Sunday, August 25, 2013

"I Have a Dream" - 50 years on


From Brother Ivo:

Every generation carries into its future defining attitudes from its formative years, which continue to mould their lives. For some it would have been the Spanish Civil War, for others, the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the Miners' strike. Various wars will be foremost for some, or maybe the rise of Feminism. 

For those of Brother Ivo's years, the life-forming events were unquestionably those of the Civil Rights movement, which is why the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech will produce a full range of reminiscences and interpretations, not least because many of those who shape the media agenda will be of that same generation.

We shall be told what it means by those who were not there, or of those times and the battle to frame the narrative will doubtless deform Dr King's legacy. If the commentators are not anchoring their interpretation of the speech in Christian witness, do not believe them.

If you have never heard the speech in its entirety, or have not heard it for some time, it richly repays the 10 short minutes it takes to listen to it (HERE).

It still brings a tear to the eye.

Brother Ivo's youth was punctuated, appropriately enough, with black-and-white images from America's Deep South in newspapers and on television. He saw the dignified peaceful demonstrations of soberly dressed black men walking with sandwich boards declaring simply "I am a man".

He watched the police riot on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma Alabama, and those images and the peaceful responses to them have proved highly influential throughout his life. Politically and personally the lessons of those times became foundational.

This is not to say that he is uncritical of Dr King who had his human failings, as do we all, yet this is not the time to dwell on those. He was an important moral leader and he should be studied and honoured for that.

Brother Ivo's long standing respect led him to Atlanta Georgia, to Dr King's grave, home, and the Ebenezer Baptist Church where he ministered. For his 50th birthday, he travelled the Deep South visiting and worshipping with the Dexter Ave Church from which the Montgomery bus boycott was organised. It stands in the shadow of the Alabama State Capitol building and was constructed with bricks discarded from the construction of the road leading up to it. There is much symbolism in that.

He stayed with a retired priest who told of leading a Montgomery church in those days where the congregation was split equally between segregationists and integrationists. This gave meaning to Dr King's insistence that segregation held black and white alike in bondage and put it in human context.

The Dexter Ave Church is not at all that one might expect for such a radical powerhouse. The gospel was preached without politics. The gentlemen all wore dark suits; the ladies wore hats and white lace gloves. Each child was well behaved and in his/her Sunday best. One could have been in Worcester circa 1955.

When Brother Ivo first visited to find the times of services, he witnessed a remarkable illustration of the true nature of Dr King's legacy, if properly understood. Below the church is a mural commemorating inspirational figures of the Civil Rights movement.

As he looked at this, the church secretary arrived and began explaining its symbolism to a young group of mainly black schoolchildren who were visiting from out of town. She asked if any of them truanted from school, and when some of them admitted to it, she suddenly rounded passionately on them. Did they not realise, she insisted, that they were betraying Dr King's legacy?

"You all want a $1000 suit and $400 trainers," she said. "But what if you have them, but have no education? You're just a dummy walking around in a $1000 dollar suit and $400 trainers!"

Dr King would surely have approved. His father had brought him up with highly conservative values within Atlanta's black middle class: from his earliest years he had urged his son to get himself "an education, a mortgage and a vote".

If one listens to the speech, its only sense of entitlement is an entitlement to a fair participation within civic society. Not only is it steeped in the Exodus narrative, but also plainly rooted in Christian ideas of justice, peace, judgement and redemption - even of one's enemies. MLK's dream is to see the fulfilment of the promise for all people which was set forth in the US Constitution by those who knew that those ideals embodied the promises of our Creator God.

The pursuit of happiness is promised; the automatic achievement of it is not. MLK specifically values the good character of a person, and accepts that our characters can and should be judged. There is no compromised cultural relativism here. He insists upon good order and self discipline the better to win over his opponents.

There is so much paradox in Dr King's legacy today. Many of those celebrating his speech will have departed from his Christian witness and taken the path of polarisation, confrontation and disrespect. Conversely, though he never lived to see it, some of his fiercest opponents lived to change their hearts and minds - notably Governor George Wallace who toured the South to express open repentance of his defence of segregation. The Rev'd Jesse Jackson subsequently met with Gov Wallace and has publicly acknowledged his repentance (see HERE, 28mins in).

The key to such redemption is to be found within the "I Have a Dream" speech itself.

Where the conservative Dr King differed from subsequent leaders was in his profound understanding that the way to resolve conflict lay in locating what was good in his opponent. He treasured the US Constitution and made white America live up to its - and their - values. He used what was good about his opponent to reform where he was lacking.

When he wrote that "a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a moulder of consensus", he identified a critical attribute of leadership - one frequently missing in today's polarised politics on both sides of the Atlantic. Those who seek to gain and retain power by triangulating voting blocs - the better to force through their policies with a majority of one - are the antithesis of Dr King's brand of leadership, which sought to find common ground and community of interest. Often this was discovered within a biblical frame of reference.

Dr King insisted on non-violence for both moral and practical reasons. It preserved the possibility of moulding consensus, and that necessarily implies engagement with and adapting to an opponent's legitimate fears and interests. He believed that all our futures depended upon harnessing the good rather than unleashing the evil.

Because the speech is so iconic, it is too easily and cheaply referenced. It was the speech which broke segregation in its formal sense, but its deeply religious methodology has been overlooked in the admiration of its rhetoric and the tragic fact that Dr King perished soon afterwards.

The methodology lived on, however, in the witness and ministry of Dr King's father, 'Daddy King', who was, if anything, the finer man. His autobiography is warmly recommended.

At the end of his life, with both his son and wife murdered, he was able to demonstrate where his more famous son received and grasped the blessing of Christian witness and faith. He wrote:
There are two men I am supposed to hate. One is white the other is black, and both are serving time for having committed murder. James Earl Ray is a prisoner in Tennessee, charged with killing my son. Marcus Chenault was institutionalised as deranged after shooting my wife to death. I don't hate either one.There is no time for that and no reason either. Nothing that a man does takes him lower than when he allows himself to fall so far as to hate anyone. Hatred is not needed to stamp out evil, despite what some people have been taught. People can accomplish all things God wills in this world, hate cannot.

If we achieved a victory in the South it was over inhumanity. When the evil heart of segregation could beat no more it was because it had been stopped by people who did not counsel violence, who did not brutalise and bomb, who never sought to take away any part of anyone else's identity as a human being. These things triumphed over the exaggerated power of hatred. And so what part would any man who knew this choose to travel? Hatred did not win. I prefer to share triumph.
It is America's deep tragedy that 50 years after this great and moving summary of how it can achieve greatness, its first black president does not come from this deep and powerful Christian tradition. The dreams of Barack Obama's father and his community-organiser son seem to fall significantly short of these two powerhouses of Christian witness. With a strong foundation of Christian faith, great things were achieved nationally and personally by the Kings - father and son.

As America ponders how to reclaim its role in the world with all the vile hatred spilling out of the Middle East, it could do a lot worse than go back to that speech again and start asking some basic questions:

What made this so great? Where did that wellspring of wisdom come from? Where can we go to refresh ourselves and replenish our hope?

With the answers, the dream may be revived.

Brother Ivo is the Patron Saint of lawyers.

132 Comments:

Blogger Joe Daniels said...

The slogan "I am a man" seems to recall the slogan of 17th-18th century abolitionists coming from teh Enlightenment tradition: "Am I not a man and a brother?"

Thank you for a wonderful post, Brother Ivo.

25 August 2013 at 06:37  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

Truely excellent post. I saw one of our own politicians, Diane Abbot, following the story of Dr Martin Luther King Jr. What was really sad, really really sad, is that she could not, and would not acknowledge the roots of Martin Luther King's politics and life in his Christian faith. It became clear to me watching her that this was a wilful block built is a solid wall within her own thinking.

25 August 2013 at 08:03  
Blogger Martin said...

It isn't 'rights' that make a man free, but the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Something sadly missing from MLK's proclamation.

25 August 2013 at 08:12  
Blogger Span Ows said...

Fantastic post Brother Ivo, truly wonderful read.

Unfortunately - and I am loathe to write it to 'taint' your good words - many of those who shout loudest the memory of MLK and what he said and stood for are in fact racist bigots (and ministers!)

25 August 2013 at 08:27  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

Dear "Span Ows"

You may be right but ultimately you are merely expressing the truth that in amongst any crowd there are fallen and imperfect human beings ... such is life .... but the Christian life to which Martin Luther King bears witness has a way of changing and transforming those fallen and imperfect human beings. It is, ultimately, healing.

25 August 2013 at 08:43  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brother Martin,

The speech was a secular one though virtually all who heard it at the time would have been hearing it in the context of a Christian Minister drawing on Old Testament imagery. He was extemporising, having put the written speech aside and returned to his preaching roots. He did not need to specifically preach Christ crucified as that was plainly understood: he was explaining what this means in the context in which he was living.

You might be interested in the final words of his autobiography written perhaps only hours before he was killed. He ends with the hymn the final verse of which is-

If I can do my duty as a Christian ought
If I can bring salvation to a world once wrought
If I can spread the message as the master taught
Then my living will not be in vain.

That surely tells you his foundational belief.

25 August 2013 at 09:13  
Blogger Roy said...

Martin said...

It isn't 'rights' that make a man free, but the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Something sadly missing from MLK's proclamation.

Further to Brother Ivo's reply to your criticism of Martin Luther King's speech, what do you think of the Book of Esther? God is not mentioned in it once! Not everything needs to be made explicit.

The Christian message is in the very DNA of the "I have a Dream" speech. There is something "sadly missing" in anyone who fails to recognise that.

25 August 2013 at 10:02  
Blogger Martin said...

Ivo

A Christian doesn't bring salvation to the World & they don't make secular speeches. I know of nothing of MLK to make me change my mind.

Roy

Is not the whole of Esther dependent upon a faith in God who arranges the ways of men.

Men are enslaved to their sin, a far worse slavery than that endured by any with far worse wages.

25 August 2013 at 10:19  
Blogger Nick said...

Inspiring post Bro Ivo

"Hate is not needed to stamp out evil". That phrase has much meaning. What a pity that its message is not heeded in say the Middle East.

My concern about this 50th anniversary is that it will be hijacked by those who see the civil rights movement as a template for being granted any kind of wish, regardless of consensus, and regardless of its morality or benefit to society.

Our own Equal "Rights" behemoth is currently stomping the land and claiming legitimacy without popular consent and mostly without Christian foundation. The likes of Dianne Abbott are just the sort of people who are likely to jump on this bandwagon and make false comparisons between the civil rights movement and the me-too pressue groups of today who want to impose their minority views on the majority.

There is no comparison between them. The segregation of people based on race was a fundamental injustice. MLK sought a resolution by consensus; not by political gerrymandering and unilateral declarations.

