“Objective” Ugliness and Brown v. Board of Education (Update: Another Racist Kanazawa Post)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Update: And found some other creepy, frankly racist writing from Kanazawa, published in Psychology Today. See below the fold.
This is a follow up to Patrick’s post on the appalling Psychology Today article stating that black women were “objectively ugly.”
Fifty seven years ago, the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education. It is generally taught to children that in that case the Supreme Court held that segregation was unconstitutional. That is both right and wrong. It is wrong in the sense that the decision didn’t reach that broadly—it only declared that segregation in K-12 education was unconstitutional—but on the other hand, the Supreme Court never upheld enforced segregation again (to my knowledge). They didn’t declare that Plessy v. Fergusson was a dead letter, but as of that day it was.
Now I have long believed that the decision in Brown was fully justified as a matter of original intent and I suspect that if you could inject the justices at the time with some magic truth serum, they would have said that was why they ruled as they did. But on the face of the opinion, they specifically decry following original intent. My guess is they did so for two reasons. First, because it meant admitting that the Supreme Court was inexcusably wrong in the past—and they are loathe to do that. The second is that the framers in this case were the Radical Republicans that had been vilified for generations across the South for wanting to punish the South by… freeing the slaves, and giving them equal rights, and even the right to vote. You know, because the only reason to do that is to be mean to someone else (note: I am being sarcastic). Hell, I was taught that version of history when I was in junior high school in North Carolina.
So they needed to find a new reason to overturn it and Thurgood Marshall’s legal strategy (he was lead lawyer for the NAACP at the time and not yet a Supreme Court justice) led them pretty directly to it. For years the NAACP’s Ink Fund chipped away at segregation in a piecemeal fashion by showing in case after case that the separate facilities were not actually equal in measurable ways. Take this famous picture:
Plainly the colored fountain was inferior to the white one (I am going to use the terminology of the time to some extent). And white schools were to colored ones what white water fountains were to colored ones. But because it was theoretically possible in the minds of the courts for separate to be equal, Plessy’s holding that separate but equal didn’t violate the constitution remained undisturbed. So in Brown, Marshall stipulated—that is, admitted for the sake of the trial—that the colored school Linda Brown was equal to the white one. This obviously wasn’t the case, but Marshall was intentionally setting it up so that the only way for his side to win was if segregation was found to be inherently unequal.
And the inherent inequality in the arrangement, he argued, was that the segregation stigmatized the colored people. But there was a problem with that, too. You see, in Plessy, the court specifically addressed and rejected that argument:
We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.
So basically the South created a system of treating black people as almost untouchable, and if black people take offense it is purely their fault, right? Yeah, that was how bad the reasoning was.
So how did the Supreme Court get around that in Brown? Well, here’s the passage on that point, starting off with a quote from the lower court:
Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.
(Citations removed.) Then the Supreme Court concludes:
Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.
Thus the Supreme Court can say, sure, the Plessy court was wrong, but that is just because they lacked the scientific knowledge to prove that it was unequal, which allows them to save face. And it was bull___ then as it is now. Everyone knew what segregation was about. You didn’t need a scientific study to tell you what the score was. But that was the fig leaf they chose.
And while I removed the citations from that passage, one of them is very important. You see, it cited the famous doll study where black children were found to consider black dolls less attractive, less intelligent, and so on, cited as follows: “K.B. Clark, Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development (Mid-century White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1950).” For instance, here is a heartbreaking vignette from the study:
The reassuring female voice asks the child a question: “Can you show me the doll that looks bad?”
The child, a preschool-aged Black girl, quickly picks up and shows the Black doll over a White one that is identical in every respect except complexion.
“And why does that look bad?”
“Because she’s Black,” the little girl answers emphatically.
“And why is this the nice doll?” the voice continues.
“Because she’s White.”
“And can you give me the doll that looks like you?”
The little girl hesitates for a split second before handing over the Black doll that she has just designated as the uglier one.
Oh, my bad, I screwed up. That wasn’t the study done in 1950. That was from 2005. Okay, so more like a patented Aaron Worthing head fake than a screw up, but it gives you both a sense of the flavor of the Clark study and the persistence of the problem. No little girl should grow up thinking she is ugly, let alone stupid or bad. But this man…
…Dr. Satoshi Kanazawa tried to put the imprimatur of science behind this bigotry. Dr. Kanazawa is an evolutionary psychologist whose bibliography is filled with books and papers obsessed with the relationship between intelligence and physical attractiveness. Evolutionary psychologists are a curious bunch theorizing for instance that the reason that men prefer women with short skirts is that women with long skirts are more likely to trip and drop their babies, thus selecting out for long skirts. You know, because the fact this makes women more naked has nothing to do with it (rolls eyes). And with a creepy frequency they veer into racism–although I don’t want to suggest that most evolutionary psychologists are racists–just that it seems to be a bigger problem in their profession.
In Brown, the court wrote that
To separate [black children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.
Clearly it was not solely segregation that was sending that message, but society as a whole. For a brief few hours, Psychology Today allowed a rank racist to try to validate such claims as a matter of science. It’s good that they took it down, but also disturbing that it got that far.
But I will admit it is sometimes hard not to say that some women are objectively beautiful*…
And on a completely unrelated note, let’s welcome the newest member of the Hot Air team, Tina Krobe!
Joking aside, it is my (subjective) belief that beauty is evenly distributed among the so-called races. And it is also my belief that if you can’t find beauty in all ethnicities, there is something wrong with you.
