Chance

African American and Black American

African American and Black American

By Chance Kelsey, chancellorfiles.com

Some mixed race people in the multiracial movement feel that there is a difference between the African American ethnic group and black race of America. They feel that the African American ethnic group is made up of mixed race people who are part black mixed with white, or part black mixed with other ethnic groups. And, they feel that the black American race is made up of monoracial blacks.

First of all what is the criteria and measuring stick that is used to determine what is a monoracial black person or how mixed percentage wise to qualify as a member of the African American ethnic group? What does a member of the of the “Black American race” look like in phenotype?

If a black American has a dark black skin color like actor Wesley Snipes or dark skin like actress Whoopi Goldberg would this make them members of the Black American race? If a person has the skin color of Singer El Debarge or actress Vanessa Williams does this make them a member of the African American ethnic group but not a member of the black race? Actors Vin Diesel, Wentworth Miller, and Jennifer Beals all three have black fathers and white mothers – but all three these people look non black. Wentworth Miller has an octoroonic phenotype and shows no signs of black ancestry, Vin Diesel and Jennifer Beals have quadroonic phenotypes that make both of them look like Italians, Arabs, or Mediterranean white.

Would these three considered a part of the African American ethnic group because they are biracial, and not allowed to be apart of the black race because they are not dark enough in skin tone (dark black skin). Basketball player Sofoklis Schortsanitis father is white (Greek) and his mother is black (Cameroon, Africa), and Sofoklis is very Dark skin, and at six feet 10 inches tall very unintentionally intimidating. So if Sofoklis was born and raised in America would be a part of the black American race or the African American ethnic group or both since he is biracial?

There are biracial Americans who have one black parent and one white parent but come out dark skin, and look totally black. No matter where they go on the planet people will say these people are black. Do these dark sin black biracials qualify to be apart of the African American ethnic group which is made up of mixed race people according to certain multiracial people? These multiracial advocates also claim that the African American ethnic group is made up of all kinds of skin complexions from light skin, yellow, yellowish red, Carmel brown skin, beige, white, brown and even dark skin mixed race people.

Now the question is this? If a dark skin black man or woman claims to be mixed, and is considered apart of the African America ethnic group of mixed people because he or she said they have some white or non black ethnic group ancestry from relatives who lived long ago – how will you be able to verify this? You definitely can’t go by their phenotypes (physical appearance) because their physical appearances look overwhelmingly black. Whoopi Goldberg had an took an DNA test, and it came back 92% sub Saharan African (black) and 8% European and Rev T.D. Jakes took an DNA test and it came back 100% sub Saharan African, Jakes test revealed he descended from Igbo tribe of Nigeria – so does both of them qualify to join and be a part of the African American ethnic group? Both Jakes and Whoopi have dark skin.

If a dark skin black who has two black parents and is labeled a member of the “Black American race” what about those dark skin blacks who are biracial and can’t be distinguished from a dark skin black that was born to two black parents. What would be the measuring stick that would determine which of these dark skin blacks are left labeled as black – and the other labeled as a member of the African American ethnic group of mixed people? Going around asking strangers about their ethnic back group is considered rude if they don’t know you. AFRICAN AMERICAN The name African American speaks volumes in and of itself. Africa is a continent, and when the average person here the name Africa they think of black people with dark skin. They seldom think of Arabs, whites, Jews, and other racial group living in Africa.

On top of that you can’t walk up to a black American and tell him or her that they are not allowed to use the names African American, Africa America, or Afrocentic. The African evokes images of blackness not mixed raceness.  If you keep calling yourself an African American in America you will be perceived as black, and a member of the black race of America like it or not. It carries no weight that some scholar may have said that African America is an ethnic group and black race is a racial group.

Calling yourself an African American has never caused anyone to be viewed as separate from the black race, and it does not protect you from racial discrimination that is directed towards people who have black ancestry that is visible. Matter of fact it opens you up to potential racial discrimination. A black American has every right to call himself an African American.   Let the so African American ethnic group try to stop a black man from calling himself an African American. He will let them know that he has a right to do this. If multiracial advocates who try to convince mixed people to continue calling themselves African Americans -- keep thinking that society is viewing them as separate from the black American race they are dreaming. As long as Americans continue to practice the ODR (one drop rule) that says if you have black ancestry especially if it is visible then you are black is in affect -- you will be seen a member of the black race.

Change your name change your destiny. Words are qualifiers, and words produce effects on the psyche (mind), and African American produce images of blackness not mixedness. Find another name that is not connected with being seen as a black person only.