Compare MLK's approach to that of the various groups in this country for whom consensus is irrelevant, and morality and especially religious conscience are a matter of contempt.

So let's be prepared for a deluge of hypocritical drivel from the politicians, activists, and the media, who will focus on the "equality" bit and ignore the fact that the civil rights movement was rooted in strong sense that success depended on bringing out the best in everyone and "sharing the triumph", not treading people with different views into the ground. There was none of the self-centeredness and self-indulgence we see in the various "equality" movements we have here.

My personal dream is that Britain will regain a sense of society, instead of conflicting groups fighting for dominance. A house divided against itself will certainly fall. Let's hope we can avoid that.

25 August 2013 at 10:36  
Blogger Roy said...

Martin said...

Ivo

A Christian doesn't bring salvation to the World & they don't make secular speeches.


With attitudes like that no wonder Karl Marx claimed that "religion is the opium of the people!"

Why on earth shouldn't Christians make secular speeches? It would have taken Britain many more years to abolish slavery if William Wilberforce had taken that attitude.

Neither Wilberforce nor Martin Luther King thought that they were bringing salvation to the World. They simply believed that what they were doing was right and in accordance with God's will.

Was Wilberforce right or was he wrong?

25 August 2013 at 10:37  
Blogger David B said...

I have in the past wondered whether MLK was in fact a Christian at all, or perhaps one of those rare beasts, a hypocrite for a noble cause.

His sex life, I understand, was not conducted as if he really believed that God was watching his every thought and deed.

It seems that I am not alone.

Not everything on the internet is as it seems, but when I googled 'was Martin Luther King a Christian?' the first thing that was listed has every appearance of being a genuine evangelist Christian site, albeit a pretty extreme one.

From the site - "While it is widely believed that Martin Luther King, Jr. was committed to the “Christian religion,” he was far from it. He denied some of the most fundamental components of historic Christianity. He repudiated the doctrine of the deity of Jesus, and he rejected the concept that the Lord was raised bodily from the dead. King disdained the New Testament affirmation of Christ’s virgin birth, asserting that the early Christians devised a mythological story to account for the moral uniqueness of Jesus of Nazareth. His theology has been profusely documented in The Christian News Encyclopedia."

Well, I don't know - but it does seem pretty clear to me that some supposed Christians are no such thing, but for the less noble cause of personal aggrandisement, pure and simple.

There are, a quick skim shows, other sites that claim that he was very much influences by Gandhi, and that his version of Christianity was one that, rather sensibly from where I am sitting, denied the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection, past or future.

Was he a Christian?

I find myself somewhat torn about the morality of what appears to be his major hypocrisy in what was, as I say, a noble cause.

Could he have achieved what he did in that time and space as a freethinker? I rather doubt it, and can point at another great, if politically naive man, of the same sort of era who was in no way a hypocrite - I refer to Paul Robeson.

Do the ends justify the means?

I don't like to think so, but it does look as if sometimes we might say that they do.

David

25 August 2013 at 10:53  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brother David B

I do not know if you have taken any in-depth interest in Dr King and/or read his writings; you imply not. As will be apparent, I have, and it is very hard to be left in any doubt that his message and methods were rooted in an iron determination to follow the path of his saviour.

He was not perfect but who is? To see the fallible finding the strength to pick up a very considerable cross and follow is something to admire.

25 August 2013 at 11:09  
Blogger IanCad said...

Great post Brother Ivo.

A truly remarkable man who is, alas, denigrated more and more as the years roll on.

Despite their outward amiability Americans are a fierce race.

Zealous and brutal in the enforcement of law. Then, as now, the savagery and violence of their police is something alien to us and should serve only to render even more admirable the actions of those who strove for justice and equality under the law.

25 August 2013 at 11:13  
Blogger Ariadne said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 August 2013 at 11:39  
Blogger Ariadne said...

Brother Ivo, this is a beautiful post.

But some commenters seem to like things dancing on the head of a pin!

25 August 2013 at 11:39  
Blogger Ivan said...


Racism of the type MLK fought against was more or less over by time President Carter left office nearly two generations ago. But the pernicious infrastructure that was put in place in the name fighting racism: affirmative action, busing, the stupid idea that black under-performance is due to suppression by whites, and perhaps most important, that the blacks have a permanent claim on whites due to something which happened centuries ago, have ensured that blacks are objectively worse off than a few decades ago. Senator Patrick Moynihan was rounded on by the motivated when he advised long ago that the subject of race should enter a period of "benign neglect." When he proffered this advice in the 60s, the black community was on the way up only to be waylaid by "Great Society" advocates who ruined blacks, more effectively than anything dreamt up by the KKK.

25 August 2013 at 11:51  
Blogger David B said...

Well, Brother Ivo, it does seem that many people claim that King's own writings show that he did not believe in the Virgin Birth or a physical resurrection.

If so - and these reports seem very credible to me - then my question remains - can someone holding those views be a Christian.

Not an orthodox one, I'd have said, yet the Spongs and Cupitt's of this world also seem to regard themselves as Christians.

But then again many self professed Christians would deny that Spong and Cupitt are Christian.

I'm curious about the views of the denizens of these comment threads - if MLK denied the Virgin Birth and Resurrection, then was he a Christian? Or any self proclaimed Christian who denies the Virgin Birth and Resurrection?

My general rule of thumb for deciding whether someone in Christian is that they are if they say they are, but sometimes, as with Mormons and various other fringe groups, I would call them Christian at a stretch, but quite a big stretch.

David

25 August 2013 at 12:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well, Ivo, nothing from you about ‘with rights come responsibilities’. And that is of course because King didn’t require that from his oppressed. King could have prefixed the word ‘decent’ to his every utterance of black but he didn’t. He knew damn well that part of the reason of segregation was fear. Fear that America would be corrupted by the black way of doing things.

So he declined to ask black America to improve it’s game. Perhaps he thought it would come about through the church. So, he found it more convenient to lambaste the white hegemony, albeit through peaceful non violent ways, rather than point out to his people the fears of the establishment.

A missed opportunity then. To expect an improvement in behaviour to pay for the new rights ?

25 August 2013 at 12:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B, you are not alone. One has the same problem JUDGING atheists, of a sort. Is a man REALLY an atheist or does he let himself down by not continually pounding those who believe. Is he a good atheist, or a scoundrel pretending to be an atheist ?

Does he let atheism down by respecting belief ?

25 August 2013 at 12:36  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

I have studied MLK, and he was a Christian. Many of the quotes referred to in earlier posts lack substantive evidence to support them.

Odd one out is the comment about the virgin birth. I cannot recall an accurate and attested letter, speech, essay or other, in which MLK said he didn't believe in the virgin birth or intimated such.

His speeches, including "I have a dream", extensively quote Isaiah and Exodus. I am bemused by the claim that it was a secular speech. He might as well have opened the book of Isaiah and read a third of it to his audience because that's where most of it came from.

With respect to the virgin birth it is well to note that none of the letters of the NT refer to the virgin birth. It is not mentioned once, which tells us that for the early church the discussion was all about the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Therefore if belief in the virgin birth was the measurement by which we identify a Christian then St Paul and the early church fails.

25 August 2013 at 12:46  
Blogger IanCad said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 August 2013 at 12:59  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

OIG
MLK and Brother Ivo appear to share an inlclination to think that less is more. Jesus appears to have been of similar mind.

No doubt just after the delivery of the Beatitudes, some Pharisee slunk away muttering to his friends " Calls himself the Son of God - not a word about Original Sin... Bah Humbug!"

Sufficient unto the day dear fellow.

Perhaps some want to go to hear teaching of Fidel Castro comprehensiveness, but the reality is that nobody recalls any of these, whereas we all have familiarity with this short speech, to say nothing of the succinct parables and sayings of Jesus.

25 August 2013 at 13:01  
Blogger IanCad said...

Ivan @ 11:51

A superb comment.

You have it absolutely right.

"--the black community was on the way up only to be waylaid by "Great Society" advocates who ruined blacks, more effectively than anything dreamt up by the KKK."

And oh! 'tis true, 'tis true.

25 August 2013 at 13:04  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

David B:

The material you refer to was used by Don Boys to run a heavy critique of King a few years ago. In fact, his treatment was sometimes a little... shall we say... loose? Almost all of the offending material comes from papers written by King during his seminary (see here, here, and here for the most explicit examples).

As such, it is the writing of the student King, doing his B.A. at Crozer - and not only that, but if you look at the provenance for the sources you will see that it was the kind of writing that generally found approval with his (one must assume, liberal) instructors.

The fact that very little of these views can be found evident outside of this context is suggestive, though not obviously completely conclusive. Needless to say, I could find you more than a few papers I wrote when I was doing my degree, the content of which I thoroughly disagreed with, but wrote knowing that it would tick all the boxes the lecturer was looking for.

Even if we accept that King genuinely believed in the argument of his student papers - and there is much to support the view that he adopted progressive liberal positions in theology whilst at Crozer - his later writing shows a rather shrewd eschewal of the same philosophies. Your "source" is reading (likely second-hand, quelle suprise) the young King having first discovered "intellectual Christianity" but yet to encounter "intellectual conservative Christianity". His eventual position has generally been described as "neo-orthodox", and he ended up critiquing much of the foundational basis for the liberal positions he included in his undergraduate work.

Of course, he didn't ever explicitly repudiate those early writings (that I am aware of). I'm not sure I'd read too much into that: very few of us feel obliged to disown the products of our juvenalia on the basis that we might set the record straight for future historians. Slightly more to the point, as far as I am aware, he didn't make any of those arguments a feature of his adult ministry, let alone the theological basis for his involvement in the Civil Rights campaign. There, he explicitly expounds a God-centred theology of freedom, criticising both communism and capitalism for their godlessness, and their utter failure to grasp the pernicious effect of sin on reason.

25 August 2013 at 13:06  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

You don't have to be a Christian to believe that MLK a humanitarian of the highest standing. The fact that he was black is irrelevant compared to the standard of his quality as a human being.

25 August 2013 at 13:08  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

By the way OIG, in the context of requiring personal responsibility for actions, which part of " A man should be judged by the content of his character..." do you not understand?

25 August 2013 at 13:12  
Blogger David B said...

Now there, Dreadnaught, I can happily agree.

David

25 August 2013 at 13:12  
Blogger Roy said...

Why are people so ready to argue over whether or not Martin Luther King really was a Christian? There is only one person qualified to judge him and that is the Person who will judge us all one day?

Faith is not the opposite of doubt. Faith is following Jesus in spite of any doubts. Verbal agreement with key doctrines is, by itself, utterly useless. What is the message of 1 Corinthians 13?

David B wrote that King's sex life was not conducted as if he really believed that God was watching his every thought and deed.

That criticism seems to been true. Unfortunately, It is probably true of most of us. I would go further and add that there is not a single area of my life that I have always conducted as if I really believed that God was watching my every thought and deed. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us - 1 John 1:8.

