Peter Grant put up a Fred-Reed-inspired post about race relations in the U.S.; on the {race | culture | structure} question, he (as one might expect) put a lot of weight on social structure and perverse incentives driving dysfunctional culture, and little or none on race per se.
The very first comment pins it all on race. Many of the subsequent ones advocate sending 'em all back to Africa where they belong, or various flavors of Apartheid.
Which, given the years and blood Peter spent fighting against Apartheid? I don't think this is at all the response he was looking for.
Me? As my alignment is strongly Individualist, not Collectivist, I reject race-based policies on principle. It is reasonable (not necessarily right, mind you, but reasonable) to believe that as there are differences in temperament and ability among breeds of dogs, so there may be among breeds of men; and yet, these (assuming they exist) are statistical differences, and there's substantial overlap between the bell curves. It makes no sense to assert that, statistically speaking, Goober Cletusson is smarter and better than Condoleezza Rice* and should automatically be her boss.
...And you just know that, Real Soon Now, some of these same people will be wanting to clap me in parentheses and put me on the train to Happy Fun Camp.
* Why can't Those People have normal, easy-to-spell names? Like Gudrun Sigurdsdottir or something?
Comments