——————————–
* Oh, come on, you didn’t think I could make it through an entire post on feminine beauty without applying Rule 5, did you?
——————————–
Update: Psychology Today has disavowed declaring black women ugly, but Satoshi Kanazawa has been allowed to publish racist crap before and it’s still there.
According to the recent report by the Pew Research Center, 18% of the American population state that President Barack Obama is a Muslim (up from 11% in March 2009). In contrast, 34% state he is a Christian (down from 48% in March 2009). It is disheartening to know that 34% of the population has a dim understanding of human genetics. Anybody who believes Barack Obama is Christian must also believe that Michael Jackson was white.
Like other world religions, Islam not only is a religion but also comprises largely endogamous ethnic groups….
…[T]he fact that Barack Obama’s father was a Muslim Kenyan, descended from a long line of Muslims, will remain true until the day he dies, and nothing he ever does in his life can change half of his genes that he inherited from his father. His genes are for keeps. The fact that he has attended Christian church for the past 20 years is not going to change that. Michael Jackson looked white much longer than Barack Obama sat in the pews of Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church. Obama is still as (half) Muslim as the day he was born.
Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong for our President to be Muslim. The only thing that’s wrong with it is denying it.
Good Allah that’s racist, and that is the piece that remained! Islam is an ethnic trait and thus Obama is therefore half Muslim even if he believes in Jesus and denies that Mohammed was any kind of prophet at all.
And the true absurdity of that is in that parenthetical—the word “half” as in Obama is half Muslim. How the hell can a person be half Muslim? Would Obama’s left arm be Muslim and his right Christian (as his mother’s alleged ethnic destiny dictates)? Or is he only Muslims on every other day? Or perhaps he only halfway believes in Islam and Christianity…
But really, there is so much wrong there it makes my head hurt.
HT: Ionian Enchantment.
(Btw, here is my take on why Americans were confused about Obama’s faith and why I think he is actually an atheist.)
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
Btw, if you can name all of the women pictured you get a special prize… respect.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/17/2011 @ 7:34 amI’m not convinced. More photos of women for me to compare attractiveness, please.
aunursa (a2a019) — 5/17/2011 @ 8:00 amThere is a new ad by the board of education targeting Christie as a mercenary bought by the rich………..Excuse me while I laugh my butt off at such idiocy.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/17/2011 @ 8:37 amA liberal scientist that is obsessed with delineating and defining the differences, by according minority status to an entire demographic, between groups of people? Get outta town!
Icy Texan (83eb7b) — 5/17/2011 @ 8:57 amDohBiden is lost again
Icy Texan (83eb7b) — 5/17/2011 @ 8:59 amIf Dr. Kanazawa insists there is a relationship between attractiveness and intelligence, then judging by his photo I am forced to conclude that he is a moron.
norcal (da7d2f) — 5/17/2011 @ 8:59 amI’ve had sex with every woman pictured in this post, except for the Krobe chick. But I’m working on that.
Bill Clinton (7cefeb) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:08 amBill you pervert.
I guess i’am not liked.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:14 amWhy do you think he’s liberal?
Kman (5576bf) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:16 amI like you, Dohbiden. It’s just that some of your comments don’t match the topic clearly. Though when I asked you why that was a couple of days ago, you explained the connection that simply flew over my head.
I think perhaps you need to add a sentence or two linking your snark to the topic. Like, what’s racism or beauty got to do with Christie being accused of being a corporate shill by corporate shills?
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:16 amWhy do you think he’s liberal?
Um because he hates classic liberalism.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:16 amAhahahahahahaha.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:17 amFor once, Kman may be right.
Link.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:19 amThough let’s give Dohbiden’s point some credit.
What this man is expressing in Aaron’s quotes are the exact opposite of classic liberalism, which is to say that he is the enemy of most reasonable Republicans on this issue.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:21 amDustin ,that idiot would never vote for Anne Coulter.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:23 amI confess that I had succumbed to racist stereotypes myself. Without realizing it, strictly because of my personal experience, I had begun to think that Asian people were generally more intelligent than other people. Dr. Kanazawa has proven that people from any ethnic group can be stupid – and people who have achieved any level of academic degrees as well.
Still, if you’re going to believe that humans are a species of animal that evolved by chance and is still evolving, then you’re going to have to accept some level of racism – measuring which groups have evolved which skills and traits. Personally, I believe that there is only one race – which was created by God – and who are all of intrinsic value regardless of their abilities or their external attributes. In fact, the most precious value or the greatest ugliness in a person may be entirely invisible.
Gesundheit (d7ea47) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:39 amEvolutionary psychology has a point but this fellow seems to have missed it. The issue of the attractiveness or ugliness of black women, however, is a serious issue. The current policy of enforcing the victim status of American blacks has led to this and, as long as it continues this pathology will continue. Remember that in 1950, 75% of black children were born to intact families. It was not slavery that destroyed the black family but Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society.
Mike K (8f3f19) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:00 amIn Plessy the SC found that the “badge of inferiority” resulting from enforced separation was a self-inflicted construct chosen by the colored races.
Next, in Brown, the SC held that integration of the races improved opportunities for the mental development and educational accomplishments of colored people.
While today, the advocates of “diversity” claim that the absence of minority individuals works to the disadvantage of whites and condemns them to an inferior education.
Now, if we came full circle, can anyone imagine an all black SC ruling that whites involuntarily excluded from the advantages of diversity had chosen to brand themselves with an inferior identity?
ropelight (6c5dfb) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:06 amThis post is Rule 5 on steroids.