The Biblical passages I mentioned are both from the New Testament. If I wanted to quote from the Old then it would take all day because, as Brother Ivo has pointed out, and some of the people commenting on his post have also mentioned, MLK's Dream Speech is saturated with Biblical imagery and allusions to the Old Testament.

There is an interesting article by Ben Both in which he states despite the speech's popularity, experts continue to miss or diminish one of the more essential characteristics of the speech's success: Christianity.

Christianity and Martin Luther King's Dream
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/08/christianity_and_martin_luther_kings_dream.html#ixzz2cz1NV9vK

The Politically Correct have an obvious motive for ignoring or downplaying the Christian inspiration for the Dream Speech and the Civil Rights movement generally. Unfortunately they are aided and abetted by the "I am more theologically correct than thou" brigade.

25 August 2013 at 13:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good Lord, Ivo, it works ! Less is indeed more as you say. You can be quite brilliant at times, you know…

And Jesus said “Come with me and you will dwell in my father’s house forever”. And an Eric Idle type heckler shouted, “and what happens to us if we don’t ?”

And Jesus pushed his spectacles back up his nose with his middle finger, and put his arm around the heckler, and said in an Eric Morecombe fashion ,”Now look sunshine, you really don’t want to know about that”.

And all were saved ?

And so yes, “A man should be judged by the content of his character”.

Anyway, King didn’t have to impress upon this man he was right. He had white America to convince, and at the same time, to reassure. He could have done more in that respect – he could have put forward a covenant. He could have put some responsibilities upon his own people, and perhaps today American jails would not be packed with criminals too dangerous to release, because nobody told the young them that’s where they were headed…

25 August 2013 at 13:45  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

What exactly is "the black way of doing things?"

carl

25 August 2013 at 13:57  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Roy

"Why are people so ready to argue over whether or not Martin Luther King really was a Christian? There is only one person qualified to judge him and that is the Person who will judge us all one day?"

At least a part of it must be that there are few figures that command such near-universal respect. King amounts to a very human fulfilment of Phillippians 4:5-7 and 1 Peter 2:12.

I imagine there might be some atheists out there for whom that could chafe - so it becomes incumbent to either discredit him in such a way that a wedge might be driven between King and Christianity and so allow him to be claimed by other powers. King the man who points to Heaven's glory is an affront, King the human idol is far more acceptable.

It's nonsense - with more than a whiff of a diabolical methodology behind it. The aim is a synthetic King, obnoxious to believers, anodyne and reflective to everyone else. But you have to first eclipse the historical King: the man whose profession in his Saviour was an inextricable part of his conduct and witness.

25 August 2013 at 14:05  
Blogger Ivan said...

Ian Cad @13.04 , its a wonder to behold what undeserved welfare, coupled with any means of undermining the authority of the patriarchy can do to destroy a people.

25 August 2013 at 14:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl, What exactly is "the black way of doing things?"

One doeth beleive we both know the answer to that one, don’t we ?

25 August 2013 at 14:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

No, I don't think we do. Perhaps you should elucidate.

carl

25 August 2013 at 14:44  
Blogger IanCad said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 August 2013 at 15:07  
Blogger IanCad said...

Ivan,

Yes, you do not exaggerate. A people destroyed.

But let's put things in perspective: What about the immense benefits accruing to the Racial/ Diversity industries.
What would happen to the economy if this vast army were rendered redundant?

25 August 2013 at 15:10  
Blogger LEN said...

The real hero for me at least in the Civil Rights battle in America was Mrs Rosa Parks who refused to give up her seat to a white man on a bus.
'On December 1, 1955, in Montgomery, Alabama, Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake's order that she give up her seat in the colored section to a white passenger, after the white section was filled.'

What makes a speech or a Country great?.
The answer is' righteousness' ..doing what' is right' regardless of the cost..doing what 'is right' when there is no one to witness what one is doing......And God is the only source of Righteousness.

25 August 2013 at 18:28  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Brother Ivo,
I thank you for your further interventions on the comment page.
I think it really helps to have the authors comments on misrepresentation of the article. Keep up the good work.

25 August 2013 at 18:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl, you want to see this man stoned by the PC mob for uttering what can no longer be uttered ? Shame on you !

Was rather thinking you cared better. Anyway, don’t let this man stop you, as no doubt you are itching to get down to the pool room and meet up with the brothers. Don’t forget your gun, old chap – they won’t forget theirs. And we know the slightest hint of disrespect will leave several dead, will it not ?

25 August 2013 at 18:58  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brother Len,

Rosa Parks was important but don't be under illusion, this was not a sponteneous act of courage but a deliberately planned action. She was the local secretary for the campaign and journalists were ready for her arrival on arrest.

That does not denigrate her or the action but the myth did grow in the telling.

25 August 2013 at 19:20  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Incidentally, an unlikely "hero" of the Civil Rights Movement was Lloyds of London.

During one of the bus boycotts the American Insurance Companies withdrew cover from the car pools organised to get people to work. They said the risk was too great. One of Dr King's advisers had the bright idea of approaching Lloyds who stepped in, provided cover and saved the day!

Makes you proud to be British!

25 August 2013 at 19:34  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

‘I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists...’

If we’re to believe one of Brother Ivo’s favourite commentators, Thomas Sowell, vicious racism has spread beyond Alabama: ‘…violent attacks on whites in public places in Chicago, Denver, New York, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Kansas City, as well as an epidemic of blacks beating up Asian classmates in schools—for years—in New York and Philadelphia. These attacks have been accompanied by explicitly racist statements by the attackers, so it is not a question of having to figure out what the motivation is.’

Not quite what King had in mind when he talked of all men being created equal but dreams have a nasty habit of turning sour. In the real world, all men have an instinctive natural empathy for their own race and harbour an equally natural suspicion of other races. No amount of brainwashing and no amount of legislation will eradicate that fundamental human characteristic. Legislation we have in plenty, including laws that punish us for thinking and expressing the wrong thoughts, but the fact that such legislation is needed in the West’s multi-ethnic, multicultural societies is the clearest sign that they are failed societies.

25 August 2013 at 20:03  
Blogger IanCad said...

Johnny Rotteborough,

It gets much worse.

In the last week:

Australian Christopher Lane was murdered in Duncan Oklahoma, apparently in a gang initiation rite.

Delbert Benton was beaten to death in Spokane Washington a couple of days ago. Again in what looks like a thrill kill.

May they rest in peace.

Jesse Jackson, so passionate about the murder - in self defence - of Trayvon Martin opined that Chris Lane's murder was to be "Frowned Upon."

25 August 2013 at 20:21  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Brothers Johnny and Ian

Nobody could deny the terrible nature of the cases you identify but they do not sit entirely appropriately within this context.

It is very unlikely that Dr King would have done anything other than condemn each and every one of these dreadful killings.

He is a great loss as a prophetic loss to all communities not least that of the black American.

Dr Sowell is the closest we have to his clarity of thought. It is he who has pointed out that the black family survived centuries of slavery but has been decimated by a few decades of State Welfare policy.

25 August 2013 at 20:51  
Blogger Martin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 August 2013 at 20:55  
Blogger Martin said...

AiB

Alongside the verses you quote may I suggest you place:

“Woe to you when all men speak well of you, For so did their fathers to the false prophets.” (Luke 6:26 NKJV)

I'm pretty certain that had he been preaching the gospel of Man's sin & God's mercy he would not be so popular.

25 August 2013 at 20:58  
Blogger Dr.D said...

Carl asked, "What exactly is "the black way of doing things?"

Let me suggest some answers from the American experience. I don't have the exact stats at hand for all of this, but the ideas are correct.

1. The vast majority of black babies are born out of wedlock to poor mothers.

2. Relatively few, very few, blacks ever form stable, lasting marriages. A large number never bother to marry at all, rather simply sequentially shacking up with first one, then another.

3. The black attitude, for the most part (but obviously not exclusively since Thomas Sowell has already been mentioned) is one of entitlement. Why work for something when the government will give you almost as much with no effort at all on your part? People with initiative and drive are looked upon as fools.

4. Many blacks see themselves as superior creatures, entitled to take whatever they want from anyone, either individual by robbery or government by welfare fraud.

5. Many blacks are extremely violent and have made public their clearly stated intention to make war on white people. King Shabbaz in Philadelphia and the various Black Panther groups come to mind here.

6. Affirmative Action programs have put blacks ahead of better qualified white people repeatedly. (I have personally suffered this a number of times in my long career.) This is clearly a loss for the white person, but it is also a loss for the black. They often wind up in a job they are not able to do, and they look foolish. This breeds resentment because few people, blacks included, enjoy looking incompetent and ignorant.

This list could continue, but I hope this is enough to give some idea of the black way of doing things.

MLK was (1) a serial adulterer (he had just finished his third woman for the day minutes before he was shot), (2) he was a plagiarist (his doctoral dissertation has been well analyze to show this), and (3) he was a closet communist. He only appeared in public as a Repub.

The man gave a memorable speech, but he should be well forgotten and allowed to disappear.

Fr. D+
Anglican Priest in the USA

25 August 2013 at 21:11  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Brother Ivo (20:51)—I’m certain King would condemn violence as vociferously as any decent person would. But what would he do to stop it happening? Make another speech about his dream of how the world ought to be? When a dream is founded on a vision of human society that is irreconcilable with human nature, better for all that the dream never sees the light of day. The suffering that has been heaped on mankind by the visionaries and the do-gooders…

Yes, it would be wonderful if all races and creeds lived together in perfect harmony but human nature dictates otherwise. Saying that makes me a realist, not a racist.

25 August 2013 at 21:24  
Blogger IanCad said...

"It is very unlikely that Dr King would have done anything other than condemn each and every one of these dreadful killings."

Indeed, he would have done, and to contrast the statement of Jesse Jackson - how far he has fallen - with the integrity of MLK was the very purpose of my post

25 August 2013 at 21:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


We had come here to praise King. We now know better…

Thanks to all concerned.

Third woman of the day ? Blimey !

25 August 2013 at 22:10  
Blogger David Hussell said...

How the mighty have fallen......

These revelations have truly amazed me......

"They have all gone astray, they are all alike
perverse;
there is no one who does good,
no, not one."
Psalm 14 v3.

The truth is that we are all in need of the forgiveness of God, all of us. And dreams and schemes and utopias that do not take account of human nature, all fail.

Good night and God Bless all.


25 August 2013 at 22:46  
Blogger Peter D said...

Bro Ivo
Inyeresting posts and interesting responses.

Now, one slight error:
"No doubt just after the delivery of the Beatitudes, some Pharisee slunk away muttering to his friends " Calls himself the Son of God - not a word about Original Sin... Bah Humbug!"

