who had the power to prevent him, but did not use it’.

In this country it has been, until recently, a part of one’s liberty to hold views that others may find abhorrent. Those who governed us maintained, quite rightly, that it was not the views, but the deeds that mattered. It was the pseudo-liberal elite who adopted labeling as the means of silencing everyone whose views diverted from their take on the world. Nothing new in that. I was born in a society that practiced it for generations. Being labeled ‘a lackey of the West’ was often enough to end one’s career, to prevent the education of one’s children and, in the darkest days of the Red Menace, to endanger one’s life.

You may well be a member of the pseudo-liberal elite that put the labeling shackles on. If you’re not that it’s truly sad you joined in.

I believe that, talking in big numbers, people of black ethnicity excel physically over the whites. Their muscular bodies are better for running, boxing, playing football and stuff. You reckon it makes me a racist?

The way to counter-argue with Wilhelm is not to label him, but to put forward evidence undermining his perception of the issue. My take on it, for what it’s worth, is that the brains of black people may not be as well shaped to function in a culture designed largely by the whites, but are superior in the environment that molded them. Conversely, if one were to place say a hundred of white people in a remote Sudanese village, in the same conditions the indigenous inhabitants have to live in, the whites would suffer from a similar disadvantage. I may be wrong, of course, but you reckon it’s racist, too?

David Ossitt

Baron Pippin II

Thank you.

Thucydides

Baron Pippin II,

No, I don’t need to “put forward evidence undermining [Wilhelm’s] perception of the issue”. He believes that black people are biologically more stupid than white people; I supported Stephanie Tohill in calling him a racist. It’s up to him to justify his unsavoury views, but he has scuttled off.

You attempt to tone down Wilhelm’s racism, by referring to culture etc. Too complex for me.

David Ossitt,

Do you really think that I called Wilhelm a racist because he takes a different view? It’s his view, and his alone, which justifies the epithet.

David Ossitt

Thucydides

I will try just once more, it is not racist to acknowledge that there are racial differences it is just being simply honest.

Before you bust a gut; think about this mind picture for just one moment the start of any men’s sprint event at the Olympics, what you can see if you are being honest is a group of superbly skilled and wonderfully fit black men preparing to run.

Now think of a similar start but this time at the swimming pool, what you will see is a group of white men who can swim like no other, preparing to swim.

Now think of the discipline that our own Steve Redgrave was so proficient at the coxless fours, not a black man in sight.

To acknowledge that some black men are generally more proficient in a particular skill than a china man or a white man is not being racist, it is simply facing the truth.

To acknowledge that the brains of all of human kind tend to have different and differing skill levels for all of life’s activities is not being racist, it is just a fact.

You might wish to see us as a totally homogenised society but it can never be.

But hey; let us not beat each other up, after all these are only my opinions.

Malcolm

Baron Pippin, yes you are racist. This culture, as you put it, "designed largely by whites", is a culture of deceit; a culture of moral turpitude; a culture of amoral Darwinian genocidal ambition (e.g. slavery, the African Holocaust, and the stealing of Africa), twinned with a culture of insiduous, guilt-shifting, normalised and tacitly inculcated conspiracy of silence, support and transference (e.g. Europe murders Jews and then insists that Palestinians pay the price); a culture anti-thetical to God; a culture of wickedness. I think Black people will take it as a compliment that their brains are not "well shaped" to function in this orgy of nefarious mendacity you call culture. As for the flip side of your argument, well, we've already seen that movie haven't we? You know, the one about Europeans in African villages. And we know only too well how that ends, don't we?

What you would do well to remember of course, is that the human part of - in other words all that is good about - what you refer to as white culture, was designed largely by Black brains. Think civil rights: the freedom that all women take for granted now; the fact that you and all other whites are not still indentured servants (slaves by any other name...) in this country as you once were (you used to be referred to as the lower RACES not classes by your "elite" rulers lest you forget) - both these realities would not exist without Black brains such as Gustavus Vassa's, or Martin Luther King's for example, who between them abolished the slave trade in the UK through the Slave Trade Act 1807 and forced the hand of President Lyndon Johnson to sign into law, the Civil Rights Act, which of course covered and covers everyone, not just Blacks. Acts of humanity, courage, spiritual and intellectual genius that subsequently fanned out all across the West. Something you should be eternally grateful for. Speaking of Presidents, I wonder how Obama squares with your racist fantasy argument.