JD (0e8b72) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:07 amEvery time I see “Kanazawa,” I read Kwanza. I also lay awake ant night wondering about hte existence of Dog.
quasimodo (4af144) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:12 amIs that an “apology-tilt” (or what ever it was called) on the next to last lady.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:17 am(And Aaron it’s a good thing you included that last picture or we could accuse you of being bigoted against the blondes.)
It does seem that a higher percentage of black women are overweight. However, to my subjective eye, they appear to carry it better. In other words, a black woman who is overweight does not look as unattractive as an equally overweight white woman. Also, black guys look better with a shaved head than white guys. I don’t know why. They just do.
norcal (b7da11) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:19 amDustin:
Your link now reads “Psychology Today is currently under maintenance. We should be back shortly.”
But other links show that he did indeed right an editorial for Psychology Today suggesting that Ann Coulter be President.
I suspect some scrubbing is going on, as PT is removing this Coulter-loving racist from its website (not that all racists are Coulter lovers, or that all Coulter lovers are racist, but you know what I mean).
Kman (5576bf) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:19 amWhose kanazawa?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:20 amYour an idiot Kman.
What did Coulter say that is racist?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:21 amI imagine nitecruz works over there as well.
narciso (72470d) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:27 amComprehend English much?
Kman (5576bf) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:31 amdustin
actually the link right now says it is by “anonymous.” but the author clearly indicates that he is one of the writers of a book kanazawa wrote with another guy with miller. and he claims that their book says:
the author goes on to say that just because it is natural, doesn’t make it right, but… still…
wait, holy crap, as i was writing this, the guy got completely memory holed.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:39 amyeah, they have definitely yanked everything this guy [wrote]. more on that in a minute.
[sorry, wrong word came out. –Aaron]
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:40 amIt still works for me, but anyway, people can believe my summary of a link, since I’m not Kman.
Yes, he’s advocating for Ann Coulter and against Hillary Clinton.
He appears to be a political ‘scientist’ more than a psychologist or real scientist, whose bio discusses an interest in offending people. He’s just an Asian Mike Savage, trolling for attention.
Ann Coulter is interesting in how she manages to offend while making interesting points. The offending part is the easy part.
I wouldn’t blame Dr Kwanza or whatever his name is on any political ideology, but he is a consistent opponent of classic liberalism if I read him correctly.
That’s because we’re right about everything, you know.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:40 amIt totally did not say that when I read it.
It has absolutely changed the name of the author.
I am sending a screencap.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:42 amThat’s a predictable ‘out’, isn’t it? ‘Sure, I’m advocating racism and brutality, but not really because I’m just describing the way the world is as a nihilist.’
He says “Yes, we need a woman in the White House, but not the one who’s running.” as a reference to electing Ann Coulter rather than Hillary in earnest hope of genocide.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:47 amThat was the motivation of many people who voted to pass the 14th Amendment in Congress.
Had only those who truly supported equal rights for all voted for the amendment, it would not have passed.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:47 am_____________________________________________
I had begun to think that Asian people were generally more intelligent than other people.
I’m so interested in the ideological biases in people — and the corresponding amount or lack of common sense in their way of thinking — that race and ethnicity become merely an infinitesimal blip in the bigger picture.
Kanazawa appears to be an ultra-conservative, which is not a common trait in the world of media (referring to people whose articles are published in magazines like Psychology Today) and the sciences.
Just to illustrate how unside-down things can become, when I see “Kanazawa” and mistakenly assume that is of African derivation and associate it with extremist (far-leftist or far-rightist) theories, my first hunch is we’re dealing with a black guy into radical-liberation thinking. IOW, someone like Jeremiah Wright or, for that matter, the rapper recently invited to the White House who openly disapproves of interracial relationships. Or an illustration that when you go far left enough, you end up meeting the far right, and visa versa.
Mark (411533) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:52 amIt may be natural but, “Human nature is what we were put on Earth to rise above.” (Oscar Wilde??)
(OT note but see the Google /nitecruzr thread. It seems that Ann Althouse’s archives are up but the old comments are still gone.)
Have Blue (854a6e) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:56 amBTW, here’s the Google Cache of the article Kman and I are discussing.
It was recorded four hours ago, and the author is not ‘Anonymous’.
Psych today is well within their rights to delete crap from their website, but I resent them changing the author to anonymous.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:57 amdustin
and its ridiculous. they are putting out his vile ideas while pretending they aren’t.
I am right now working to retrieve alot of this crap. virtually all of it is in google’s cache. it looks like if the page is not actually obviously racist to the casual observer, they just changed it to “anonymous.”
But if it was actually racist, then they deleted it entirely. Anyway, working on this, so I’ll have to be anti-social for a bit.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:59 amHe really is embarassing, the question in the previous piece, was will, determination, not hate, that was Yamamoto discerned from his time at Harvard
narciso (72470d) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:04 amand what he tried to tell the top figures in the Japanese Government.
Poor Aaron, digging through all that mud.
And let me just say something I wish had already been said:
I want them to leave these articles up. Just make sure there is a comments section. Perhaps go out of their way to feature the worst ones on pages side by side with the opposing points of view.
We can’t beat these ideas by deleting them. We must continually explain why they are wrong. We must also allow for the possibility we are wrong by not being censors of ideas we disagree with.
It is dishonest for them to change the author’s name. I don’t know what their motivation is beyond avoiding the association with this kook. Regardless, it’s wrong.
