[Harry Lavo]

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

Harry Lavo wrote:

Every time I start to craft a reply to you or Scott, I want to throw up.

Naked racism is hard to digest.

Typical response when your position can't be substantiated by facts.
Resort to slander. I'm used to it...in spite of the diversity of my
immediate family.
**** off, Harry...you're a foolish old man.

If the shoe fits......

Read my reply to Bret. The fact that you have a black son-in-law, however
laudable, doesn't mean you can't be a racist.

My parents had a black son-in-law, and they could not bring themselves to
have the wedding in their city. They accepted him, but not without racial
stereotypes at work. My sister is a poor housekeeper -- but it was always
his fault the house was messy in my mothers eyes. When their son had
problems in high school....it was his fault, not my sister's (who later was
diagnosed with ADD despite her success in life). And on and on. No matter
that he was a college professor who went on to become Dean of the College.
That's stereotyping. That's racism.

When applied on a much broader scale...it is still racism.

And let me tell you about what it means to be poor and black and how social
factors influence life for the poor....

My brother-in-law was raised on the south side of Chicago...a notorious
black slum. He lived with a grandmother, mother, two sisters. An absentee
father, who visited with the kids ocassionally. His mother worked. All
three kids went to college...he went on to graduate studies. Ah, you
say...work ethic. My brother-in-laws opinion? Had his grandmother died
earlier, he likely would have ended up selling groceries in the 'hood, or
perhaps running with one of the local gangs. Why? Because with his mother
working and no grandmother to take care of the kids, their lives would have
fallen apart...no one at home after school, an exhausted mother trying to do
it all including supporting the family, cooking, cleaning, etc...and he and
the girls...especially him would have been expected to work to help out the
family. That slimmest of margins meant the difference between success and
failure for him...not my opinion...his. No such thing as free child care.
No such thing as after-school programs. If the mother stayed home to make
sure the kids were okay.....you'd call her a welfare queen.

Want another example? I was active in local/county politics in the '60's.
As a candidate, I was asked to come visit with five black mothers in one of
the the subsidized housing developments. They were desperate...crack
cocaine was starting to be sold in their and a neighboring building (first
time, remember this is the mid-sixties..it was just spreading out from NYC).
They knew who was doing it. They knew the effect it had on the kids and
other people who were starting to buy it. They wanted to stop it. They
called the police (that took courage). The police did nothing. They called
the Mayor's office (the Mayor's office told them that in this particular
suburban city, there *was* not a drug problem, and that was that. So they
turned to me, as I was what later would be called a "law and order"
Democrat.. Turned out the entire county had *one* undercover agent, and he
was so well known to the criminals they could spot him a mile away. So I
called District Attorney Morganthal in NYC, he dispatched two agents, and
they made the first cocaine bust in this particular city. Now viewed from
afar...how would you have characterized those "welfare mothers" living in
the projects? Welfare queens, interested only in having babies and
unconcerned about the environment their kids grew up in? And why do you
suppose neither the police nor the Mayor's office took them seriously?
Couldn't be because the were black, powerless "welfare queens", could it?
In an immaculately white, middle class county that didn't want to admit it
was beginning to have a drug problem? This is racism......yep, send them
to Bolivia and we'll not longer have a problem.

Guys, wake up. Yes you are right....there are some bad actors, lazy slobs,
criminally disposed peoples living in the slums and ghettos. And there are
many more decent people working hard and looking to get ahead and grateful
for whatever help they can get, and that society can provide.

As for your stereotyping of nationalities, think it through.

The irish and polish and other europeans assimilated pretty easily. They
looked like you and I. So by second generation, with good english and hard
work, they got ahead. They also did it at a time when college wasn't almost
mandatory to do so.

The asians (especially the Chinese and Japonese) come out of established
societies which have for a long time stressed education...so it is not too
surprising that they should come here and continue that tradition.

The blacks look different from you and I. They come from Africa at a time
when there was little education, and they came as slaves and were denied
education. So is it surprising that taking education seriously as the path
out of the ghetto comes a bit harder and is scarcer in the society young
blacks grow up in. And is it so hard for you to imagine what despair from a
young age can do to ones judgement....with the rest of society passing you
by in wealth, income, jobs and little background to make you appreciate the
role of education. Some do, and they often succeed at getting on in the
world, as did my brother-in-law. But many succumb to despair and crime and
the reasons are not often (or perhaps even usually) bad going-in character.
Social characteristics are fostered by social norms, not by genes.

The spanish speaking folk...Mexicans, Cubans, Puerto Ricans...speak spanish
but can learn english and are hard working. Their cultures vary...with the
Cubans prizing education the most, but the main thing that distinquishes
them are their warmth and family ties...these cultures are extremely social
and family-oriented. Young girls often get pregnant because having babies
is seen as a wonderful thing...often without much thought to the economics
involved. Usually, however, reality sets in and these girls often end up
getting an education later after the kids are raised a bit, because they
become responsible mothers and know they have to make a living. Moreover,
there are a large proportion of responsible fathers among this group...often
both parents work. In the case of the Mexican immigrants, it is often the
case of a father working in the US, in order to send money home so that the
family can have a decent life in Mexico. I know one case of a Columbian
woman who has worked 25 years in this country as a maid and housekeeper so
that her kids back in Columbia can get an education...and one by one they
are now joining her. So much for stereotypes.

Being bigoted is not irreversible. If you want to overcome it, it requires
you to forget stereotypes and make an attempt to truly understand people
and to realize that most people are more alike than different...more like
your family than you'd like to believe. Make an effort, please.