You say "people of black ethnicity excel physically over the whites". If this is true, then it proves the only thing whites have ever had over Blacks is a greater propensity for violence. A heartless pre-disposition if you will. You see because to this day, Blacks have not retaliated in kind like Zionists (albeit vicariously) or Islamists for example. Nope, the Black response to genocide and ongoing psychological terror has been and continues to be characterised by grace, and creative spiritual and intellectual courage in the face of clear and present existential danger. Take for example the fact that Black folk are still 6 times as likely to be stopped and harassed by cops as whites, while Asians are only twice as likely, even with the spectre of a global terrorist threat stemming largely (but not exclusively) from people of Asian origin. Those are the latest Govt. stats released a couple of weeks ago. These stats can only lead a logical mind to conclude that the guilt-based fear of Blacks runs deep indeed in this country. What a culture aye?

David Ossitt

Malcolm.

“What you would do well to remember of course, is that the human part of - in other words all that is good about - what you refer to as white culture, was designed largely by Black brains.”

You are so wrong; this is fallacious, incorrect, stupid piffle, your entire post is simply a re-hash of silly arguments whose only purpose is to give a totally false pretty pink image of the history of the black man, it is condensed and utter, balder dash.

Stuart Seacole Smith

Blimey o'reilly! This thread seems to have got pretty twisted up.

First off, the question of relative "intelligence" measured by IQ or other means between the races really isn't a legitimate matter for political debate in my view. Scientific debate, maybe. And while it is true that there are some differences between asian/ caucasian/ black societies, even from a scientific point of view it's of limited interest - always remember, the IQ ranges within races are massively wider than between races; so someone's race tells you precisely zero about their intelligence as an individual.

I repeat: I don't think this is a worthy or legitimate line of political debate.

While people can of course (for the moment) still speak freely in the UK, I just don't really see why they'd want to speak about this issue so much.

On the other hand , Stephanie Tohill (March 24th 11.40am - who I'm sure is long gone from this thread) does seem to have some "racist squealer" tendencies. My first reaction to her mail was to laugh - I just loved the term racist "in the traditional sense".

It neatly parodies the new and improved, and much more common "senses" in which the term racist is used and with which we are all sadly much too familiar:
- racist in the sense that you wish to silence or try to bully someone
- racist used in a completely meaningless libtard sense
- racist in the sense of seeking to bury the truth about ethnic crime or muslim terrorism
- racist in the sense of a shield to cover for disgraceful conduct if you were, for example, a high ranking "black" police officer
- etc.

Malcolm at 12.49am: your views make me suspect that you weren't top-of-the class at school in many subjects. Maybe woodwork? Perhaps gym? Your posts make for desperately dull reading.

Baron

Stuart Seacole Smith @ 9.56:

You reckon only scientists should be allowed to ponder on race and, by analogy vicars on Him, and dustmen on trash collecting? Come on, in a free society we should be free to talk about everything. And people do. You seem to have indulged in it towards the end of your piece yourself. Restricting the freedom to pronounce to the anointed few, sweeping the subject under the carpet for the rest of us doesn’t strike as the best option. Politically sensitive the subject may be, but it rattles the masses of whatever political orientation. Those in the know in the disciplines may end up trumping the unwashed, agreed, but limiting the scope of what each of us can express on any subject? I dunno.

Also, the scientific community appears rather reluctant to dig into the subject. You saw a recent stab at it on the subject of mixed marriages?

Your post did enrich my understanding a notch though. I didn’t realize the the IQ ranges within races are massively wider than between races.