Yahoo answers quote: It sounds as if you -- like many other members of our society -- really need to try to begin to understand that the 'African-American' (AA) 'Ethnic' group is *not* the same group as the’Black American' (BA) 'Race' group -- that the two (2) terms are *not* synonymous and that the two (2) terms should *not* be used inter-changeably. We are *not* speaking of ‘semantics’ here – but rather – the BAs & AAs are two different groups of people.

The AAs are the (largely Mixed-Race) ETHNIC group. The BAs are the (Mono-Raced) RACE group. As confusing as it seems -- the U.S. government [due to racism & wanting to stigmatize the part of their lineage that was from Africa which, by the way, is only one part of their lineage] --- has labeled those individuals who are the known "descendents of the survivors" of the system of chattel-slavery found in the USA as being AAs (the hyphen is used in reference to acknowledging the fact that most of them are Mixed-Race, with African & non-African blood lines)

AND has labeled those people who are "volitional immigrants" who are directly from places such as the continent of African, the West Indies, etc. -- as being BAs (with the word 'Black' used in reference to acknowledging the fact that they are of a Mono-racial full-Black lineage). In addition, it should also be remembered that – although some AAs adhere to a socio-political ‘identity’ that is often described by the slang term of “black”—the AAs are actually *not* a "Race" group at all -- but rather they *are* a largely Mixed-Race 'Ethnic' group (and the socio-political ‘identity’ that a person chooses *does not* change their racially-mixed ancestral lineage).

Most (+70%) of the people born to two (2) parents who are of the AA ‘Ethnic’ group are are of a Multi-Racially ‘Mixed’ (MGM) lineage – while the people to two (2) parents who are of the BA ‘Racial’ group – on the other hand – are of a Mono-Racially ‘Black’ lineage.

There is a big difference between a largely Multi-racial 'Ethnic' group and between a Mono-racial 'Race group. In addition, there is also a big difference between one's socio-political 'identity' (ex. "black") and one's ancestral racial 'lineage' (ex. 'Mixed'). Just because a person adheres to a given socio-political 'identity' does *not* change the composition of their ancestral 'lineage'.

Also -- the 'One-Drop' Rule (the false teaching that 'any amount' of Black ancestral lineage make a person "full black") is nothing more than pure-racism. The racist 'One-Drop Rule' (used only by the United States government, by the way) was created during the antebellum, chattel-slavery era by White racial supremacist in order to get people to believe the false racist myth that the so-called White "race" was "pure" and to falsely view the Black "racial" admixture (even the slightest amount) within someone's ancestral lineage as being "tainted".

To embrace the 'One-Drop Rule' is the equivalent of BOTH embracing "racism" and embracing the false teaching that a Mixed-Race person's Black lineage is "tainted".

My advice is that a non-Racist should *not* embrace the concept of the 'One-Drop Rule' -- as "Black blood" is *not* "tainted" -- and should never be perceived or embraced as being so (not even in the name of so-called "pride" and "unity"). In addition, legally-speaking, attempted forcible application of the racist 'One-Drop Rule' -- against any individual or group -- was made illegal and ruled as unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in 1967 via the case of 'Loving vs. The State of Virginia'.

Through the 'Loving vs. Virginia' case, the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled against both all of the laws banning Interracial marriage -- and -- also ruled that any so-called law which forcibly applied the 'One Drop Rule' -- was racist, discriminatory, illegal, unconstitutional, and non-enforcible.

Written during the 21st century by Chancellor (Chance)

Barack Obama and His Bi racial Advantage

Barack Obama and His Bi racial Advantage

By Chance Kelsey, chancellorfiles.com

Senator Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucus over Democratic Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Many blacks, whites, and non whites where shocked. Many thought Hillary Clinton would finish first.

I have always felt that by Barack Obama being bi racial and acknowledging his white ancestry, and having been raised in white American culture has been his main asset. Obama also was raised in Indonesian culture, when he was a little boy he lived for a while in Indonesia. Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4th, 1961 to a white mother and a black father. Barack Obama’s father was from Kenya, and his name was Barack Obama (senior).

Obama’s mother sent him to live with her parents in Kansas City, Missouri for awhile when he was a little boy. He was basically raised in white culture, and combine that with the fact, that he lived and went to school in Indonesia as a kid for a short time makes Obama more of an internationalist in culture than an African American (black American) in culture.

Many people don’t want to admit the fact that the major reason that many white Americans feel comfortable and like Obama is because he is not an African American (black American) in culture. Obama does not come across as the angry black man who dislikes whites. Rev. Jesse Jackson ran for president in the early 1980s, and he did not generate a lot of support and affection among white democratic voters nor admiration from many white republicans, and lack of white support from among other whites who vote libertarian.