Tsk, tsk ... the Pharisees didn't believe in the concept of 'Original Sin'. The term is unknown to Jewish Scriptures, and Christian teachings on this doctrine are antithetical to the core principles of the Torah and its prophets.

25 August 2013 at 23:34  
Blogger Chaconia said...

I am one of the mostly silent readers of this blog – but I could not let the comments made by OIG and Dr D about "the black way of doing things" pass without comment. I have to say I find them completely sickening because they are so blatantly racist and -- for people who otherwise come across as educated and intelligent – astonishingly ignorant. I'm a mixed race person -- with a black father and white mother (married to each other) and brought up within two stable loving families – white UK and black Caribbean. I can see where all the stereotypes mentioned in Dr D’s list come from – but that is just what they all are : stereotypes – which you can find and apply to any group of people you care to name. The level of generalisation is astonishing : “relatively few blacks ever form stable lasting relationships” – total rubbish – look at the divorce rate among the white population today and the levels of promiscuity – “blacks are extremely violent” – no more so than men in general – white thugs no less violent than black. The saddest thing about such comments is that it perpetuates prejudice and I’d be the first to admit that there is similar prejudice and distorted views among black people for white people. Being part of both groups has enabled me to know that we share a common humanity and see through the lies. Just sad I cannot convince these two smug bigots.

26 August 2013 at 01:04  
Blogger Dr.D said...

Chaconia, in response, I would like to point out a couple of things.

1. I prefaced my remarks with something about the "American experience," which would seem to me to exclude you and your family right off the bat. You said that your family is from the Carribean and the UK.

2. My comments about blacks failure to marry and form stable families is again from the American experience. I did not make a blanket statement about the world. My statement is true, however, for much of the world.

3. It is certainly true that marital instability among white people is rising. At least in the US, there is a sad trend for white people to follow the lead of black people. I have no idea why that is.

4. You spoke of stereotypes. All stereotypes have a basis in fact, even though they may not be entirely true. I spoke about what I have personally observed, living a long life in the USA. If the shoe fits, wear it. If the shoe does not fit you, then perhaps it is not intended for you.

5. When I was a young child, my family employed a black maid. She used to talk to me, telling me things that would make your hair stand on end about beatings from her husband, about whipping her sleeping son with a lamp cord because when he was awake, he was too much for her to handle, about her daughter pregnant at age 13 (and, not surprisingly, not married), etc. She tole me repeatedly (remember, I was a child, under 10 at the time), "Black folks are different from white folks." I think Thelma knew what she was talking about.

6. You accuse me of prejudice. This is not true. That would be to make decisions without information. I have a lot of information. I have lived with the problem of black people for well over 70 years, and I have seen a lot. I am not prejudice; I have facts and experience to support my judgements.

7. No, I am not a "smug bigot." I have worked with many black people over the years, and I have always treated each one with respect. In many cases, it proved to be more respect than they deserved.

8. Let me close by quoting (approximately) a statement from the famous Jesse Jackson: "When I see someone coming up behind me on the street, I am always relieved to discover that it is a white man." This from one of the greatest of race hustlers! Why do you suppose he said that?

Fr. D+
Anglican Priest in the USA

26 August 2013 at 02:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dr D

I am also an American. So your remarks do not exclude me. You might first look up the definition of 'hasty generalization.' Familiarity with that logical fallacy would knock out a fair portion of your argument. You see, I would compare my own personal experiences with them and arrive at the complete opposite conclusion.

The problems you cite have nothing to do with skin color or something as arbitrary and undefinable as 'race.' They aren't black problems. They are human problems that have deeply impacted the black community because of bad decisions by individuals and by government. That's why the same problems are showing up in the white community. Whites are making those same bad decisions. Black people are not different from white people. We share a common trait from a common ancestor. It's called sin.

carl

26 August 2013 at 03:13  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 August 2013 at 03:23  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thank you, Bro. Ivo - a very good post.

A nice adjunct to MLK's "Dream" speech is his "Letter from Birmingham Jail." Viewing the texts in tandem clarifies that King's vision polarized integration/segregation -- He wanted to end what was (is?) elsewhere known as apartheid.

I find it interesting and not irrelevant that we presently have a reverse situation at work in places like Birmingham (UK) - where the "tptb" promote and enforce (lovely American concept, that**) the interests of one race over another.

But it's strange that, regarding MLK's human and much publicised foibles ... similar situations prevailed over other figures in that generation: notably JFK, Presley, Johnny Cash. It's as if those who raised them to power had to corrupt them on the way: simply because these 'star' talents had something very special that no one else could counterfeit. I believe it was more than talent, though: it sprang from their Christian centres - and conveyed a sense of Truth that reached out to inspire their audiences, despite the workings of their handlers.

And, of course ...not one of the critics can accomplish what the great figures did, or touch as many hearts and minds as they did.

I say the system works on the principle WS had Flavius apply:
These growing feathers pluck'd from Caesar's wing
Wll make him fly an ordinary pitch,
Who else would soar above the view of men
And keep us all in servile fearfulness. (Julius Caesar I.1.72-75).
And that's why they killed JFK and MLK - and virtually disabled Presley and Cash. Perhaps they were more dangerous than Caesar!

Further ... the world just doesn't make them like that any more. That's exactly why BO's voice makes me curl at the edges and turn away - He tries to use the same rhetoric, but he has no inner spirit to enliven it. He's just a hollow echoing sham. As is our vile play-prime minister.

___________
n.b. ** sark

26 August 2013 at 03:30  
Blogger non mouse said...

Dr. D -- I agree with your observations. The worst side of black culture has been promoted by the media-moguls -- and it has influenced white culture especially through music and the concomitant drug/s**/violence strand.

Black music has long had an appeal - say through Spirituals. When the influence appeared in Jazz and Calypso, it wasn't always clear to more innocent listeners that an underlying text was filthy. Similarly, when it appeared in Cash and Presley.

Even now, the vileness of Rap often goes unnoticed. If parents had always understood the message that is propagated to their children, they would have banned it. It's likely, too, that at first the children never understand the stuff. Then they grow up thinking it's all right and natural. But just try analyzing some of those lyrics... if you haven't already.

To some extent, then, whites and the capitalist imperative have helped debase the Western culture in those ways. They've also picked up on it through the visual media, and now we all have to put up with 'back to the jungle' styles of undress. When I was young, these wobbling, sulking, naked types would have been arrested for indecent exposure.

And yet, and yet ... I have met some blacks who don't like it, and who adhere to the traditional Christian outlook. How strong their influence is, proportionately, I don't know.

Mr. Jacobs has a point then, in noting the effect of evil whites on other races. But we already looked at some of those dynamics on another strand -- in the discusssion of Conrad's Heart of Darkness. We could take it further back, of course; there's always Othello - and everything that led to that.

And then there's the OT.

26 August 2013 at 03:54  
Blogger Chaconia said...

Dr D – one of the reasons colour prejudice is perpetuated is that it is a very obvious visual difference between people which makes any kind of assimilation virtually impossible and would take generations of interbreeding to eradicate. Makes me think of the message behind Dr Seuss’s wonderful book The Sneeches (there is a great retelling of this available on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3yJomUhs0g )
This visual difference has through history – but particularly as a result of black slavery – resulted in the development of separate communities, and fostered mutual hostility and the linking in minds of certain traits with skin colour. We are hugely influenced by people’s appearances – we all pre judge – making assumptions about people who stand out as visually different whether it be because they are morbidly obese, facially disfigured or even just old. And the people so judged tend to stick together for mutual support and develop their own prejudices.

Your black maid Thelma spoke the truth as she perceived it – black people think they are different because they are seen as different, treated as different and assumed by some to be inferior. But they are not inherently different – remove the visual differentiator as with the star belly sneeches and you would eventually not be able to tell a “black” and a “white” person apart. Very soon the communities would integrate and the issue would disappear.

If what you say does not apply to me because my background is not American black but Caribbean black then surely you are implying that the difference is cultural/social and not inherent.

I am a mental health worker working in crisis care – I see many people whose lives are damaged through childhood abuse and neglect – many of them are white people with horror stories similar to the one told to you by Thelma of her family.

26 August 2013 at 08:26  
Blogger LEN said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 August 2013 at 09:55  
Blogger LEN said...

Brother Ivo

You seem to have 'lifted a stone' and revealed some unpleasant things.
I had no idea that such attitudes still existed today.
The apparent anonymity of the web certainly reveals what truly lies within the heart of man.
If one feels rejected by Society this will lead to all sorts of problems this is just as apparent amongst young 'whites'.
There is no action without a re- action this is just as true spiritually as physically and indeed we will reap what we have sown.

Jesus taught Christians how to respond to each other and IF (I do say IF) we could put His teachings into practice(love another as oneself)then many problems would disappear.

I do realise that this is ' a dream' but Christians should be leading the way in this respect?

Brother Ivo thank you for this though provoking article.

2

26 August 2013 at 09:58  
Blogger TigerO said...

The accolades of Bro Ivo for Bro King bring tears to my eyes. Whilst on your pilgrimage to the site of the the great man I can imagine the King in spirit there with you with his fishing pole and a big smile saying; "I just caught another one!"

Bro Ivo before you start, the fact that you went on pilgrimage indicates your conviction to the cause and not one of a visit with an open mind.

Lets eliminate colour completely and talk about ethnic origin alone. How is it that of all the ethnic groups that have made their home in the USA only those of African extraction have a problem of being rejected by greater society.

Millions of Chinese indentured labourers were brought in and yet there is no great clamour by the Chinese for special recognition.

The real reason is that of all those other ethnic groups adapted to their new home and became integrated. They worked and studied hard and became accepted by greater society.

So why is it that, of all the different ethnic groups, do people of African origin have so many problems fitting into greater. I'll leave you to figure that one out yourself.

26 August 2013 at 10:33  
Blogger Chaconia said...

“I had no idea that such attitudes still existed today.”

They certainly do but I haven’t seen them expressed in this blog with such vehemence among people who claim to be “christian.”

But I am glad that web anonymity allows people to be honest about their true feelings. I grew up in the Caribbean and found racial prejudice to be as alive there as over here. However one of the biggest differences was that in the Caribbean it was much more open – if you were not liked because you were “too black” or did not have “good hair” – you were told this – usually by other black people who have internalised white critera of success. Hence there was bleaching of skin, straightening of hair, marrying up (whiter than yourself) and working hard to get a good education and better yourself. This was what my generation did. The succeeding one – during the black power era – rejected this totally and you had the back to Africa movement with everyone giving their child an African name, African hairstyles and dress, African religion even and rejecting more conventional blacks as “coconuts” – black on the outside but white on the inside – and insult reserved for those seen to have betrayed their race.

