A PA Reader Says We Can`t Deal With Racial Differences, So What`s The Point? Steve Sailer Replies


NOTE: PLEASE say if you DON`T want your name and/or
email address published when sending VDARE email.


10/28/07 – A New York Reader And
Massachusetts Native Calls ESPNS` Peter Gammons A Guilty
WASP Elitist

From:

Wolfgang Zernik (e-mail
him)



Re: Steve Sailer`s Column:

James D. Watson—Broken By The PC Inquisition, Betrayed
By The Religious Right



 


As Sailer wrote in his

2002 column
, the kind of persecution Watson is
experiencing goes back almost thirty years.


In 1969 psychologist

Arthur Jensen
published an article in the Harvard
Educational Review
[PDF]
showing the relation between

IQ
and race. The reaction was the same then as
now—death threats, interference with lectures and
classes, attempts to have him fired.


Sailer may be right that new genetic research may soon
make the case indisputable.


However, the lack of scientific evidence has never been
the issue.


The real problem Sailer should tackle is this: society
has no way to treat the recognition that one racial
group is intellectually inferior to others.


I mean simply no way to deal with it, legally,
constitutionally or morally. We are not Nazis, after
all, and are not likely to become like them. Why not
discuss important issues?


If we ever get to

the point
where we are forced to acknowledge that
people of African descent are on average far less
intelligent than whites or Asians, what do we do then?


Zernik is a long-time friend of



VDARE.COM
. His previous columns and letters are



here.
 




Steve Sailer
responds:


Q.

How do we deal with it?


A.

We deal with it.


I don`t want seem flippant, but this is the kind of question that
sounds more important than it is. Human beings have a
lot of practice coping with reality.


What we`re not terribly good at is intellectualizing reality. So
we get ourselves tied up in knots over mundane
theoretical questions.


We deal with hereditary inequality all the time. Look at the



National Football League
, America`s most popular
spectator sport. Every time you turn on your TV on
Sunday, your lying eyes tell you that the intellectual
orthodoxy about every race being exactly the same is
hooey.


According to the



Caste Football
website, at the beginning of the 2007
season,

none of the 32 starting tailbacks and none of
the 64 starting cornerbacks were white. Prejudice
probably plays a role in why the figures for those
positions are 0 out of 96 rather than, say, 5 or 10 out
of 96. But clearly, there must be some genetic
differences that make blacks better at those positions
on average.


Does this mean the end of the world as we know it, or at least the
end of the NFL?


Nah.


The NFL just goes on being vastly popular despite racial
differences being so vividly illustrated in its games.
People deal with it.


As I pointed out in VDARE.com in



2003
, better intellects than mine have thought hard
about the meaning of the phrase "All men are created
equal
."


The Catholic apologist and genius G.K. Chesterton



wrote
in 1922:


"The



Declaration of Independence

dogmatically bases all
rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and
it is right; for if they were not created equal, they
were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for
democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of
man."

[What
I Saw In America
, Chapter 19]


Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration probably meant
something similarly sophisticated.


Unfortunately, they didn`t quite end up saying that.


The great computer scientist



John McCarthy
, the inventor of the LISP programming
language for artificial intelligence, once told me that
if Jefferson had asked him to debug the most famous
sentence from the Declaration of Independence, he`d add
the word "in" between "equal" and "that."
Then it would read:


"We hold these truths
to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, in
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness."


Heresy, I realize. But Abraham Lincoln effectively offered the
same



explanation
:


"I think the authors of
that notable instrument intended to include all men, but
they did not intend to declare all men equal in all
respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in
color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social
capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness, in
what respects they did consider all men created
equal—equal in `certain inalienable rights, among which
are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.`"


So let`s not get ourselves all tangled up trying to interpret
literally a phrase that Jefferson wrote during
back-to-back all-nighters!