And another thing: I reckon you wrong on Malcolm. His take on the subject doesn’t suggest his interpretation of history was learned in a gym. On the contrary, it’s a view, erroneous in my opinion, held by many not all of whom may excel in woodwork. And he articulated it powerfully, too.

Malcom @ 12.49:

One cannot help feeling that your views are in part engendered by anger (understandable perhaps) and underpinned by a need for a kind of revenge. That doesn’t help your course. The now defunct Red Menace began its drive to mould the society under the banner ‘Those who aren’t with is are against us’. After a while they wisely morphed it into ‘Those who aren’t against us are with us’. A subtle change that helped bugger all, nevertheless a pragmatic move that gained them many temporary supporters.

Thucydides

David Ossitt, 12.19

I, too, will try once more.

You keep trying to widen the “debate”. The only point I am making is that Wilhelm, at 1.42 on March 20, answered “yes” to Hiro’s question “Do you think young black males fail because they are biologically thicker than their white breadrin [sic]? That their low IQ, in general, is inherent and caused by biology, not by culture, society, etc?”. That makes him a racist. Nothing to do with culture, or differing skills for differing circumstances. If you agree with Wilhelm, then you’re a racist, too.

David Ossitt

Thucydides

“If you agree with Wilhelm, then you’re a racist, too.”

No I am most certainly not, and for you to write that is quite silly and what you are really saying, is that if I, or anyone else, disagree with your views and opinions on this subject they must be, by definition racist.

You say that; I keep trying to widen the “debate”, and why not?

Human kind has developed from one source but it has evolved into the many and varied races that we see today and to argue that all races are equal in every particular is just not true, to acknowledge this is neither a criticism nor a put down.

A true racist sees himself and his own kind as superior to those of other races, he fears and probably hates them, he is the one to be despised and pitied.

HairyNoddy

"A true racist sees himself and his own kind as superior to those of other races, he fears and probably hates them, he is the one to be despised and pitied."

You're right of course. Poor despised Malcolm. It's so sad.

Thucydides

David Ossitt,

"What you are really saying , is that if I ... disagree with your views ... they must be, by definition racist."

No, you pillock, I'm not. What I am really saying is that anyone who believes black people to be biologically more stupid than white people is a racist. Definitely Wilhelm and perhaps you; difficult to tell in your case as you do not confront this point directly.

Answer that specific point if you wish; I doubt that I shall contribute further.

David Ossitt

Thucydides

"What you are really saying , is that if I ... disagree with your views ... they must be, by definition racist."

“No, you pillock, I'm not”

Thucydides I am not a pillock, and neither am I a racist, what you do not want to grasp is that for anyone to hold an opinion or not to hold an opinion on whether one group has different or more able abilities than an other is just that, an opinion.

“I doubt that I shall contribute further.”

Oh yes you will; your like a dog to the bone, or a cat to its vomit.

Eddie

Thuc said: 'What I am really saying is that anyone who believes black people to be biologically more stupid than white people is a racist'.

No. Not if evidence shows that. You seem to have already made up your mind that there is NO difference at all between populations of the world; however, research may well show otherwise. Therefore, your mind in closed. You should really learn to develop a more open mind and assess evidence in a less hysterical and emotional way. Look at the facts. Look at the research. That is how scientific knowledge is gained - and if that breaks taboos, then so be it.

Or where exactly is your evidence that there is absolutely NO difference in IQ and cognitive ability between the populations of the world - which are so different in many physical ways, though are 99.5% the same (according to new research which revised that figure down from 99.8%).

Calling everything you disagree with 'racist' because it does not promote your agenda lacks maturity and intelligence. It is an attempt to use emtional blackmail, grab the moral high ground, claim superiority, and stifle debate. Sadly, the word 'racism' and 'racist' have become totally devalued because of the blanket use and misuse of the term by people like you Thuc.

David Ossitt

Eddie

Thank you.

Stephanie Tohill

Wilhelm,

I wasn't squealing 'waycist' I was accurately describing your views. Hiro, on this thread asked: "Rod - straight up question. Do you think young black males fail because they are biologically thicker than their white breadrin? That their low IQ, in general, is inherent and caused by biology, not by culture, society, etc?"