And while it’s their right to not put out vile ideas (or the converse) I think at this point, the best approach is to highlight the vile ideas with an honest discussion of why these ideas are wrong. For example, they could use something like Aaron’s responses.
My fear is some will simply say ‘we do not permit these thoughts’.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:08 amWhite women are ugly. At least Richards Williams has said so. Of course he has those ever so lovely tennis star daughters, Serena and Venus. So why is it ok for him to opine? If I had to choose between a Halle Berry, Thandie Newton or Whoopi Goldberg, who do you think I would pick to connect with romantically? It is not always that white men can’t jump, some are blind, like Ted Danson.
Anyone notice that so many African American star athletes seem to prefer Scandinavian blondes? There are fat and ugly women of all races. It sometimes irks me that famous lesbos like Rosie O’Donnell get women far more attractive than they themselves are. Everything else being equal, I think my pick for looks might well be Thai or Japanese. But seriously, most of my female relative are cows with plenty of junk in the trunk. If I could date them, I’d pass on it. Is it culture that makes me prefer model types most? Back in the middle ages, apparently the wealthy class was mostly pale and we had the well-fed Rubenesque beauties. Would a man from back then prefer a Rosie O’Donnell/Hillary Clinton or a Heidi Klum? In any case it is great that we all have various tastes to indulge in.
Calypso Louie Farrakhan (d36a3f) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:16 amI have no problems with Asians or Jews overachieving in academia, nor would I if blacks were pushed culturally to be successful students. I still wonder why we can’t be color-blind or sexuality blind. When I was required to fill out various state forms, I’d list Human for race and occasional for sex. Anyone recall the push some years back to grant homosexuals preference in hiring as college profs? I think it was in Mass. What difference does it make whether you’re on the same team or not when it comes to getting a job?
Money. If you have enough of it, you will be able to attract some conventionally attractive people.
I agree with you that we should be blind to race or sexuality when hiring someone. Affirmative Action is a civil rights violation.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:19 am________________________________________
Remember that in 1950, 75% of black children were born to intact families. It was not slavery that destroyed the black family but Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society.
If someone like Kanazawa is into studies on human nature and behavior, it would be far more telling and interesting to investigate why 90-plus percent of black America — based on surveys — is of the left. Nurture or nature?
Whatever the case, such one-sidedness doesn’t seem like a healthy thing. No different from a flip-side situation in which 90-plus percent of people in a community reflecting Kanazawa’s peculiar ultra-right mindset would be tragic and destabilizing, if not frightening.
Mark (411533) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:20 amMr. Worthing,
While I agree with your thesis, your examples evince a basic prejudice in our society. It goes to the core of “what IS beauty?”
All of your examples, although of different races, illustrate a beauty that decidedly falls within an Anglo-European norm; to wit, long noses, high cheek-bones and thin (even if plumped) lips. The epicathic fold of Asian eyes is never seen as ugly, but the short broad nose and thicker lips native to many African women is never seen as beautiful. To illustrate my point, I ask this question: “Why is Whoopi Goldberg not seen as a beautiful woman?”
We have an innate prejudice to certain characteristics that we consider beautiful. Is this nature or nurture? Are there certain biological-scientific reasons we prefer a type (e.g., symmetry vs. assymetry) or is it simply because Western culture has come to so dominate the cultural tastes of the world? If the latter, I don’t think that’s a damning cultural statement, for most of the world has adopted a western scientific lifestyle as well (e.g., clean centralized water, automobiles, individual rights, modern medical technology, etc.). It’s just that we need to be aware of our definition of “beautiful” and what the limitations of that definition might be.
T (400783) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:20 amReligion is not genetic, it’s cultural, he’s not racist, just very dim.
narciso (72470d) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:25 amIn that case, she’s hideous on the inside.
She’s also not attractive by any standard I’m familiar with, though I admit that’s just the collective opinions of all the men on the planet.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:27 amBut T has a point. I don’t think the word ‘prejudice’ is correct. When we look at someone and say we don’t think they are attractive, we are judging them based on our opinions, not prejudging them.
It’s just subjective. Though it’s largely based on objective factors. Long pretty hair makes it easier to see if a women is healthy. A muscular man is more capable of providing. etc etc
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:30 amRedefining “The Man”
Neo (95d77c) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:30 amIt is behavioral fact that millions of darker-skinned women around the world strive to become lighter. Is all of this due to a majority or ruling class’ decree?
There are certainly extremes in appearance at all ends of the skin spectrum. Gorgeous is gorgeous and butt ugly is butt ugly. However, there is scads of evidence, across nearly all cultures, that lighter (not albino) is nearly always prized.
There can never be a constitution written that will overcome this innate truth.
Equal opportunity is a sacred principle to me. So is celebrating variety. When did these concepts become oil and water? The evil one sure is slick.
Ed from SFV (cf17f9) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:31 am__________________________________________
In that case, she’s hideous on the inside.
Based on her bio, she was “gettin’ it” during her early teen years, and I believe she had a child well before she turned 20. The power of personality over looks? Or the fact there are enough guys out there who are so horny they’ll bed down with anyone and anything?
Mark (411533) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:33 amhttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100088342/dominique-strauss-kahn-is-trapped-in-a-real-life-version-of-the-bonfire-of-the-vanities/
narciso (72470d) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:34 amI know Kanazawa. You have about 1/4 of the brainpower of Kanazawa. That’s evident from your blaming him for merely highlighting a study which he did not conduct, and which (if you click through the links, seems to have been conducted by a black advocacy group — you know, ‘institutional racism’ holds blacks back etc.)