This almost schizophrenic attitude to race among the black community continues to this day and is the legacy of history. People forget that it was only a couple generations back that 16 gradations of colour were recognized in my homeland, and although we never had anything like apartheid or segregation in law there were total white communities, churches and clubs where blacks were excluded. Over here in the UK it was the same. When my parents got married they struggled to find accommodation in London as many places had printed on the outside of the properties “No dogs, no blacks.” It made no difference that my father was a medical doctor – people only saw his colour. Ironically, only the Jewish landlords would accommodate my parents!

Is it no wonder there are problems still? They don’t teach the history of slavery and the slave trade in UK schools as they do in the Caribbean. It is a shame they don’t. People have short memories. A little understanding of history would help to combat some of the blinkered views being expressed here. TigerO -- the Chinese and Indian communities were not enslaved and their degraded position was not justified on the basis of the bible – that the blacks were the descendants of Ham, cursed by Noah to be slaves. This is the recent past. It is no wonder there are still problems, it takes more than a couple of generations to eradicate this legacy – and still longer because people do not understand the history.

26 August 2013 at 11:59  
Blogger TigerO said...

The slavery angle is just another excuse for victim culture just like;

You took our land and built hospitals, schools,universities, roads, bridges, and farms where none existed before; but you didn't ask our permission to come here and do these things.

Get over it. You are not entitled to special privileges because of your past.

Do you hear the British bleating about what the Roman legions did to them? In contrast we celebrate the advances in technology and systems by them.

26 August 2013 at 13:21  
Blogger meema said...

I’m late to this discussion but I have to weight in.

I was sixteen when MLK made his now iconic speech. I lived in Cincinnati, Ohio. Conceding that my powers of recall are greatly diminished I pulled out my 1964 High School Yearbook in hopes of finding prompts. What I found shocked me.

The Civil Rights Act was signed into law in July 1964 - two months after the school year had come to an end. In the 1964 Aiken Senior High Yearbook, while the ratio of black to white was decidedly heavier on the white side, bright, well-groomed black faces proudly took their rightful places among the honored graduates. Granted, this was Ohio, a mid-western state, not a deep southern state, but still, something clearly was established and working without benefit of a government decree. What was it? Tolerance? Humanity? Individual accountability?

I’ve never been a racist type, whatever that means. I rate people according to their behaviors not their ethnicity and, to be more specific, I judge by what people do not what they say. I have friends and acquaintances from nearly every walk. Well, bully for me, aren’t I liberal? No, in fact, I am not. And I am not because one cannot ignore what has happened in America attributable to the last fifty years of government mandated and manipulated ‘civil rights’ which result in completely artificial equality and often can only be achieved by rights taken away in order to bestow on others.

Whatever good things MLK intended, he did have agenda and, yes, he did lean toward communism. His heirs have enjoyed great wealth from his legacy. My memory may be slipping but I do recall noticing that everywhere MLK went, preaching non-violence, riots broke out after he left and so I hoped he would not make a speech in Tulsa. I always wondered about that. Did people simply misunderstand his message?

I have lived in Atlanta for the past twenty-six years and I can tell you that the ‘message’ has officially been lost in translation. Equality is now interpreted to mean- lowest common denominator is in control. We won’t talk of incredible corruption in Atlanta government because that seems to be a global issue. But as example point out that Fulton County covers most of Atlanta metropolitan which hosts a primarily black population. But Fulton County is large and spreads out into suburbia, of which some neighborhoods are decidedly affluent. The New Rule of Equality decrees that parents in affluent Fulton County may not raise money to provide extra things for their schools, like computers, because the inner city schools, lacking the same resources, cannot do the same. Do you think the parents who are restrained from giving their kids advantages because other kids’ parents cannot, for whatever reason, feel animosity toward the rule or the human conditions in the inner city? What seems more likely?

I conclude that most racism and prejudice in post civil rights era America can be traced back directly to government intervention and imposed rights. And the blow back from this artificial paradigm of civil unequality has created a new kind of racism born of entitlement and victimhood mentality. Whereas simple expectation of individual accountability once naturally leveled the playing field, the now firmly established policy of imposing limits and constraints on some in order to prevent others from feeling inferior has fostered a worse kind of prejudice that threatens to launch unspeakable horrors. Who will take the blame? No one in government. Certainly not the community organizer in chief. He usually seems to be missing when things go wonky.

History is like a blueprint or a script. There are those who speak eloquently of peace, brotherhood, equality and ‘rights’ but leave chaos and destruction behind them in their wake. Sound familiar?

26 August 2013 at 13:56  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Chaconia (01:04)—‘blacks are extremely violent’ – no more so than men in general

Judging by statistics amassed by the Metropolitan Police for 2009-10 and reported in The Sunday Telegraph, Blacks would seem to show a greater propensity to violence: ‘among those proceeded against for street crimes, 54 per cent were black; for robbery, 59 per cent; and for gun crimes, 67 per cent. Just over 12 per cent of London’s 7·5 million population is black’.

@ Chaconia (08:26)—they are not inherently different

Certain diseases affect some races more than others, and treatment and medication sometimes need to be adjusted for race. In addition, whereas most of the world shares some DNA with the Neanderthals, sub-Saharan Africans and their cousins overseas have no shared DNA. These are significant differences.

26 August 2013 at 14:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Chaconia. You are making a schoolboy’s elemental mistake. You are taking criticism personally. Do not do that. Instead, read and learn why such criticism is made. We have on this site an opportunity to discuss in a manner that which can never be achieved in live debate. Free from parameters that would be put in place to prevent hurt feelings and manufactured outrage. Would you put an end to that because YOU find it uncomfortable to read ?

Secondly, you appear to explain black behaviour as resulting from causation. A reaction to perceived injustice. ALL of it. This is worrying, as it indicates a closed mind. And we know that a closed mind leads to bigotry, don’t we ?

Still, you are not backward in putting forward excuses for said behaviour. One must say you are fairly adapt at that. This is not the first time you’ve apologised in this manner, is it ?

And this leads to the most disappointing aspect of your appearance here. There will be no improvement in behaviour UNLESS it comes from within the black community. In other words, YOU must finally accept the truth, and work with others to change what many of us feel at the moment is inevitable – business as usual ad infinitum. It has to be from within the black community, you see. The racism in the hearts of young black male youth will not allow improvement to be foisted on them from any other corner…


26 August 2013 at 15:19  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Chaconia

It's worth mentioning too, in relation to your comments (which were excellent, by the way), that it was not so long ago that the Irish were counted as another racially inferior race, even to the extent that they were not thought of as being "white".

I suspect the Inspector would be less amused if someone sought to revify that particular element of historic racialism/racism.

26 August 2013 at 16:31  
Blogger Peter D said...

Carl, I'm with you on this one.

"They aren't black problems. They are human problems that have deeply impacted the black community because of bad decisions by individuals and by government."

I'd just add, being a good Catholic boy, that certain structures - economic and social - in society divide and are toxic.

"It's called sin.

Indeed, and it can be promoted by an absence of proper treatment of others. These ethics are very evident in the Old Testament.

In some respects I agree with the Inspector's solution - jusst not his analysis. It's not a question of an inherent flaw in the black community or its people. However, the solution does have to come from within communities and also from individuals.

Now on Martin Luther King and his private life. If true, I seem to recall King David and King Solomon having similar appetites too - and a good few European Kings and Popes. What is it with sex and men in positions of power? Of course, for every man there is a woman equally responsible.

26 August 2013 at 17:07  
Blogger IanCad said...

Peter D

A little perspective:

"King David and King Solomon
Led merry, merry lives,
With many, many ladyfriends
And many, many wives;
But when old age came over them
with all its many qualms,
King Solomon wrote the Proverbs
And King David wrote the Psalms."

26 August 2013 at 17:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

It’s that smugton Belfast, grinning like a Cheshire cat….

One does recall the phrase, or one much like it, ‘The Irish way of doing things’ in the !970s and 1980s. Not much you could do back then, just take it on the chin.

Indeed you are right though. The Catholic Irish were portrayed as sub human by their English masters, and of course somewhat stupid until recent decades. The important difference being the Catholic Irish were far from their perceived description in reality.

26 August 2013 at 18:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D, It's not a question of an inherent flaw in the black community or its people.

You need to add “except in ignorant black male youth”. Otherwise you lose any credibility.

26 August 2013 at 18:47  
Blogger Chaconia said...

OIG – I did say that I found it refreshing that web anonymity allows people to express their true feelings because normally white people are too afraid to be honest (I don’t blame them), and pay lip service to the prevailing ethos of equal opportunities and all the rest of the PC agenda while by their behaviour one senses they feel like you do. And I agree it goes both ways. Many in the black community also hate the white community either wanting to join it or to declare itself superior to it. They would probably recognise “ a white way of doing things” – and I would condemn this equally.

When my parents married not only were there black women who resented my mother for taking one of their men, and who ostracised her for her colour without getting to know her – there were also many whites who felt she had betrayed her race, married beneath her and would produce inferior children. They also didn’t bother to get to know my father but made assumptions on the basis of his colour.

I do disagree with your generalisations which view black people as inherently violent, less intelligent, sexually promiscuous and irresponsible because all of these things can apply to other groups in greater or lesser degree dependent upon historical circumstances. The circumstances don’t excuse, they help to explain. And yes, I don’t think we are all genetically equal – there are differences between races – there even may be some truth in the bell curve – but we are all one species and the differences between the races are not huge -- they less significant than the differences between the sexes.

Such attitudes continue to divide people and I was not personally offended by them. I was just saddened to see them expressed on this blog by many who claim to be Christians.

26 August 2013 at 18:53  
Blogger Peter D said...

IanCsd
Yes, they both ran out of energy and also realised space from women was necessary in order to contemplate higher things.

(They should have got themselves sheds!)

MLK was murdered before he understood this.

26 August 2013 at 19:51  
Blogger Peter D said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 August 2013 at 19:57  
Blogger Peter D said...

Chaconia

Don't be over concerned. The Inspector holds all sorts of odd views on Christianity too. Rather unique delivery style combining with wisdom with nonsense. Just be thankful you're a male heterosexual, albeit black.

26 August 2013 at 20:00  
Blogger Chaconia said...

Thank you for your kind words Peter.
Actually I'm female which probably doesn't help. :)

26 August 2013 at 20:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaconia, yes you did point out the advantages of this media. This man stands corrected.

As for expressing a view that is not Christian, well, what is a view that is not Christian ? Can a Christian be capable of holding that view ?

There is a homosexual fellow on this site who excels in denying this man his Christianity. Apparently, a Christian has to be very careful that he doesn’t upset all or any. You see, upsetting people is the biggest un-Christian failing of the lot, or so they say…

26 August 2013 at 20:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaconia, or anyone else for that matter. You might think you are a Christian, to wit, trying to live according to how Christ would have you do so, but you’d better check with Peter D first. Apparently, you’re only a Christian if he says you are.


