Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Fergusons in Perpetuity: Thoughts on the Unfixable
Two questions, methinks, arise from Ferguson's latest outburst. The first, political, is "Why does the country tolerate it?" The second, more anthropologically interesting, is "Why the eerie incapacity of underclass blacks to understand evidence, or law, or much of anything?" Of the countless explanations given for the poor performance and poor behavior of blacks in the US, one of them dares not speak its name: Low intelligence.
Yet it fits all the evidence. It explains why Africa never built cities, why it did not invent writing, why there was no African Fifth-Century Athens. It explains why Rhodesia, prosperous and an exporter of food when run by whites, fell immediately into hunger and barbarism when whites left. It explains the dysfunction of black societies from Africa to Haiti to Detroit. It explains why blacks invariably score far below whites and Asians on tests of IQ, on the SATs, GREs, on entrance and promotion exams for fire and police departments.
More @ Fred On Everything
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Bingo..... We have a winner !!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteHe never fails!
ReplyDeleteIt explains why George Wallace did not want segregation and stood at the door
ReplyDeleteof the University of Alabama blocking segregation and Kennedy calls in the fed.
troops/Nation Guard into Alabama without an appeal from Wallace. Wallace was a proponent of “States’ Rights”–a concept which, at the time, was also vilified and treated to a big dose of contempt.
In the end, Wallace’s resistance was overcome by 100 members of the National Guard acting on orders of President John F. Kennedy. There was no appeal by the Governor of Alabama (Wallace) nor by the legislature of Alabama to the federal government to send troops to help quell “domestic Violence” in The State of Alabama. President Kennedy apparently acted unilaterally to deploy federal-troops/national-guard into Alabama without appeal by the government of the”state” of “Alabama”.
Did the conflict in Alabama signal that “States [of the Union] Rights” were being ignored and openly violated by the federal government? Or did the federal government’s unilateral deployment of troops signal that “Alabama” was no longer deemed to be a State of the Union but was, instead, presumed to be a territory or administrative district of the United States?
I wonder if the significance of the correlative loss of “States’ Rights” was fully appreciated or even imagined at that time.
If “States’ Rights” (as in “States of the Union”) are gone, you are presumed to be a subject (rather than an individual sovereign), and Congress is presumed to be an aristocracy in charge of ruling this nation’s people as if we were all a bunch of animals, peons, or even slaves.
I wonder if the significance of the correlative loss of “States’ Rights” was fully appreciated or even imagined at that time.
DeleteGood question/point.
==========
If “States’ Rights” (as in “States of the Union”) are gone, you are presumed to be a subject (rather than an individual sovereign), and Congress is presumed to be an aristocracy in charge of ruling this nation’s people as if we were all a bunch of animals, peons, or even slaves.
Yes and if Wallace had ordered his NG to back him, it would have been interesting. Even more so if he had requested help from another state and they had sent troops.
Yes, it would have been interesting. This was the time to take a stand.
ReplyDeleteI am sure other states would have stood with Wallace if he just would
have beat the drums. The two races don't belong together and never have.