Admittedly Kanazawa is more than a little Aspergy — not uncommon among the brilliant. That’s what accounts for his having less than zero concern about being called ‘racist’.
The fact is that most men, including black men, prefer women with more caucasian features. Tiger Woods married a Swede, not an Angolan, and then preceded to schtup his way through more white women — a sign of the times for sure.
As for Brown — wrongly decided — so wrongly that there are now schools like ‘Urban Prep Academies’ that promote self-segregation for blacks.
http://www.urbanprep.org/
Of course the effect of desegregation on once thriving white schools is fairly well known.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html
That’s not to say that some aspects of segregation weren’t for sheer ‘putting blacks in their place’, (with the side effect of keeping whites from getting beaten up at restaurants)
http://actingwhite.blogspot.com/2011/04/mcdonalds-violence-black-on-white.html
Or for black’s own safety
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGkYQHFoGZ8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQU8rG_sqyY
It seems to me that a lot of what the segregationists predicted actually came true in the form of declining standards and so on.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:36 amCoulter supporters are racist?
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:38 amMost men in the world do not marry Caucasian women. Naming some celebrity is a terrible argument.
He’s an obnoxious moron. He says basic things that everyone already knows, and acts as though this is some secret truth. That’s why you have to go out of your way to tell us how smart he is. You can’t actually show us his brilliance in action.
You badly misunderstand reality by cherry picking data points and insisting this proves segregationists were right. If you were trying to argue your point well, you would convey your argument with less than absolute certainty. A link to a fight in a cafeteria proves schools should be segregated on the basis of race? That’s ridiculous.
There are many other factors in education that better explain the problems than skin color does.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:45 amDustin (#45 above),
Thanks for your quick response. I suggest that the word “prejudice” is exactly the correct word, just don’t read it through the eyeglasses of civil rights. We pre-judge certain traits to be more desirable. My question is “why?” Is a woman who displays the appearance of Anglo-European beauty any healthier than a healthy African woman with differing traits? Even if we perceive them as such, why?
You also note (re: Whoopi Goldberg) that:
“She’s also not attractive by any standard I’m familiar with, though I admit that’s just the collective opinions of all the men on the planet.”
That’s precisely why I used her as an example. I ask again, Why? Does consensus make it so? Where do these collective opinions of all the men on the planet come from, nature or nurture? How can you be so sure that you speak for EVERY man on the planet? How does one feel confident enough to make that assertion?
Let me repeat my last two sentences: “. . . I don’t think that’s a damning cultural statement, for most of the world has adopted a western scientific lifestyle . . . . It’s just that we need to be aware of our definition of “beautiful” and what the limitations of that definition might be.”
T (400783) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:48 amHell, Stari didn’t even read the CATO study on busing an pouring money into education. They are talking about bureaucracy standing in the way of success. Stari claims something completely different is shown: that races should be divided.
Yeah, I can see why you have to assert brilliance. Again, your (and Kawazana’s) intelligence certainly isn’t speaking for itself.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:48 amT:
“We pre-judge certain traits to be more desirable.”
Yeah, OK. That’s a reasonable point.
“That’s precisely why I used her as an example. I ask again, Why? Does consensus make it so? ”
It depends. By ‘attractive’ do we mean that consensus is that someone attracts more suitors? I think so. If we mean something more precise, such as ‘fertile’ or ‘attractive to me’, then i think normally, people will clarify.
As you wisely note, we’re just quibbling with the limitations on the concept of beauty. There’s no accounting for it objectively.
The real reason I responded to you was just to snark that I don’t like Whoopi, though. Sorry.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:51 amThe whole reason *why* the money was poured into KC High School was integration — trying to attract whites into a school that, after Brown v. Board, became hugely black.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:51 amvirtually all of it is in google’s cache.
Well, at least Google is good for something.
BTW, regarding your post on Obama’s atheism–I’d explain to you how Presbyterianism came to Scotland as part of the Reformation, about 200 years after Robert the Bruce, and how it helped start the English Civil War, but Daley would probably start yelling that I’m wrong, and I’m not in the mood for an argument today.
kishnevi (8e562a) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:52 am“Most men in the world do not marry Caucasian women. ”
But in majority white societies, black men who do marry interracially marry white women, while white men who marry interracially marry Asian women.
Tiger Woods is hardly alone, look at Quincy Jones(Peggy Lipton, Natasha Kinsky), look at even the older two daughters of the Huxtables (I know that dates me). Cosby choose two very white females.
Look at Vanessa Bryant, Haily Berry, Lena Horne, all pretty darn caucasian looking if you ask me.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:58 amThis is irrational. How are you defining someone as black for this scientific analysis of yours? If some group is 40% European and 60% african, and a quarter of them marry European women, does that prove “black” are preferring “whites”? I think it proves the exact opposite.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 12:01 pmIn other words, you are suffering from the one drop of blood nonsense. African Americans are European.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 12:02 pm“If you were trying to argue your point well, you would convey your argument with less than absolute certainty.”
I do, in fact I am not a southerner, and I think that legal segregation was harmful and should have been done away with … through the electoral process.
What I also see, however, is that the segregationists were not all, or even mostly, toothless trailer dwellers merely trying to keep the black man down, but people who were dealing with the reality of two very different groups of people (different in the sense of averages) trying to dwell peaceably in one territory.
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/17/2011 @ 12:03 pmDustin,
No apology necessary, I’m not a big Whoopi fan either. I’ve just been fascinated for many years by the attempt to objectify the subjective aspects of beauty.