Now Rev. Jesse Jackson is a very popular civil rights activist, and many blacks like him and admire him. The reason Jackson did not generate the type of admiration from whites is because Jesse Jackson is a part of the old civil rights establishment from the 1960s. Many white conservatives view him as hostile and at odds with them. White Democratic voters knew that Jackson was not electable because he was guaranteed to lose if he ran against the republican nominee for president (Ronald Regan). Adding to that many white conservative republicans were against him because of his pro black civil rights activism.

Therefore, Jackson did not get the Democratic nomination to run for president. Al Sharpton ran for president in 2004, and like Jackson did not receive the democratic presidential nomination to represent the Democratic Party. Like Jackson, Sharpton was seen by white conservative republicans as hostile and pro black, and therefore Democrats knew that electing Sharpton would guarantee that many white conservatives would show up at the voting poll to vote against him. Jesse and Al are both Reverends (religious ministers), both are civil rights leaders, pro black, have caramel brown skin, leaders their own organizations, and are admired by many black Americans. Not all blacks admire them but many do.

Obama is very different he has no connection to black slaves because his mother is white and his father is from Kenya Africa. He was raised in white culture and Indonesian culture, he acknowledges that he is bi racial and respects his white ancestry, not hostile towards whites, does not come across as obsessed with being pro black only, comes across as being friendly to all ethnic groups, and he is a young and from a younger generations that has and continue to produce a lot bi racial kids. 

I feel that deep down many whites (not all) will accept a man with visible black ancestry but is mixed looking in phenotype if he or she acknowledges their European or mixed race ancestry. Claiming to be black only, in the minds of whites automatically puts you to a major degree in the category of black. Therefore, whites are not obligated to acknowledge and negotiate politically with people who are mixed race but have phenotypes stereotyped black.

Obama has visible black ancestry and caramel brown skin, and he is admired by many blacks, whites, and members of other ethic groups. The fact that many whites embrace and like Barack Obama shows that there is a unique link – that connects Obama in a way with white Americans, and in which no other major political figure with visible black ancestry has every connected with whites.

The missing link is publicly acknowledging you have white European ancestry. Many black politicians and civil rights leaders who have white ancestry like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Julian Bond, Adam Clayton Powell Jr. etc were forced to only live and claim black their first self identity or risk loosing the black vote, and influence they have among blacks.

Black politics currently still demand that you self identify as black only if you are going to seek the black vote or black influence. Obama is one of the few who has managed to stay in the middle.            

Light skin blacks, bi racials, and black America in general should acknowledge their mixed race ancestry. This will help gradually eliminate racial tensions. Whites have showed that they as a collective are willing to acknowledge mixed race people if the mixed race people acknowledge their European, Asian, native American, and other ancestries.

I predict another land mark that will manifest -- will be the creation of a mixed race category or some category on the government census and job applications that acknowledge us mixed race people.   

Notice Obama is not a quadroon in phenotype, and this proves, you don’t have to look totally white in appearance to get acknowledged as a mixed race person.

Rise up my mixed race brethren and sisteren the future look bright for us.

Written during the 21st century by your Chancellor (Chance)

Black Parents Who Publicly Humiliate Their Children

Black Parents Who Publicly Humiliate Their Children

By Chance Kelsey, chancellorfiles.com

I witnessed a very unfortunate situation Thursday night. I had just left a fast food restaurant named Wienerschnitzel (pronounced wener snitshall), and stood at the stop light. I was standing at the stop light facing the north waiting to cross the street to go to starbucks and get some coffee. I noticed coming across the street from stop light in the North direction was a black man, black woman, and a black boy about the age of four or five years old. As they walked across the street the boy was walking fast and ahead of his parents, the father started saying slow your blacks ass down, wait, bring your black ass here, you’re black these cars can’t see your black ass at night.

I watched but did not make eye contact with the mother, father, or the little boy. I observed in an undercover way so they would not feel I was trying to eavesdrop (over hear) on what the father was saying. I did not want the little boy to know I heard what was said to him.

When they had made it across the street they sat down on a boulder that was located under a tree about 15 to 20 feet behind me. The father was wearing a gray wool cap that looked like a beanie, blue jeans, and gray jacket and the mother had on blue jean jacket, blue jean pants, and the boy had on a gray jacket, blue pants, and his hair was short. All three had on dark color shirts but it was to dark to what colors the shirts were. All three had caramel brown skin complexions.

The mother did not ask the father to stop talking to her son like that. This could possibly mean that she treat the child like that also.   