You responded "Yes". The defnition of racism is the belief that a person's qualities and behaviour are influenced by their race (Cambridge online).

So by YOUR OWN WORDS you were being racist. Now I know racists and their supporters (Stuart Seacole Smith, David Ossitt et al) have a tendency to be dense but would any of you care to deny that my description based on what Wilhelm wrote and the dictionary excerpt I have posted is incorrect?

Anyone? No, didn't think so.

Stephanie Tohill

Baron,

Until you understand that there is a difference between "socio-economic deprivation" and "poverty" and until you can accept that areas of high socio-economic deprivation have higher rates of crime than areas of low to none socio economic deprivation there is no point

Stephanie Tohill

And just for the idiots, I have never once said poverty CAUSES CRIME I said the exact opposite if you would learn to read. I noted strong linkage and pointed out that areas of higher socio economic deprivation tend to have higher rates of crime than leafy middle class suburbs. Pointing out this link does not, in anyway suggest I think a poor person will inevitably be a criminal or that most poor people are criminals, don't be silly.

And also I am about as 'lefty' as the Tea Party activists. If you're going to label, do so accurately.

Stephanie Tohill

And lastly, just to clarify I use racist in the traditional sense because there are many people, who seem to be utterly unaware of what the term means, To some it is "having a different viewpoint" (David Ossitt) to others it means "stopping more dark skinned men at airport security" (David Ossitt again) I use 'traditional' as a synonym for 'dictionary' and the only meaning of the term racism I recognise, hence why your post, Stuart Smith, was a ridiculous one.

D. Ossitt, I know you have problems with the concept but I do not think Wilhelm is a racist because I disagree with his opinion. What I think of his opinion is neither here nor there. I called his opinion racist, because, by the VERY DEFINITION of racism, i.e. that race informs behavioural characteristics, it was. Are you capable of grasping that?

I am not saying his opinion is right/wrong/yellow/blue/back-to-front.

I am using a correct adjective to describe the opinion.

Are. you. capable. of. grasping. that?

Here are some nice pretty links for you to held with you inability to understand what an 'adjective' is and definitions:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

http://www.yourdictionary.com/racism
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=65090&dict=CALD&topic=racial-issues

The British education system has really gone downhill...

Stuart Seacole Smith

Stephanie Tohill:

nice educational effort! 10/10 for spirit and condescension; only about 3/10 for content I'm afraid.

I couldn't care less whether the only definition of racist you recognise is the dictionary one. As far as I know there is only one of you, and the wider point is that the term is routinely trotted out by many others in a large variety of weird and wonderful (and of course, always self-serving) "senses".

For the record though, I took your point right from the start that a belief that blacks are biologically "thicker" is wrong, and could also well be called racist.

However, since this belief is based on a misreading of the facts, I think there are better ways of dealing with it than, ahem, squealing "racist".

But of course you and the many like you have every right to do so at every opportunity - knock yourself out!

Or, perhaps you could just make yourself a nice big cup of tea and take some deep breaths.

And thanks again for the "in the traditional sense" phraseology, and your gloriously po-faced explanation of it. Priceless!

David Ossitt

Stephanie Tohill

Your rabid posts of 29th March 1.09am 1.12am 1.16am and 1.31am show you to be a very rude, bad mannered and thoroughly nasty piece of work.

You are quick to accuse others of being idiots and yet it took you four posts in the space of 22minutes for you to vent your spleen.

We understand fully what racism is; what I for one can not abide are these silly people who will accuse anyone of racism who does not pander the modern myths such as the sanctification Mary Seacole

chriss cooper

I utterly agree with Stephanie Tohill's conclusions, she has obviously rattled a few cages juding by the invective being thrown her way ! An indication her beligerants have lost the argument.
I also note Mr Liddle's Latest blog has been censured for stating that ""the overwhelming majority of [violent crime] in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community" , take a look at the 20 or so knife murders last year, all the perpetrators are from that community, which makes up approximatley 10% of the population, FACT ..
Not to mention the two murders just last week, in the same nature..