This is why good artists are so culturally important. The really good ones can lift us out of our selective vision (which we ALL have) and let us see the world from another perspective, even if only for a short time. They cause us to have an Asimov reaction (“Hmmm! That’s interesting!).
Regarding Aaron Worthing’s examples, one of my points was that he was responding to a pre-concieved concept of beauty (and accepting it as an objective truth) without even realizing it at the time. We all do it and we do it every day in many aspects of our lives, not just where beauty is concerned. (Furthermore, this is no sin,. I would wholeheartedly agree that the examples he picked are extraordinarily beautiful women, so I am subject to the same bias.)
T (400783) — 5/17/2011 @ 12:03 pmThe whole problem in that story was a bureaucracy, and yes, that bureaucracy was going to a ridiculous length to pursue a politically correct goal.
The problem is not that the schools aren’t segregated. That is an idiotic summary of the CATO story. The solution you propose, segregation, is more like the problem in the story than the common sense approach, which is to not give any consideration to someone’s race.
You fundamentally misunderstood this information.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 12:04 pmT,
(Furthermore, this is no sin,. I would wholeheartedly agree that the examples he picked are extraordinarily beautiful women, so I am subject to the same bias.)
Amen!
Anyway, Aaron was just juicing up his story, mostly for humor’s sake. You are right that this isn’t really scientific proof that all races have beauty in them. I guess it’s just proof that all races have examples conventionally biased beauty in them.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 12:06 pmbtw, wtf, he just reappeared on their site again.
the anonymous articles are suddenly not anonymous again…
huh?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/17/2011 @ 12:07 pm“black for this scientific analysis of yours?”
I’m going by Steve Sailer’s analysis of census figures, in turn based on self-identification. And my own experience, living in California. You’ll see a lot more white-male, Asian female pairing than the reverse. And the subject comes up on Asian themed message boards all the time. And you might want to read about how many black women feel about this, and how Obama got ‘cred’ for marrying a very black appearing woman.
http://nymag.com/news/features/49139/
See also Spike Lee’s “School Daze”, Jiggaboos vs. Wannabees
http://www.thebvx.com/2011/01/13/daily-smh-a-light-skin-vs-dark-skin-party-really/
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/17/2011 @ 12:09 pmAwww, look at that.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 12:28 pmDustin no one likes Whoopi because she looks like a P*ssy.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/17/2011 @ 12:55 pmIf she didn’t coddle evil, I wouldn’t dislike her. I still wouldn’t find her attractive, but then, there are plenty of great people I find unattractive.
Someone who defends the awful thinks Vick and Polanksi does would have an ugliness to them even if they looked like me.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 1:07 pm“I’d explain to you how Presbyterianism came to Scotland as part of the Reformation, about 200 years after Robert the Bruce”
kishnevi – I’d ask you WTF that has to do with Obama’s atheism and since you’re not smearing or misrepresenting any current Christians, there’s nothing for me to yell about. Congrats.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/17/2011 @ 1:29 pmWhoopi sleeps upside down.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/17/2011 @ 1:31 pmT
btw, in regard to my choices of women in the photos, first i dispute that sung hi lee or tia carrere (sp?) adhere to european concepts of beauty. You have to be very selective in what traits count and don’t count to claim that.
I think you have a better case with vivica a. fox but look, I have a hard time thinking of a famous black woman who is beautiful in a more “african” way. But notice that word “famous.” If you look at the history of my love life you will see objective proof that I savor a broader range of beauty than those photos reflect, including my wife. Of course as i say, i have asked out and been rejected by women of all colors and ethnicities, but thankfully the most beautiful said yes.
And no, she does not carry around a white cane with a red tip or anything like that. i am as shocked by that fact as ya’all probably are.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/17/2011 @ 1:36 pmMr. Worthing,
I agree that it requires clear specificity–perhaps the likes of a biologist or anthropologist. Make no mistake, I never intended to imply “racial prejudice” toward you or anyone in my comments above. I meant prejudice in the universal sense of bias in one direction or another, not in the civil rights sense.
The point I’m making is that we all dicriminiate every day; to discriminate is to prefer one thing over another. So one doesn’t like broccoli but does like acorn squash. Even in the case of beauty, many of use find certain people or things attractive that others do not. No problem here.
My point is to question what we consider to be universal features of female beauty (or male handsomeness for that matter). Are they really universal features, are we simply culturally conditioned to prefer x over y or is it a mixture of both. As I said above, no sin here in any case.
T (400783) — 5/17/2011 @ 1:50 pmAre are all peons compared to the indescribable genius of Kawazany. He is 26.4 times as brilliant as any of you, and 42 times more attractive. I know him.
/snort
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 1:55 pmT
as for universiality, i would argue that just about every straight man throughout history would drool over the majority of those women. 🙂
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 5/17/2011 @ 2:08 pmWhoopi sleeps upside down.
Whoopi also likes to drink the blood of afghani children……………..Anyways Kanazawa is a mendacious douchewaffle.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/17/2011 @ 2:10 pmDr. Kanazawa’s assertion that “black women are objectively less physically attractive” is nonsense on stilts, of course.
However, there is an objective finding to be made.
And that finding would be the measurable attitudes of the male population toward various categories of women. The “attractiveness” of a particular woman is not measurable – but the proportion of men who find her attractive is. It is even possible to report (though with less rigor) the degree of attractiveness a man finds in a particular woman.