[ScottW]

"Harry Lavo" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

Harry Lavo wrote:

Every time I start to craft a reply to you or Scott, I want to throw up.

Naked racism is hard to digest.

Typical response when your position can't be substantiated by facts.
Resort to slander. I'm used to it...in spite of the diversity of my
immediate family.
**** off, Harry...you're a foolish old man.

If the shoe fits......

Read my reply to Bret. The fact that you have a black son-in-law, however
laudable, doesn't mean you can't be a racist.

You don't know **** about my family and you're the last POS
I'd bother trying to educate.


My parents had a black son-in-law, and they could not bring themselves to have
the wedding in their city.

So you come from a racist background.
I see now...don't project your issues to me.

They accepted him, but not without racial stereotypes at work. My sister is
a poor housekeeper -- but it was always his fault the house was messy in my
mothers eyes. When their son had problems in high school....it was his fault,
not my sister's (who later was diagnosed with ADD despite her success in
life). And on and on. No matter that he was a college professor who went on
to become Dean of the College. That's stereotyping. That's racism.

When applied on a much broader scale...it is still racism.

It isn't racism to want to save people from your malicious benevolence.

The data is clear. Too much government assistance just traps
people in a cycle of dependance. It isn't my fault that you're to
weak minded to see the facts of the matter.

And let me tell you about what it means to be poor and black and how social
factors influence life for the poor....

My brother-in-law was raised on the south side of Chicago...a notorious black
slum. He lived with a grandmother, mother, two sisters. An absentee father,
who visited with the kids ocassionally.
His mother worked. All three kids went to college...he went on to graduate
studies. Ah, you say...work ethic. My brother-in-laws opinion? Had his
grandmother died earlier, he likely would have ended up selling groceries in
the 'hood, or perhaps running with one of the local gangs. Why? Because with
his mother working and no grandmother to take care of the kids, their lives
would have fallen apart...no one at home after school, an exhausted mother
trying to do it all including supporting the family, cooking, cleaning,
etc...and he and the girls...especially him would have been expected to work
to help out the family. That slimmest of margins meant the difference
between success and failure for him...not my opinion...his. No such thing as
free child care. No such thing as after-school programs. If the mother stayed
home to make sure the kids were okay.....you'd call her a welfare queen.

I'm happy it worked out for your brother-in-law.
But the data remains irrefutable.

http://www.city-journal.com/html/15_3_black_family.html
http://www.fumento.com/greatsociety.html
http://www.ifeminists.net/introducti...15roberts.html
http://www.taemag.com/issues/article...cle_detail.asp
http://www.american-partisan.com/col.../qtr2/0506.htm

How about this...Sharp reductions in child poverty due to
WELFARE REFORM.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1661.cfm


Want another example?

No...your silly little one of anecdotes are meaningless
when discussing what is best for society. The data is
voluminous showing that government welfare programs
contributed to the breakdown of the family which in turn
leads to poverty. There is even data now showing
that the failure of preceding generations of parents
has resulted in a decline of marriage worthy young
black men extending the problem to subsequent
generations.

Would you knowingly poison the lives of
millions for the betterment of very few?
Apparently you would.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Herr Ludwig schrieb:

Why do you assume it's laudable? The numbers and personal observation
tell me that in general, interracial marriages are a horrible thing
more often than not. The offspring are often unhappy, rootless people
that don't quite fit anywhere.

Look at the politics of Irish-Polish-Balkan Chicago and
Irish-Italian-Jew NYC. Then consider the Founding Fathers who were all
of British stock.

And largely they continue in their own societies here. They cause
little trouble and most people basically like them. But if they were to
become dominant demographically America would quickly change-in ways
most Americans of today (read:whites) would find stultifying.

It's as much the other way around: our genes contain culture gone to
seed. Enforced behavior patterns favor some at the expense of others,
so culture becomes written in DNA over generations. Very few Ashkenazi
Jews are downright stupid, because the truly dumb were kept from
marrying and breeding. Very few Japanese are truly independent
thinkers because rebels either were not allowed to marry or met with
the sharp edge of a samurai sword.

The teen pregnancy rates of mestizas are horrific by white standards
because that is the nature of these people. Evil? Well, the
irresistability of early pregnancy was probably a good thing when the
death rate was what it was among the New World Indians, even before
Europeans introduced disease. But it is not so good in an advanced
civilization.

Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba are all largely dysfunctional societies.
Puerto Rico is a pit: we should give it back to Spain or give it
independence.

I would rather make an effort to understand, if different groups of
people behave and perform differently, why this is so and moreover if
this fact appears to result in negative trends in my society, how it
can be prevented.

The blacks didn't ask to be brought here. Some are undisputably fine
individuals who fit into a Western society well, others have proven
they do not, will not and can not. In either case the important thing
is to provide policies and practices that will let the best of our
people reach their full potential and to preserve and defend the
republic and the rights of its citizens. I believe in equal rights
under the law, but not equality of people in the mental, emotional,
physical, financial or creative senses. No two of us are equal, and
bringing anyone down to the level of others only kills the whole
society.

LOL! Excellent satire.

I've never met a eugenicist before. You must have met at least one in
order to satirize that worn-out train of thought so succintly. Where
did this professor of eugenics get his/her degree? Was it one of these?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_eugenicists

Or did you simply glean this info from the postings of toopid?

And finally, you seem to have absolutely settled the Nature vs Nurture
debate. Have you published the results of your 'work' yet? There are
many who would be interested.