26 August 2013 at 20:56  
Blogger Dr.D said...

Chaconia, let me move the discussion of "the black way" from the US and the UK to Africa.

Look at the "progress" made in South Africa since the black majority got rid of those evil while oppressors. A country that had first class medical care (the first artificial heart was done in SA), now has almost no medical care for either blacks or whites. A country that had a thriving economy, with steel mills, mining, and a varied industrial base, is now completely bust (much like the US, but feeling it much worse). A country that had a viable space program (just as the US once had) now cannot do anything technical. When it hosted international sporting events within the past year or two, outsiders were largely afraid to attend because of threatened violence from the black populace. But they do have St. Nelson.

Or let's look at Zimbabwe, the former Rhodesia. This country was a major food producer, with enough to have large exports. Today, the whole population is starving. It had laws, infrastructure, higher education, etc., but it now has none of these. But it does have BLACK LEADERSHIP.

Why is it, that after the last pyramid was built in Egypt, virtually nothing more than a mud hut was built in Africa until white rule? Why is it, that with great rivers for internal trade, and a surrounding ocean, Africans never seemed to build ships, sea ports, or engage in international trade, again, until the white man came? It was the black way.

Chaconia, as another commenter has already observed, none of these comments is meant for you personally. If they don't fit you, then they don't apply to you. Rather, they are a distillation of many years of observation of what happens when blacks take control, whether they seize it by violence or it is given to them by idiot whites.

As I said earlier, there are certainly exceptions. But they are exceptions, not the norm. When we talk about whole populations, we necessarily must talk about the norms rather than the exceptions. I am personally always pleased to find the exceptions. But I will not be blinded by the few exceptions into believing that all are alike.


Prof. Thomas Sowell is, in my view, arguably the most intelligent man in America of any race. He has made his way upward from a poor farm in South Carolina (if I recall correctly) to the top of the Stanford University faculty. He writes brilliantly, with wit, clarity, and wisdom. He never, ever, plays the "race card." His words make so much sense that they are completely compelling in themselves. There are handful of other, similarly capable blacks in the US. One of them ran for president in 2012.

But these are the exceptions that simply put the lie to all the complaints about being oppressed, being victims, being in need of help. Until the black community recognizes that hard work, self discipline, and playing by the rules are the way to rise, they will stay down, and continue to do things "the black way." It will be their own fault, not that of anyone else.

It is not un-Christian to recognize the truth. Jesus Christ said of himself that He is the TRUTH. We must all deal with reality (pretty or grim), not with a fiction that says that all should become sports stars.

26 August 2013 at 20:57  
Blogger IanCad said...

Dr D

Prof. Thomas Sowell is, in my view, arguably the most intelligent man in America of any race.

You might want to check out Dr. Ben Carson.

26 August 2013 at 21:15  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspecter said ...
"You see, upsetting people is the biggest un-Christian failing of the lot, or so they say…"

Care to reference that one - you know from that book called the Bible? A lack of charity is not the same thing as upsetting someone.

"Christian, to wit, trying to live according to how Christ would have you do so, but you’d better check with Peter D first. Apparently, you’re only a Christian if he says you are."

Not at all. However, if you claim to be Catholic, show ignorance of, or contradict, clear doctrines of the Church and post nonsense about the Old Testament, than I might just have a comment or two to make.

Chaconia
Ummmm .... a black woman. Best take care then. That puts you in the amber zone so far as the Inspector is concerned. Unless, that is you used to be male. He'll go off the radar is this is the case .... ;o)

26 August 2013 at 21:50  
Blogger Ivan said...


IQ as a measure of intelligence does not seem to vary across the span of a man's lifetime, but there is every indication that it does change over the generations. It is not an invariant quantity, gains of ten-points or more can be attained. Thus by self-discipline all races can reach greater heights (if that is what they want, I personally prefer to be laid back). What happened to the blacks in the US is that just as they were emulating the crew-cut and horn-rimmed spectacles of the aspiring whites, along came a plague of do-gooders with sinister men at the head, who assured them that it was all whiteys' fault.

Blacks don't seem to care that they are still treated as plantation darkies with no minds of their own by the ruling classes. The big men and women of the tribes are bought off with government sinecures, the so-called Revvrunds with versions of the Pink Cadillac and the masses with food-stamps. Taking undeserved gifts for granted leads only to destruction.

A gift is pure when it is given from the heart to the right person at the right time and at the right place, and when we expect nothing in return -- Bhagavad Gita

27 August 2013 at 01:29  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Our opinions are mainly informed by experience. I agree that this forum because of anonymous commenting allows much more freedom of thought and expression.

Dr D's opinions are not politically correct but they are sincerely expressed and are based on his experience. Everyone's experience is valid and should be respected . All stereotypes contain an element of truth and of course there are always the exceptions to the stereotype.People who have a foot in both worlds like Chaconia are privy to both groups' cultural prejudices.These exist and are commonplace in these situations.

Many could argue this as a case against mixed marriage where the offspring is never really accepted by either group, not quite feeling they belong anywhere. I know of a situation like this quite close to me. My experience would say thismixed colour marriage is not an ideal situation because I witnessed a good deal of personal grief suffered by a close friend (White mother black father) who shared the same educational and religious background as myself.She resolved never to have any children because of it. Others may have a different view based on a different experience.

The Christian concept of anti discrimination enshrined in our laws to offer all equal rights is quite antithetic to our basic human tribal characteristics. Our species is tribal by nature and if one is Christian one must intellectually overcome these inclinations.How many times when we are travelling for long periods of time are we are overjoyed to see a white face who speaks English? This is not racism.

Chaconia said it was ironic that Jews were the only ones who would house her parents ..No Blacks Or Dogs..Why? Did she mean that this
sign was anti Christian and that those who professed to be Christians should not discriminate against coloured tenants.? Did she mean that it was ironic that Jews rented to her parents because Jews are stereotypically not noted for their kindness and charitable works and are chiefly driven by financial reward ? During that period Blacks could only rent slums from Jewish landlords in London.I don't think this makes me an antisemite either.

27 August 2013 at 08:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. Chaconia
Ummmm .... a black woman. Best take care then. That puts you in the amber zone so far as the Inspector is concerned. Unless, that is you used to be male. He'll go off the radar is this is the case .... ;o)


How dare you !

Not content with booting a chap out of your Catholic club, you then go onto libel him. One of the biggest gripes professional black people have is how condescending non black colleagues are to them. Even when it’s pointed out to them, they STILL persist. Well, this man does not do that. Never has. When he’s in communication with a black individual, that individual does not get any implied ‘consideration’ for their ‘condition’. What a blast of fresh air that can be for them. King would approve, one feels sure…

27 August 2013 at 09:56  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

In respect of slavery and the slave trade, there was also a very profitable trade in European-Arabic-North African slavery, which persisted well into the 19th century, culminating in actions of the US Marines against Barbary pirates. But there never seems to be a lot of interest in that.

I am pretty much sure that I have come across the argument before, that various African tribes would actually obtain other Africans from other tribes and readily sell them to the Europeans? I do know that the American colonies were filled by white indetured labourers, which was a form of fixed slavery - in return for passage, a place to kip and the tools, they were bound to work on land for ex amount of years and after that got some land and their freedom back.

In any event, I think it was the British Empire which was first to get rid of slavery and the slave trade?

27 August 2013 at 11:40  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 August 2013 at 11:40  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Cressida,

Interesting points there. I wonder if Chaconia has ever heard of Beyt Yisrael or in English Beta Israel? (Ethiopian Jews).

27 August 2013 at 12:01  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ david kavanagh (11:40)—These articles touch on the points you make:

North African pirates abducted and enslaved more than 1 million Europeans between 1530 and 1780 in a series of raids which depopulated coastal towns from Sicily to Cornwall, according to new research. Thousands of white Christians were seized every year to work as galley slaves, labourers and concubines for Muslim overlords in what is today Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya, it is claimed.—The Guardian

By the 1870s, Arab Swahili slave traders were causing misery throughout central Africa. By the mid-1880s over half a million people were being displaced or killed annually. During the 19th century, two million slaves were dragged by Swahili traders across the Sahara to Egypt or shipped from East Africa to Arabia and the Gulf. African rulers were also involved; Livingstone declared the Arab slave trade ‘a small evil by comparison with the perpetual capturing and sale of children [by Africans]’. Such facts are downplayed today because political correctness decrees that Africans suffered more at the hands of Europeans than Arab or native conquerors.—Daily Telegraph

27 August 2013 at 15:38  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Inspector

There was no smugness - the ideology that assigned the Irish as non-white is of precisely the same roots that the ideology that Black people are essentially different.

And they would have had plenty to support the observation too: a country that was a financial ruin, a workforce that appeared by objective measures to be feckless and alcoholic, higher rates of criminalism, and a willingness to resort to brute violence to resolve their demands. These are all things that the clear-sighted realists of the day soberly intoned as reasons to insist that the Irish could never look their English masters in the eyes as equals.

The thing is, you grasp perfectly well that there was something oppressive about this when it was applied to the Irish. You are capable of seeing that there is a connection between a group of people's behaviour and the way they are treated - even if that is no good reason to excuse it.

Indeed, the very point of my using the Irish as an example was to try and point out that the very things you wish to essentialise in the 'ignorant black youth' as being characteristic of their race, were once applied to people who you presumably have no difficulty thinking of as "white". The simple point is not that there are not 'ignorant black youths' - but that the essential word in that combination is not black but ignorant.

27 August 2013 at 15:45  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Mr Belfast,

I think with Mr Inspector, he does come from a very rural part of the UK, with its chocolate box stone villages and stuff, which probably doesn't have many black people or ethnic minorities living there and his views, considered to be racialist now, were and are quite common of people his age.

Uncle is the same, very old and with a heart of gold, but we've 'educated' him about the 'negro' and the 'darkies' as he used to call them (besides which his wife's younger relatives, from the deep south, have a few mixed marriages, my cousins goodness knows have far removed).

Now 'darkie' and stuff are offensive terms, but education is better than condemnation. And I'm a dyke and a kike don't forget...

27 August 2013 at 17:53  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 August 2013 at 18:10  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Hannah,

My dear child.

I'm not racialist! Never have been and never will be - my wife is of American- Virginian stock for a start. My mother, who was Jewish, used to get anti-semitic slurs and I was critcised by my awful father for looking 'too Jewish'. And your father, my brother, did marry an Iraqi Jew. I spent some time in India and Hong Kong as well as Rhodesia. Lovely places. Very attractive women, over there, too what!

Now, in my day 'darkie' and 'Negro' were perfectly valid forms of expression. To me, I never considered them to be wrong. I served with many 'coloured' chaps and Negro people, from America, as well. I still employ Sikh body guards.

I did not see any of that as being racialist. Leave that to the bally awful fascists we were too busy fighting and the equally racialist 'greater co-prosperity sphere' in the far east.