Select a sample “audience” of a hundred thousand men, broadly representative of the entire adult male population. Select a sample set of a thousand women, likewise representative. Provide the women with equivalent clothing and grooming, and have images taken by a standardized service.
Have the men compare pairs of the women, and decide which is more attractive. Collect a million comparisons, and see who “rises to the top”.
Another question invited by Dr. Kanazawa’s comment is: Physically attractive to whom?
There is evidence that individuals are more attracted to members of their own race. An audience population heavily weighted toward Chinese would probably find Chinese women more attractive that an audience weighted toward blacks.
The audience’s background would have an effect; I suspect that white American men would be more likely to find black women attractive than white men from countries where blacks are unknown. White American men are familiar with black women and have experience in judging their looks, whereas other white men might have trouble seeing anything but the woman’s race. The same could apply to black American men and black African men.
We could also add the question of the sexual preference of the audience. Homosexual men are not sexually attracted to women, but they are often very intense critics of women’s dress, grooming, and fitness.
And what about lesbians?
Rich Rostrom (1e3f90) — 5/17/2011 @ 3:09 pm[with open tag fixed]
Dr. Kanazawa’s assertion that “black women are objectively less physically attractive” is nonsense on stilts, of course.
However, there is an objective finding to be made.
And that finding would be the measurable attitudes of the male population toward various categories of women. The “attractiveness” of a particular woman is not measurable – but the proportion of men who find her attractive is. It is even possible to report (though with less rigor) the degree of attractiveness a man finds in a particular woman.
Select a sample “audience” of a hundred thousand men, broadly representative of the entire adult male population. Select a sample set of a thousand women, likewise representative. Provide the women with equivalent clothing and grooming, and have images taken by a standardized service.
Have the men compare pairs of the women, and decide which is more attractive. Collect a million comparisons, and see who “rises to the top”.
Another question invited by Dr. Kanazawa’s comment is: Physically attractive to whom?
There is evidence that individuals are more attracted to members of their own race. An audience population heavily weighted toward Chinese would probably find Chinese women more attractive that an audience weighted toward blacks.
The audience’s background would have an effect; I suspect that white American men would be more likely to find black women attractive than white men from countries where blacks are unknown. White American men are familiar with black women and have experience in judging their looks, whereas other white men might have trouble seeing anything but the woman’s race. The same could apply to black American men and black African men.
We could also add the question of the sexual preference of the audience. Homosexual men are not sexually attracted to women, but they are often very intense critics of women’s dress, grooming, and fitness.
And what about lesbians?
Rich Rostrom (1e3f90) — 5/17/2011 @ 3:12 pmMr. Worthing (at 76 above),
Respectfully, of course, I submit that it’s not quite the sure thing that you think it is. Think the Venus of Willendorf, the Venus of Lespuge and, more recently, Queen Liliuokalani (sp?) of the Hawaiian islands and in the East, the subjective beauty of Chinese footbinding (that we do NOT find beautiful, but abhorrent). The fact that WE think all other men would see these above women in the same way WE see them is exactly the subjective v universal point I was inferring in my comments above.
T (009bc3) — 5/17/2011 @ 3:42 pm“It is even possible to report (though with less rigor) the degree of attractiveness a man finds in a particular woman.”
Rich Rostrom – Heck, at last call most men aren’t very particular at all.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/17/2011 @ 4:09 pm“The fact that WE think all other men would see these above women in the same way WE see them is exactly the subjective v universal point I was inferring in my comments above.”
T – You refer to past standards to make your points. Are you disagreeing with Aaron’s point in #76 or not? It is tough to tell with all the qualifiers in your comments.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/17/2011 @ 4:17 pmT – I understand Aaron was referring to men throughout world history.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/17/2011 @ 4:19 pmComment by daleyrocks — 5/17/2011 @ 1:29 pm
The connection with Presbyterianism comes from Aaron mentioning it in the post from his own blog to which he linked to in his post here. Read his post there and you’ll understand the context of my remark.
kishnevi (437df2) — 5/17/2011 @ 5:22 pmkish is bringing up something relevant, its okay.
And i don’t care very much about the history of the thing. the only relevant thing i get from that story is that this is one of the reasons why particularly the scottish distrusted the catholics. which isn’t right, but there you go.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/17/2011 @ 5:38 pmDaleyrocks,
It; not just that past stds were different, it’s that if stds change, then how can they be universal? We react to a concept of beauty borne of our own time and place, but we think that this is a universal and unchanging ideal. It is not. Now, knowing that the ideal of beauty can change, I ask the question “is there any underlying principle of beauty that does NOT change?” Beauty as a concept might be universal, but what we consider beautiful may be relative. I’m just asking the question.
T (009bc3) — 5/17/2011 @ 6:18 pmthen preceded to schtup his way
You know, stari, Stormfront might have a problem with you, if you, as its representative, use Yiddish.
But I see you can’t get away from the old bogeyman of the Southern racists–black men sleeping with white women.
kishnevi (66c376) — 5/17/2011 @ 7:57 pm“But I see you can’t get away from the old bogeyman of the Southern racists–black men sleeping with white women.”
Hospodin Kishnevi, In most ethnic groups the males are not particularly happy with their females ‘sleeping with’ other ethnic/racial groups. Ever see Fiddler on the Roof. Poor taylor, okay for Tevye’s daughter. Commie Radical Jew, okay for Tevye’s daughter, Russian — treff!
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/17/2011 @ 8:12 pmA somewhat interesting link offering a rebuttal to Kwanza’s religious genetic fixation.