David Ossitt

chriss cooper

chriss you argue both sides of the coin.

Stuart Seacole Smith

Yes I noticed poor old Chriss' somewhat schizo looking post.

But on inspection, I think it's just that he is "quotation-mark challenged". I'm sure there's a hand-wringing help group out there somewhere for this sad syndrome.

Stephanie Tohill

David Ossitt,

Erm I didn't commence the 'rude', 'bad mannered' and what was it, yes 'thoroughly nasty' comments. There are sayings about 'glass houses' and the like but I do not need to go into those here.

The point being I was responding in the similar vein to comments made at me.

I was accused of launching smears on other posters and crying 'waycist' which is inaccurate and as I noted an, ironically, pathetic attempt at 'stifling debate' (not to mention being called a lefty - the nerve!)

I was just clearly and repeatedly highlighting the meaning of the term 'racism' and why the title fits Wilheim.

And no, you don't actually know what it means. You genuinely don't as you kep accusing me and others of using the term to denote someone who disagrees with me. Which is nonsense. As is your latest claim that I accused him of racism because he does not support the modern myths such as the sanctification of Mary Seacole."

As I said whether I agree with Wilheim or not is by the by as to whether what he said was racist. It was. I have highlighted what he said, highlighted the definition of racism and the two correspond. The fact you don't like it is a whole other issue.

Lastly there were several posts as I did not wish to lump everything together and commented to each post as I read down.

I hadn't realised I needed your permission to do so.

S. Smith

I am sure that people do use the term 'racist' in a variety of ways but that is by the by. I was accused of incorrectly smearing Wilheim as a racist.
I didn't, the term was correctly used based on what he said.

No if you decide that you would rather not use the standard definition and one you wish to make up then knock yourself out. As you say, there is only one of you and thus your opinion as to what the word should mean is largely irrelevant.

And I'm not really interested in whether Wilhelm's opinion is 'wrong' and am unfazed by your suggestion that there are 'better ways of dealing with it' as I have no interest in that. I was merely accurately calling as I see it.

And I'll pass on the tea (I hate it) and the deep breaths (no need), and also the suggestion that I use the term racism at each and every opportunity (I don't). Although feel free to provide evidence to the country. I hate the overruse of the term (in fact I called Liddle up for using it in reference to some people's attitudes to Muslims). But I also hate when calling out actual instances of racism is met with a barrage of abuse/criticism.

Stephanie Tohill

Chris,

I presume the issue is that:

a) Liddle mentioned more things than just violent crime
b)Violent crime covers a much larger variety of crimes than just knife crimes.

Well we shall see Liddle's response tomorrow. I am confused as to why the Spectator decided not to adequately defend themselves, if, as Liddle claims he has all the facts to back and each and every claim he made.

David Ossitt

I wonder is Stephanie Tohill; suffering from, some new kind of Tourette's syndrome, her habit of sending a post then within a few minutes; sending one, two or even three more, is rather odd, but then she is a bit, odd that is.

I am not complaining; as I find her posts are highly amusing

Stuart Seacole Smith

Stephanie T:

- I didn't realise that I needed your permission to point out that many use the term racist in a variety of ways, or that I was somehow constrained in the possibility to suggest "a better way of dealing with it" (this is a comment board you know...)
- Your suggestion that I choose to use alternative definitions of racism is entirely your own fabrication, so you're arguing with yourself there. I've seen tramps do that on park benches.

Also, like it or not, in my view:
- you do seem rude
- you are a racist squealer, and I consider the country told on that point (though I didn't realise speccie blogs were so widely read...)
- you do come across as rather odd, but as David Ossitt said you are quite amusing for it, though sadly for you, unwittingly so.

And please don't disabuse me of these views by all of a sudden getting polite, taking back all your twaddle, or writing something intentionally funny!

I don't think I could stand having misjudged you so.