I felt sad for the little boy -- he was a handsome young kid. I was glad that there were no other people around. I said to myself I am light skin, and I can be seen at night. So the father implying that black people who are dark skin and Carmel brown skin only, and can’t be seen at night well this only happens once in a while to a black person at night. I have some black ancestry, and I shine like the average Mestizo Latino (mixed with white and Native Indian) at night time.

I will admit that yes it is true – that sometimes a black person who has dark skin or caramel brown skin if in certain dimly lit areas can not be seen – this is rare. The average person can be seen at night. When a crime happens at night you will notice that the witnesses often are able to give a description along with the skin complexion of the assailant.

I understand the concern the father had for his son – but to embarrass him like that was uncalled for. I also feel that the father does this often to his son in public. I have seen many black women call their kids black mother fucker, nigger, black ass, and talk rude to them in front of other back people and people from other racial groups. I have seen black men do this also. They don’t even have the decency to wait to they get home (to yell at their kids).

This is one of the reasons many black kids grow up to dislike their parents or parent who raised them. The father and mother both looked like the ghetto type black folks. I have noticed it is mostly ghetto type blacks who say these things in public to their kids. I have seen some middle class blacks do this but not many, mostly ghetto type blacks.

The father’s tone of voice when he was calling his son black ass had strong vibration of disgust and dislike for black people in it. His subconscious mind he was revealing a type of secret dislike for his own race. I am not saying he hates blacks totally – but there is a side of him that seems to dislike black people too some degree.

Often I have seen when blacks get angry with blacks they call them “niggers” and other names that many other ethnic groups call blacks when they want to be offensive towards blacks. Black Americans need to be careful about saying these things in public to their children. It also, makes intelligent blacks not want to associate with blacks who can’t act civil in public. I wonder whether or not the man was actually the little boy’s real father or just his mother’s boyfriend?

I respect all of those good black parents and single parents who wait to get home to chastise their kids – because it should be done at home and not for public display.

It is not good to publicly humiliate, embarrass, scream at, and insult your children in public.      

I hope the little boy grows up to be a great man and successful in life.

Written during the 21st century by Chancellor (chance)

Shattered Family Dreams and Wishing For Death

December 17, 2007
Praying For Death Because of Shattered Family Dreams

by Anthony Bradley

The past few weeks I've have had a surprising number of conversations with men (in their 20s and 30s) who have confessed that they have seriously asked for, and even prayed for, death. And it's all been for one reason: The "family dream" that they were sold as kids has not happened. On the surface things look great, but peel back one layer and you find excruciating pain. "Hey, bor how's it going?" "Fine," the liar says. "Just fine."

Families like the Keatons and the Cosbys (like the Cleavers and Nelsons of a previous generation) were presented as the pinnacle and fullest expression of life on earth.This is what you want fellas, a beautiful wife, a few kids, a nice house, a good job. . .then comes retirement, grandchildren and you die a fulfilled man. Ahh, what a life!

Guess what? Lots of guys are finding out the hard way that in the real world having the perfect "American family" image is the rare exception. Here's the truth: lots of guys I know are in completely miserable marriages, many (I mean MANY) wives have committed adultery, kids have chronic illnesses, guys hate their jobs are stuck because of debt, divorced (even though they swore they were not going to do what their parents did by splitting up), many wives want to leave their husbands because they don't make enough money, lots of "great guys" never marry, many can't get over addictions because after praying for 12-15 years they've discovered that it "doesn't work," depression, dealing with their own sexual abuse at a late age, mulling over a very long list of regrets, wanting to pack it all up and go "into the wild," your daughter has a reputation for being a "slut," your son's already a pot head, etc. And for guys that I talk to who aren't Christians or part of any religious tradition some of the issues are worse than these.

Or even worse, you could be one of those guys whose wife just cuts him down and emasculates regularly (daily).

I don't always know how to respond to hearing "bro, I want to die," knowing that the guy is serious. Very serious. How were men taught to handle the dreams and expectations that never come true. How much of it is evny, the "grass is greener syndrome, or mystery?

A few of us are growing in our ability to stomach being in the presence of those men who acquired the ideal existence as advertised--the annointed ones. It's not their fault they had it easy and continue to have it easy (or at least they put off like they do). This one guy recently talked about how easy it is for the annointed to believe that God loves them but it's very hard for those who circumstances are constantly hard and painful, "the cursed," walk in "grace." What's ever worse is that the guys that do all the teaching in churches are the ones who appear to have the "ideal" as advertised and that its working out perfectly. So the "perfect" life guys are completely ignored by the rest. "Of course you can preach about God's love, look how easy your life is."