Some religious people believe that if your parents are of a certain religion, that automatically makes you of that religion. In our society, as firm believers of religious tolerance, we understand that faith is a choice made by an individual which is heavily influenced by how they were raised.
Kanazawa is obviously just trying to get hits on his page by expressing such one-sided beliefs as facts. It’s an easy piece to break down and debunk. I suspect he expects as much.
NJRob (c6719d) — 5/17/2011 @ 8:34 pmstari_momak (scary moleman) has issues with race.
DohBiden is waaay too sensitive.
Kman is . . . typical.
And I will continue to assert that Dr. Kanazawa is a liberal until someone PROVES me wrong.
Icy Texan (7eb1ab) — 5/17/2011 @ 9:48 pmicy
um, if you go through his blog, kanazawa says he loves goldwater, and wish he won.
Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:01 pmBut, he I’d still a moron. There is that.
Ag80 (867d1b) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:09 pmNot icy.
Ag80 (867d1b) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:10 pmGood point. To which he replies
In what ethnic group are all the males homogenous in opinion, and what gives you the right to call the females ‘theirs’ anyway? Find your own woman, and stop worrying about the rest of them. They don’t give a crap who you think they belong to or with. If you don’t like it, so what?
But you’re wrong on the facts, anyway. This idea that black men are getting all ‘your’ white women is just pathetic in number of directions.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:21 pmDoomed by apple is my lot. Good post Dustin.
Ag80 (867d1b) — 5/17/2011 @ 10:25 pm____________________________________________
Of course the effect of desegregation on once thriving white schools is fairly well known.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html
That should be required reading for every and any liberal — and for anyone else, for that matter — who falls for the notion that a lack of money is at the root of various socio-economic problems in our society. Or that things aren’t as wonderful and beautiful as they should be because of mean, cheap, heartless ol’ conservatives/Republicans.
Kansas’s Judge Russell Clark is the epitome of a leftwinger on a power trip. There are dozens and dozens of variations of him in today’s era, while versions of Satoshi Kanazawa are rather uncommon. That’s why debating the nonsense of a rightist is rather refreshing since it’s often leftists who come off as the ultimate fools and nitwits.
Mark (411533) — 5/17/2011 @ 11:33 pmComment by stari_momak — 5/17/2011 @ 8:12 pm
FYI, Jews who have a problem with Jewish women marrying Gentiles also have a problem with Jewish men marrying Gentiles–and in the days in which the Tevye stories were set, it also meant that the Jewish spouse converted to Christianity, which was the real reason it was viewed as a problem. If you’ve ever actually seen the play or the movie (something I am sure a good member of Stormfront like you would do, of course) you’d notice that Tevye goes to the local priest to find out if his daughter married the Gentile. The tailor, on the other hand, remained nominally Jewish.
So the problem is with a Jew of either sex going with a Gentile and not a Jew.
And you see, we don’t object because we think that Gentiles are universally inferior to Jews. Unlike you, who objects to blacks going with whites because you think blacks are universally inferior to whites. So your parallel fails at all levels.
kishnevi (d785be) — 5/18/2011 @ 8:23 amI think that the fact that you chose light skinned minorities to prove your point does not help your arguement.
Take for example white skinned Asians. From Thailand to Japan, white or lighter skin is considered more beautiful, prestigious, and associated with success.
Federale (805720) — 5/18/2011 @ 9:41 amFederale, so what? Lighter skinned asians being seen as pretty proves that white people are pretty? I don’t think so.
Aaron’s point is that it’s not race that is determining beauty, but other, more specific things, unless you’re one of those who has a hangup on race. All these factors simply are not neatly arranged on a racial basis.
It’s like saying cars are faster if they are red, and then noting that’s because red cars tend to have sportier engines. It’s the engines, not the color. Even if it were true that red cars are faster than white or blue ones (and my guess is on average they are), it’s not the redness. Those who use this to argue for the superiority of redness would seem irrational.
There’s more to it, such as the fact you can’t objectify beauty (Rand and Plato’s theoretical claims are unscientific).
But if you’re figuring someone is pretty or not pretty because they are black or Japanese instead of because of how they look as an individual, that’s like picking a race car because it’s red.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 9:47 am“Unlike you, who objects to blacks going with whites because you think blacks are universally inferior to whites. ”
Uh, no I don’t. Certainly not inferior at athletics, obviously superior at sports that require explosive movements. Certainly as good if not superior at certain musical activities requiring improvisation.
These are all averages, of course.
I get real — Fiddler on the Roof would have had much less impact if it was made about three sons. Just like Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner would have had less impact if it featured a white man bringing home a black girl.
And Dustin, I have all the woman I can handle. I also have a right to free speech — as does every father who seeks to convince his daughter to marry a [Jew, white, hispanic, Japanese].
And Kishnevi, Tevye’s attitude lives on listen to this! Totally Not Safe For Work
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKAz0a77Fm0
stari_momak (d5f987) — 5/18/2011 @ 9:56 amAre you claiming I victimized you of your free speech by pointing out that you were completely wrong on the facts (such as your attempt to enlist CATO to your side with an argument that proves you wrong)?
I’m sooooo sorry.
You should raise your daughter in a way where you have more confidence she can make good decisions, instead of trying to lobby her to marry inside her race when she’s 18. Sheesh.
I’m not concerned with your love life. You’re the one worried about whether ‘your’ women are with black men.
Dustin (c16eca) — 5/18/2011 @ 10:06 am