The British Empire was a force for good. Half the world's problems would not be here now, we'd probably have never had apartheid, nor all of those awful wars, if we hadn't had the yanks telling us to dismantle it. No starvation in Africa and none of these bally wars over in Johnny Arab land! Israel would be a fully Jewish, but protected part of our Empire- as the Queen's law abiding subjects, they would be entitled and would obtain Her Majesty's protection.

The rest of the third world would have been gradually been brought to a good standard of living, they wouldn't be killing one another and everyone would be a lot richer and happier, eventually being welcomed into Dominion status, in the same way as the other lion cubs, like Canada and Australia!

I fail to see how that opinion makes me a bloody fascist- racialists! Never! Hated the odious ideology. Evil it was. Evil!

27 August 2013 at 18:15  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Lord Lavendon,

Oh! I never said you were racialist as clearly you are not! I think, I was saying that Negro and Darkie are nowadays considered to be offensive. I think the correct term is black or African-American, British etc.

27 August 2013 at 19:04  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

And I was also saying to Mr Belfast, that we need to try and understand Mr Inspector, from a very rural, conservative and white area, isn't familiar as we are with the ethnic diversity of more urban areas.

27 August 2013 at 19:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Belfast. a workforce that appeared by objective measures to be feckless and alcoholic, higher rates of criminalism, and a willingness to resort to brute violence to resolve their demands.

And of course the famous cartoons in Punch that appeared in the eighteenth century. But you are not getting the point , are you ? The anti Irish sentiment was based on perceptions that just weren’t true. The problems that beset young black youth are so very true.

A fellow has long given up on white academics like you. Before you can even consider intervention you types need to dance around the subject summoning up the resolve to continue when the time comes, and it will, when you will be called a white bigot.
And you are far from alone. Do you see how the problem must be tackled from within the community. It will be hard going even for a messiah. There is hair trigger violence to consider, a propensity to criminal behaviour, and we haven’t even got to the legions with a low IQ.

(Can back up final paragraph with statistics if required…)

27 August 2013 at 20:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

...nineteenth century...

27 August 2013 at 20:35  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Hannah,

My dear. Of course. I apologise for being unruly. You see, my best friend and companion for many years was an American African as you would say (the days in which a man could have a friendship, without it being automatically considered to be homosexual).

Now, he was a valiant and fearless chap, who saved by life once or twice, treated terribly after the way in his native South, he and his family went back with me to blighty and persuaded me to date the American gal I liked during the war, albeit a decade later, popped the question and I've been married to her for umpteen years. Then Oscar was born in 1959,five other children and then many grandchildren, including Louise.

The rest is history.

27 August 2013 at 20:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dear Hannah, one puts down his book of chocolate box images of his quaint old city to type out “Gloucester Riots 2011”. You may care to google that. As the saying probably went at the time about one and a bit miles from his abode - “Stop beating your bitch, man, and B there on the street. It’s where it’s happening now, blood”.

The same kind of patois is spoken in parts of Gloucester today, although far less menacingly one is relieved to say.

One also wonders how much racial resentment attributed to the extremely tolerant indigenous types of this land isn’t colour prejudice at all - just good old honest, common or garden, you’ve felt it, I’ve felt it - FEAR. The overwhelming percentage of it, one would wager…

27 August 2013 at 20:52  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Lord Lavendon,

Great stuff! So much still to learn. You should publish your biography one day (:

27 August 2013 at 21:05  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 August 2013 at 21:20  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 August 2013 at 21:20  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

I always thought Gloucester-shyre, was like bourton on the water and birdland and the model village, and full of little cottages built in ancient sandstone, with thatched roofs and nice hanging baskets, where you all sounded like pirates 'ow arr!', but without the Parrots, sort of thing, with the only ethnic minority being peaceful little Hobbits.

But your picture seems different; a bleak land a racial division and violence and the New York street gangs. I will admit I find gangs of black youth intimidating, but I feel the same with 'hoodie' gangs who are 'anglo-saxon'. Thankfully, if anyone tries to hurt me, I've done some personal protection courses and tips from my Israeli cousins on one on one fighting.

27 August 2013 at 21:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Steady on Hannah, it’s not that bad in the city of Gloucester…

But if one could change one thing it would be their attire. Street fashion is bulky black uniform including hood. A bandolier wouldn’t be out of place on it. Not asking them to dress like the Drifters, or Commodores, in top of the range suits, but it’s obvious these people either revel in their menacing look or are completely unaware. Suspect it’s half and half.

Really, you would have to be making your way along a street tapping the pavement with a white stick not to be wary should they be in the vicinity.

Dress is an excellent example of how the black community can influence their younger male members if they so wish…

27 August 2013 at 22:25  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Inspector

The faultline you've chosen is that Irish stereotypes were untrue, whilst (certain) Black stereotypes are based in reality.

The problem is, there were people devoted to producing just the kinds of evidence you cite to your case regarding Black people. And to a certain extent, they were also true - caricatured, no doubt, by Punch and others - but the poor, sometimes malnourished Irish had very poor educational attainment, were often reliant upon on poitin, had shockingly-poor health, and were fairly likely, as immigrants to England, to be involved in the seedier and criminal aspects of urban life. Even their habit of speaking in a "foreign language" was seen as indicative of an inherent and essential resistance to education and civilization in some quarters.

The great white academics of the day were often disposed towards seeing eugenics as a possible means of curtailing such unwanted traits. They too had their statistics, their crime figures, and their sword-edge clear sense of racial identity. That's the point: they weren't doing anything other than you're doing.

The reverse is also true, and needs stating: what happens to your view when you encounter the evidence of 18th to early 20th Century Irish culture? If you are presented with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they were not objectively far removed from the Black cultures you decry, will we see you suddenly reform, and nod affirmingly that the English masters were right all along?

I think we both know the answer to that. What I'm trying to persuade you of, is that if you find empathy with the Irish of the past, you might find with equal legitimacy an empathy with the Black culture of today - and more to the point, you might consider that the common feature was not race, but depravity - both that which is perpetrated by and on such communities.

27 August 2013 at 22:48  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

I didn't say Gloucester was 'that bad', but got that impression from your good self, as I said from when I've been over to your area, it is all stone houses, nice gardens and stuff.

I will admit to be 'weary' as you put it of black gangs, but also white gangs too. I don't like the rapper stuff about 'me bitch', no way to talk about us girls!

If I go encounter any gangs, when in London, which in Kensington isn't likely, I'm no weakling when it comes to self defence. Of course it is different when I used to go for morning jogs. So I went to martial arts classes and my Israel girl cousins taught me what they had learned in their army service.

IDF Girl power!

27 August 2013 at 22:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Belfast, one baulks at taking his position further, as racial differences come to the fore then. Racial differences one is continually told by well meaning people do not exist.

That you choose to ally the plight of the downtrodden Irish native of a century and more ago to that of black youth today in the light of the aforementioned new ‘terms of engagement’ turns out not to be a wise thing to do at all.

Here is an example. The Irish are of the European race. A loose configuration of peoples who have been around since well before the end of the last age. We are talking tens of thousands of years here, are we not ? The Europeans decided back in the realms of pre history that the basic unit of existence is the family. To wit, man, women and children.

The sub Saharan African model was different. The tribe was / is the basic unit of existence. An African would impregnate a woman and rather than create a family unit with her, would go on to impregnate the next. The tribe raised the children, not individuals in a close nit family. Marriage as a concept had to be brought to the continent, three hundred years ago and since. They say it’s catching on…

So much has been determined by that fundamental - The lack of responsibility by black fathers as a generalisation, as well as the hopelessness of democracy in Africa. Comes immediately to mind. You vote how the tribe tells you to vote. But what has the past to do with present behaviour you might ask. Everything, because the behaviour is ingrained. It is inherent. It is in the blood. The only way to escape such destiny is for the individual to make a conscious decision to abandon it. Difficult if your IQ is low.

That’s it old chap. One refuses to go further…

27 August 2013 at 23:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I pause to ask how OIG knows what decisions were made by 'Africans' or 'Europeans' in pre-history when by definition we have no historical record to examine? This is a transparent attempt to bootstrap a concept of racial superiority from present day observations and then project that concept backwards in order to conclude the observations proceed from essential differences. The pride that one may derive from imagining himself part of a superior race is a powerful narcotic.

carl

28 August 2013 at 00:10  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Inspector

I appreciate that you are not required to answer to me, and I thank you for your continued replies. If I didn't believe you to be open to reason, I wouldn't engage with you, and I assure you that by the same token, I do read what you write and do not just dismiss it out hand as "racist" or anything else (not least because it usually ends up degrading the term's meaning into an ineffectual insult).

I'll not bore you with pedantry that there are many more forms than one of social organisation in Africa, and also Europe - but when I look at all of your examples they seem to me to be cultural. The determinism that you suggest exists - 'behaviour is ingrained' - relies on that culture. If it didn't we'd have no need to describe people as "coconuts" or refer (as David Starkey did) to "White Black men". Had you had the misfortune to be wrecked on some imagined coast in Darkest Africa, we could hardly expect, on locating you several decades later, to discover that you were drinking tea and educating the natives on the virtues of Western Civilization.

That's why it seems to me that you have misdiagnosed the issue as primarily being one of race. It looks to me like the bulk of it is cultural. However, lest you think I am dodging that final shot - it's true, a low I.Q. has consequences, and there is a good deal of evidence to support the idea that intellectual potential is largely a heritable trait. However, this is hardly restricted to any particular ethnic community. How many times have you yourself concerned yourself over Anglo-Saxon thickos? Indeed, there is as challenging a correlation to be had along lines of class, or British geography, where we might find any number of groups to identify as troublesome.

What's more, by the token of the marital unit as the model on which civilization rests, the West can only be regarded as entering a "post-white" state, given that traditional marriage declines across the "developed" world at breakneck speeds.

"You vote how the tribe tells you to vote."

Ye gods! This might as well be Northern Ireland's epitaph.

28 August 2013 at 00:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl, and anyone else for that matter…

This man commissions you to prove his findings are wrong. That he’s gone barking off down the wrong road…

Your task is to put forward an argument that everything at 23:42 is false. That there is no run in it whatsoever. That the idea of racial differences is nonsense. That we do not inherit behaviour. That we are in fact born free agents and are only subject to nurture.

A qualifier. You must do so without calling this man a bigot, a racist or a white supremacist. You see, your effort will be of such sublimate achievement that such sentiments will only foul an otherwise outstanding work of eloquence worthy of academic publication.

A warning, if you fail to exclude said accusations, this man will cease reading what he finds and not give the post due consideration, which he sincerely and hopefully expects, will provide all the answers he is seeking and has been seeking. In other words, you’ve failed…

28 August 2013 at 00:28  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

Your hypothesis isn't testable. It can't be proven false because it is non-falsifiable. You located the event in pre-history. That by definition places it beyond investigation. You might as well ask me to prove the existence of a parallel universe.

