I guess I should be pleased by this, but somehow it just seems irrelevant. I thought Will Saletan's certainty and his clarification on this issue, were lacking. I don't much care what David Duke puts on his website. I think Gates is shockingly simplistic in some of his analysis. His "If black kids studied calculus like the studied basketball, we'd run the world" is just stupid. Virtually all kids would want to study basketball more than calculus. Some are lucky to have parents with time to push them in the right direction.
Anyway, my reasons for not engaging in this debate are basically emotional. I went to public schools all my life, surrounded by black kids who kicked my ass when it came to school work. I don't know if they were smarter, or if I was smarter. I know I saw the world in ways that they couldn't. But I also know that, in terms of the intelligence that mattered, the intelligence that sends kids to good colleges, many of them had me beat, flat-out. I've since gone out into the world, and worked in a profession where an Ivy League degree is damn near a prerequisite. No disrespect, and certainly no nod to the populist anti-intellectualism, but I'm not impressed. In my childhood I knew too many sharp black kids, and in my adulthood, I've known too many dumb white folks, to fiddle with this argument. I know that's not a solid argument. But it's where I'm at, and about all the mental energy I'm willing to expend on this. Maybe I need an IQ test too.
« "An inadequate black male..." | Main | Something just occurred to me » Gates whipping up on Watson02 Jun 2008 10:14 am Comments (12)
I was just talking about this issue, well, kind of. A friend of mine and I got into an argument about whether "the niggas"--those of a lower, let's say intellectual level, should be left behind in trying to build up the black race. I argued, no, that's awful, and a limited way of looking at things, precisely because of arguments like what both Gates AND Watson said. The thing I can't ever figure out is WHAT is the standard of intelligence and upward mobility that is so desired by those who believe that blacks are inferior? Is it REALLY so simple as spending more time doing calculus than playing basketball? I'm a 27 year old black man and I suck at BOTH basketball and calculus. So what does that mean in terms of my genes? And beyond my genes, what does that say about my contribution to society? Why are we in this country so focused on determining success in such square terms, particularly in regards to black people, both from within and without? I find the continued narrowness of these discussions to be alienating and beneath the intelligence of so-called intellectuals--somebody find the gene for that. 
How much can really expect from Gates, though? "Shockingly simplistic" is exactly his MO. He's built his reputation on stepping "bravely" into these kinds of conversations, and concluding, basically, that poor black folk have brought this on themselves. (See his Africa documentary, as well as the one on the black underclass.) He's in the DNA business now and the appearance of the Watson interview this morning struck me as slef-seving more than anything else.
I don't know why you see that as Gates going on Watson. He goes out of his way to say the man isn't a racist, than wrings his hands about how terrible it would be if being "not a racist" in the way that Watson is not a racist became popular.
This post is really spot-on. A huge function of Ivy League schools is to legitimate the people that come out of them. Everything they do is by definition top-level, appearences to the contrary notwithstanding.
Thanks for posting this. I stumbled on this blog after Kathy G linked it and the Atlantic Monthly article on Bill Cosby and it is fantastic! I am surprised that your post and the responses focus on Gates and the "pull yourself by your bootstraps" sort of argument. I think that Gates arguing against the biological determinism that this racialist thinking encourages. You could draw a parallel to Cosby, who makes a similar argument, but I think there is a key difference. Gates is talking about genes and biology, while Cosby is talking about a determinism that stems from racial discrimination. To me, Cosby's argument requires us to downplay the effects of racism, and I don't see Gates making any such claim. Quite to the contrary, he dismisses Watson's individualism as naive because it is doesn't take social and historical realities into account. I think what is most important here, and what we can't ignore, are the ways that science is being used to legitimize racist thought. I'm a little embarrassed to say it, but Saletan's series of articles in Slate shook me to my core. Cloaked in the language of objectivity and science, not to mention the legitimacy of appearing in a mainstream publication (Slate is owned by the Washington Post after all) Saletan made some shockingly racist claims. What made Saletan's piece so difficult was that he described those who disagreed with him as "liberal creationists," who are no different than anti-evolution advocates. They (and I don't mean to go all culture wars here)cling to the bible and we (again, sorry) cling to our political correctness. In the article, Watson makes a similar claim, stating that just because we wish everyone to be equal, doesn't make it so. Saletan's piece was shabbily researched and terribly written, but I think this dichotomy he sets up -evidence and truth on one side, faith and wishful thinking on the other- is quite effective. I think that Gate's aim was to challenge this view of science as objective, rational, and completely removed from outside influences. Those are IDEALS, and scientists are PEOPLE who strive to meet them. The use of pseudo science to justify racist thinking is nothing new, but that doesn't make it any less scary to me. Vested stake or not, I'm really glad to see Gates challenge it.
