You've made yourself quite clear with regard to the black community in the US and the world in general. You've cited research to bolster your assertions. All in all you've made a strong case for YOUR point of view. Further the counters to your assertions have been weak at best. A great many of the better counter arguments have been based on culture and those arguments are not without merit.
Before I get into the cultural issue let's deal with the IQ problem. Virtually every instance of research you cited in based on, or derivative from, Herrnstein's and Murray's seminal work on the subject. And their data sets were a decade old in most instances. That does not make their data stale for the time of publication, but it's most certainly stale today. I don't believe that the data points have moved significantly, but they have moved. However, for the sake of discussion let's assume that what they published is true in all particulars. I assume you know how normal population distributions work and what standard deviations are. If not, consult with your local math department.
Most successful small business people and skilled tradesmen (blue collar) folks fall into the 90 to 110 IQ range. This range would place the upper side of the mean and the lower side of the 1st standard deviation, this would be squarely within the reach of the black community. As we move up the standard deviation window we get into even higher potential levels of achievement. The point here is that the mean does NOT define the whole. If we are to look at the white and Asian population one standard deviation down the ladder we find that they are squarely in the black populations mean. The exception here is the Hasidic Jews in which case we have to go two standard deviations down. So even if we take Herrnsein's and Murray's word at face value at the minimum 40%+ of the black population are quite capable of leading productive lives.
Next I'm going to geography and genetics. Sub-Saharan Africa is a shit hole in virtually all respects. There are no reliably navigable rivers into the interior. Human lives are short (Tsetse Fly and Malaria). There are no beasts of burden (Tsetse Fly). And there was no real agriculture (crappy soil). Life was tribal, local, short, brutal and focused on day to day survival. There was no opportunity for the evolution of anything approaching the civilizations that arose in Europe, Asia, or the Americas. Geography and climate was, and still is, not working for the greater part of sub-Saharan Africa. The skills, and intelligence, required for a stable and robust civilization were never allowed to develop. Advanced civilization requires selective breeding. In some cultures this is achieved by 'arranged marriages' in others by social class distinctions. Regardless of the method this 'selective breeding' did occur. And to an extent it still is occurring. Sub-Saharan Africa, being without an advanced civilization, never benefited from that process. From an evolutionary standpoint they are at least 1000 years behind.
Now to the cultural aspects. Before I dive into this I recommend that you read "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell. Now for a tale of two island chains. The US Virgin Islands and the British Virgin Islands. The US Virgin Islands are a crime ridden nightmare, no one of sound mind would ever visit those islands. Yet within sight of the US Virgin Island are the British Virgin Islands which are not plagued by crime. Both are black majorities of slave stock. Why the difference? Some years ago I was seated beside a US Virgin Island Senator. We had a long discussion regarding what was going on. He was educating me and I listened. It seems that starting in the late 70's early 80's "educators" from the US began to "educate" the population that they were oppressed victims and not responsible for their lot in life. Apparently the British didn't make the same mistake. Overall blacks from the West Indies, and Africa, do better than our home grown blacks. I refuse to believe that we got the "stupid" ones.
On politics. The democrat party has built a coalition of "tribes." Their entire focus is to appeal to various minority groups in order to build a majority. Identity politics (tribalism) is a loser and does nothing to move a nation forward. I bring this up because in spite of you proclaiming to be a democrat, you are doing your best to alienate one of the parties key voting groups. An activity that seems quite paradoxical to me. I don't doubt your sincerity in what you post, merely wondering whether you've thought it through to a cohesive whole and where you're going with it and what you plan to do about it?
Before I get into the cultural issue let's deal with the IQ problem. Virtually every instance of research you cited in based on, or derivative from, Herrnstein's and Murray's seminal work on the subject. And their data sets were a decade old in most instances. That does not make their data stale for the time of publication, but it's most certainly stale today. I don't believe that the data points have moved significantly, but they have moved. However, for the sake of discussion let's assume that what they published is true in all particulars. I assume you know how normal population distributions work and what standard deviations are. If not, consult with your local math department.
Most successful small business people and skilled tradesmen (blue collar) folks fall into the 90 to 110 IQ range. This range would place the upper side of the mean and the lower side of the 1st standard deviation, this would be squarely within the reach of the black community. As we move up the standard deviation window we get into even higher potential levels of achievement. The point here is that the mean does NOT define the whole. If we are to look at the white and Asian population one standard deviation down the ladder we find that they are squarely in the black populations mean. The exception here is the Hasidic Jews in which case we have to go two standard deviations down. So even if we take Herrnsein's and Murray's word at face value at the minimum 40%+ of the black population are quite capable of leading productive lives.
Next I'm going to geography and genetics. Sub-Saharan Africa is a shit hole in virtually all respects. There are no reliably navigable rivers into the interior. Human lives are short (Tsetse Fly and Malaria). There are no beasts of burden (Tsetse Fly). And there was no real agriculture (crappy soil). Life was tribal, local, short, brutal and focused on day to day survival. There was no opportunity for the evolution of anything approaching the civilizations that arose in Europe, Asia, or the Americas. Geography and climate was, and still is, not working for the greater part of sub-Saharan Africa. The skills, and intelligence, required for a stable and robust civilization were never allowed to develop. Advanced civilization requires selective breeding. In some cultures this is achieved by 'arranged marriages' in others by social class distinctions. Regardless of the method this 'selective breeding' did occur. And to an extent it still is occurring. Sub-
Now to the cultural aspects. Before I dive into this I recommend that you read "Black Rednecks and White Liberals" by Thomas Sowell. Now for a tale of two island chains. The US Virgin Islands and the British Virgin Islands. The US Virgin Islands are a crime ridden nightmare, no one of sound mind would ever visit those islands. Yet within sight of the US Virgin Island are the British Virgin Islands which are not plagued by crime. Both are black majorities of slave stock. Why the difference? Some years ago I was seated beside a US Virgin Island Senator. We had a long discussion regarding what was going on. He was educating me and I listened. It seems that starting in the late 70's early 80's "educators" from the US began to "educate" the population that they were oppressed victims and not responsible for their lot in life. Apparently the British didn't make the same mistake. Overall blacks from the West Indies, and Africa, do better than our home grown blacks. I refuse to believe that we got the "stupid" ones.
On politics. The democrat party has built a coalition of "tribes." Their entire focus is to appeal to various minority groups in order to build a majority. Identity politics (tribalism) is a loser and does nothing to move a nation forward. I bring this up because in spite of you proclaiming to be a democrat, you are doing your best to alienate one of the parties key voting groups. An activity that seems quite paradoxical to me. I don't doubt your sincerity in what you post, merely wondering whether you've thought it through to a cohesive whole and where you're going with it and what you plan to do about it?