You can't establish the truth of this assertion by declaring an absence of falsification. An assertion isn't necessarily true simply because it hasn't been shown false. You made the positive assertion. The burden is on you to demonstrate its truthfulness. That you will not be able to do.

carl

28 August 2013 at 01:22  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

I know your avatar is a wooden dummy but please .... enough .... you don't have to behave like one.

When you talk about inherent differences and lower IQ;s based on racial groups and skin colour do keep this in mind:

"And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth"

Ah but then this is from the Jewish Bible isn't it? It has no real relevance to Christians or to the realities of today.

28 August 2013 at 01:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl et al…

You well know potential evidence when you see it. No doubt fossils in the nineteenth century were considered interesting curios when first considered. Indeed, some extreme protestant cults even today in their desperation to ‘prove’ the bible is absolute truth have it these interesting items were placed by God in the ground specifically to amuse and delight us. Not to mention to confuse those who strive to find the truth, no matter how unpleasant the truth is.

It just will not do, you know. To fall back on a “you really must stop thinking like this” position.

It demeans you all…


28 August 2013 at 13:09  
Blogger Chaconia said...

Goodness – just came back from work yesterday and found this lot. Here are some of my thoughts from some of the above comments that struck me:

Me being a black woman – amused when I made it clear that I am half and half – although the Americans believe in the “one drop theory” -- I am in fact neither black or white – or, you could say I am as much a white woman as a black one. I do also think that the mixing of totally different gene pools is beneficial. Hybrid vigour (heterosis) they call it. There was an interesting programme on this on channel 4 entitled “Is it better to be mixed race?”

Interestingly I have heard many black people state that Obama would never have got where he is now if he were “ truly black”. Obama is as white as he is black. .. And here’s the problem. No one is looking a the genes, they are looking at the skin colour. So as long as you look black – you are prejudged no matter how intelligent and peace loving you may be. And if genetically you are not entirely black – you are still deemed black if you look it and all the negative associations it brings are applied as we have seen discussed here. Most people from the Caribbean have mixed ancestry.

Interestingly, when we studied the slave trade at school in the Caribbean back in the 70s we looked in some detail at the effects of tribal origin on the choice of slaves by the traders and on its effects in the islands. Slave traders went for certain tribes for their characteristics and favoured characteristics commanded higher prices. It was known that the Ashanti and Fanti tribes were very warlike so they were not preferred – indeed the fact that there were more slave rebellions in certain parts of the British Caribbean – Jamaica & British Guiana (Demarera), than others, was put down to there being more Ashanti slaves in these territories. Even today Jamaica is seen as a very violent society and WI blacks over here in the UK from the Caribbean have been known to say that the Jamaicans are giving us all a bad name! The Igbo peoples were not preferred as they had a strong tendency to commit suicide during the middle passage; and the Yoruba tribes were highly favoured as hard working and not prone to rebelling. This suggests there may be considerable genetic differences within the black community – and the middle passage resulted in a degree of selection which has affected the nature of the “new world” communities.

Re : comments on innate black inferiority in respect of intelligence -- The full range of IQ scores applies to both racial groups only proportions in the different bands may differ, with possibly some of those differences enhanced by socio economic factors. There are also similar differences between the sexes – in IQ, propensity for violence and sex drive. However once again, the range is the same – more women clustered in the middle that’s all. And highest scoring on the IQ range are the Chinese.

Individuals should not be judged on averages applying to a group. There are some blacks who are very intelligent, and some whites who are not. Looking at skin colour alone means we prejudge individuals and label them in advance. This is what I feel is morally wrong and leads naturally to the promotion of separate development, or apartheid.

28 August 2013 at 13:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Greetings Chaconia. A very interesting last post you have there.

It is wise for you to advise the audience that you are indeed of mixed heritage because otherwise what you have given us would surely have bricks being thrown your way from certain, well, shall we call them fixed thinking types on this site..

One might even go so far that on viewing, they will still smart anyway from what they see, and retire for a time quite bewildered…

Pip Pip. That gal !


28 August 2013 at 15:27  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Inspector

I remain at a loss as to how you can read Chaconia's post as supporting your view, since it makes it clear that not only is there substantial diversity amongst African tribes (a point which surely counts against your rather monolithic representation of tribe vs family earlier) but there is also substantial variation amongst every race.

Can we assume, evidence-led as you are, that the discovery that the Chinese (presumably Han Chinese?) are the smartest, you will cede the White man's burden to them, and take up a fittingly subordinate position?

28 August 2013 at 15:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Belfast you really need to think outside of the box at times. The very fact there are variations, in this case in attitude, amongst African tribes sinks Carl straight off. He then has to accept the possibility one tribe will come out better than another. All too much for the fellow unfortunately. Look, there he is, spread eagled and face down in the water…

Same with OT clutching Dodo trying to have us over that God’s human creation and it’s attributes can be summed up in a couple of sentences written thousands of years ago.

And finally, there is yourself, apparently having gone over to the Chinese. Well, good choice. Arguable the finest race on the planet. Did you know their mean IQ at 108 is a good 5 points above the UK. Interesting they have found a way of exploiting the African continent without interacting with the African, and thus leaving the African no lasting legacy for the good, unlike the Europeans which came at significant cost, only to have it thrown back in their faces half a century on. As the Welsh would say, there’s clever for you…

28 August 2013 at 17:18  
Blogger LEN said...

Well; the Inspector seems to have dug himself a hole(again)and all one can do is stare down at him in and wonder what exactly lies at the heart of him?.

Well enough of that..... I think the Inspector has had enough attention(perhaps that is what he wants?.)for the moment.

If Christians are not prepared to follow the teachings of Christ perhaps they should be calling themselves something else?. A few names come to mind.


28 August 2013 at 18:40  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I, er.. I admit defeat Inspector. I cannot pierce the sense of your argument, nor see how increasing complexity (which is applicable to all human groups) demonstrates that difference must be subsumed into an essentialist vision of race, let alone one which insists on organising them in some kind of (apparently self-evident) hierarchy.

I don't think it helps that you appear to be reading my remarks as being from within a box I don't regard myself as occupying, but hey, if you proceed on the basis of stereotypes with one group of people, it's hardly surprising that you would do so with others.

28 August 2013 at 18:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Stop sulking Belfast. ..

All you have to do is to at least consider the most reasonable possibility that human behaviour is at least partly the result of inherent pre programming. The result of generations of farmers in Europe. Generations of warriors in Africa. Where’s the harm in that ?

Do note that there is no implied sense of one group being superior to another. We’ll let those terrorised by the thought that there are significant differences in the races to run round screaming “No, No, No – this cannot be !”

There’s a couple of blackbirds on the lawn here this last minute. Can we assume that once having flown the parental nest, they never went back to finish their ‘education’. They now have to survive on pre programming on how to be blackbirds.


28 August 2013 at 20:00  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Inspector

I refer you to the second paragraph of my previous reply.

28 August 2013 at 20:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Off you go Belfast. Take your ball with you if you must…

This one will continue playing scrabble with his two girl pals. Sisters, aged thirteen and fourteen. It’s ruthless, I can tell you. The winner of each game also happens to be the scorer, unsettlingly…

28 August 2013 at 20:42  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Regarding "pre-programming" and race, you'll find this recent article to be of interest.

Particularly towards the end, when the polygenic nature of factors such as I.Q. are discussed. This is relevant because, contrary to popular perception, Human DNA is not dramatically diverse - the Human Genome Project allowed the dismissal of "race" as any kind of genetically-significant category nearly two decades ago. What does matter, particularly for complex polygenic attributes, is how the environment triggers them.

For instance, you may have a very high genetic propensity to getting a certain type of cancer. However, this is not "pre-programming" - the propensity still has to be "activated" in the environment. The extent to which this is true increases with the complexity of the attribute - so with I.Q. it is the interplay between environment and genetics. In our cases studies, where you have lots of generationally-poor people, whether it's in the 18th Century Irish fields, or 21st Century inner cities, you will expect to see a far greater impact on detrimental effects. If a child in an entirely environmentally neutral setting has, say a 50% chance of developing an above-average I.Q., putting that child into an environment that will impact on their development will modify that chance accordingly.

It's not an either-or between genetics and environment.

The kind of genetic determinism you want to veneer your views with simply doesn't hold up scientifically.

28 August 2013 at 20:52  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Inspector,

There is also the racialist history of Africa. For those of us who can remember the racialist treatment of the Indians in Uganda and the recent treatment of the Anglo-Africans in Rhodesia by that God awful Mauabee. Rhodesia was once a prosperous place with food and bread for all. Then they decided on a racialist policy and property seizure. The result? Mass starvation, poverty all round and hyper inflation.

And look at the sectarianism in Nigeria and Sudan; Christian against Muslim, no mention of white or black there. All about religion and tribe.

Then there is the Arabs in North Africa and how they treat Christians as well as their racialism towards Jews, who were forced to flee to Israel as well as the Jews of Beta Israel.

So racism is not simply a 'white' problem.

28 August 2013 at 21:55  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Peter D,

If Inspector is a wooden puppet, I wonder if his nose grows if he tells porkies?

Poor old Mr Inspector.

28 August 2013 at 22:23  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Also, saw this clip as thought of OIG : (lol!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=493pL_Vbtnc

28 August 2013 at 22:53  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector, your epidermis is showing, Sir!

"We're coloured people, and we live in a tainted place
We're coloured people, and they call us the human race
We've got a history so full of mistakes
'Cause we are coloured people who depend on a Holy Grace

A piece of canvas is only the beginning for
It takes on character with every loving stroke
This thing of beauty is the passion of an Artist's heart
By God's design, we are a skin kaleidoscope."

(DC Talk)

28 August 2013 at 23:23  
Blogger Peter D said...

Hannah asked...
"If Inspector is a wooden puppet, I wonder if his nose grows if he tells porkies?"

I doubt very much that his nose, or any other part of his anatomy, is capable of growth. Dead wood ossifies and prone to woodworm. His body parts might start to fall off if subject to any form of strain.

29 August 2013 at 00:12  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Peter D,

Well, you'd probably be arguing about Inspector's hairstyle next....

29 August 2013 at 00:17  
Blogger Peter D said...

True ...

Laugh and the world laughs with you Hannah, not at you.

29 August 2013 at 00:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps, the Inspector regrets his machinery crashed last night, and today faces a railway journey. Am shortly to depart, picking up travelling companions Mr Guinness and Porky the Pig on the way…

Until later then…


29 August 2013 at 11:25  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Peter D,

True.


Hi Inspector,

Enjoy your stout & stuff ....

29 August 2013 at 13:53  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older