Look, the scientific facts are the scientific facts, and they won't change whether we "like " them or not. That said, science simply hasn't come to a conclusion as to whether different racial and ethnic groups are differently enabled intellectually. Indeed, there is much evidence against it.
That's about where I'm at. From a totally abstract, biological perspective, the discussion about "group differences" is vaguely interesting, but I just don't think it bears at all on public policy. I scored stupid-high on my various standarized tests, and mostly what I've learned (to my disappointment) since college is that hard-work >> intelligence.
The government gives special funding to those who are physically handicapped, and it only follows that it should give special funding to those who are mentally handicapped from being born with the wrong genes. Say, a twenty thousand dollar a year stipend if you're born of the 'wrong' race. (Suddenly, faced with the prospect of higher taxes to support an expanded welfare state, all the "I'm not a racist" racists have grown silent . . . .)
In my senior year in college my Quantum Mechanics professor (whom I think was one of the smartest professors I have met thus far) asked me a question that I am sure a lot of people in the science field ponder with. He asked me why is it that African immigrants like me come here and excel so well academically but the native AA's seem to excel mostly in sports? The question seemed appropriate since my campus was located in a heavily AA urban community yet, no one in my Chemistry graduating class (Chemistry, BS) was an American born AA and none has been for the past three years. (Indeed,we only had 3 white Americans in my class of 16, the rest were African immigrants, Indians and Asians.) There were five African immigrants in my class. One was the best student with a 3.9 GPA and another two were in the top 7. the other 2 were just getting by. My answer to his question was family and culture. Most people think that its only the Jews and the Asians that excel academically but the fact is when you break the "black" pool down to the different communities that make up the term "black" in America, African immigrants excel better academically than any other immigrant pool-including Asians-not just in the US but in Canada, Europe and the UK. They undoubtedly face similar economic hardship and racial prejudice just like AA. The main reason for their success when compared to AA is their culture and strong family emphasis on academic success. Growing up in Nigeria, I recall that the guy who gets the most girls is either the smartest "nerd" or the richest kid. Genes have nothing to do with it. Its amazing what difference having a parent/family/community/culture that pushes you to excel academically or in sports can do especially if they start pushing you earlier on in life. I agree with TWA, IQ has very little to do with it. HARD WORK = INTELLIGENCE.
Hey Ta-Nehisi, the AP just called this whole primary enchilada for Obama. Your thoughts? A new post, please!
Breuk, Im sorry. Check out above.
|
Subscribe to Ta-Nehisi Coates by Email 
Trailer for The Beautiful Struggle  Monthly Archives
Recent Posts
Keepin It UnrealStanley Crouch Is A Gangsta RapperConfessions of a 30-Year-Old GamerRice, Rice, Baby!Compa$$ionate Capitali$MJust Another Quick-Witted, Egg-Roll-Joke-Making, Insult-Hurling, Chinese-American RapperThe Irrelevant Rev. SharptonWal-Mart's Urban RomanceBlack and Blue |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Man, I just hate this argument. It philosophically crosses my belief that making an assessment of each person makes ME more successful. But also it just might be my biggest 'so-what?'. If I were to fight through the cultural and academic bias of testing; the relevance of findings to success; and the probability of racist motivation, I'd have no idea what to do with the findings.
Posted by asl | June 2, 2008 10:44 AM