Another guy said once, "yeah it's really easy for me to see how God loves other guys, just look at his wife and kids, their nearly perfect." What do you say to that? But easy riders will say, "No, I can relate, my wife and I get into fights all the time." And they guy who just caught his wife cheating (again) just rolls his eyes and says, "yeah, wow, whew that's hard stuff for ya."

So what the great American lie has produced is a profound cynicism. A cynicism that tempts men what to end their life. Being a kid is so awesome because you're often oblivious to destruction that is guaranteed to visit most of us and will completely avoid others--a profound mystery.

I know one guy who says that he's trying to get over his refusal to even have a conversation with one of the annointed. He hasn't had much respect for them as men. I know this one guy who asked, "if you can't have kids, what's the point of being alive?" Ahhhh, to spend the rest of life quarantined in the "40-plus" singles group at your church for local service projects, camping trips, and Bible studies."

What are we suppose to say to this? I guess the Christian cliches will do. Fellas, I wish I had more answers.

http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/064454.html 

This is a very interesting article written by Anthony Bradley, he currently works as a professor.

Honorary White Status

Honorary White Status

By Chance Kelsey, chancellorfiles.com

Barack Obama has visible black ancestry, and he is accepted as white in culture. Former NFL football player OJ Simpson had an honorary white status -- but no more, due to whites believing he killed his ex-wife (Nicole Brown Simpson) and Ronald Goldman (Nicole and Ronald were white). Asians, Latinos, and all other non whites have an honorary white status in America.

Only black Americans are seen as not having an honorary white status. One of the major reasons why other ethnic groups have an honorary white status is because -- they have had many members from their racial groups show open dislike and hostility towards blacks. When Italians first can to America many white Anglo Saxon Americans did not view them as white.

They viewed them as mixed race (Italians). Also there were certain whites who viewed Italians as a type of black people because some Italians had black ancestry due to blacks inter marrying into the Italian population hundreds of years ago. Some of these blacks had been slaves and after slavery they married into the Italian and Sicilian populations. Some blacks immigrated into Italy, and inter married with Italians. The Irish when they first came to America in large numbers as immigrants they were treated very badly by whites also. Asians who were Chinese, Japanese, etc where treated unkindly by many whites and so were Latinos. All ethnic groups progressed through hard work and effort in America.

At the same time the major reason many of these ethnic groups are given an honorary white status is because they have shown open hostility towards black Americans. On top of that whites don’t fear them like they fear blacks. Native Americans are accepted into main stream white American culture too. Certain Native American tribes have kicked out their black Indians, and this is a sign of open hostility towards blacks.

The American government has forced certain Native American tribes to take their black Indian back into the tribe. If they did not do it the government would have cut off their federal funding. Certain blacks reactive an honorary white status but these are isolated individuals, and not the collective black race of America. Some blacks are given this status because they have shown open hostility towards blacks -- so they can get something out of whites. And, other blacks receive the status because of education, economics, culture, middle class, business ownership, association with whites by way of social circles, etc. There is nothing wrong with an honorary white status, the question how did you get?

Former military Colin Powell has an honorary white status and he disagrees with certain white conservatives on some issues. Yet currently he is still admired and respected by white conservatives and whites in general. Colin Powell is a conservative, and has a way of speaking and delivering his opinions that come across as not being mean spirited, and many whites respect him for that.

It is also, an interesting reality, that all of the non white ethnic groups in America owe a lot of their progress to black Americans and mixed race Americans (those mixed with black and white or black and some other racial group especially if those mixed with black and white). Blacks and mixed race fought to gain civil rights, equal opportunity, education, political power, more voting power, etc for themselves and all non whites. If life was beautiful in the countries were many of these non whites come from then why come here to the United States of America? Why not stay in your own countries and create a strong civil rights movement over their? Instead of fleeing.

The more Americans intermarry and mix with each other the better. Then there will be no need for an honorary white status because many people will have white in them already through mixing.

Written during the 21st century by Chancellor (Chance)

Pretty Yellow and Dark Skin

Pretty Yellow and Dark Skin

By Chance Kelsey, Chancllorfiles.com

The tensions between pretty yellow and dark skin continue to be a problem among blacks. Many dark skin blacks feel that light skin blacks (pretty yellow) have more advantages in America than dark skin blacks. How do we deal with this? As stated skin color is still a problem among black Americans, and it plays out in politics and jobs too. For example, in the political race when Sharon Pratt Dixon ran for mayor of Washington D.C. – some blacks questioned whether or she really understood the issues that affected blacks in Washington D.C., and this was because Sharon was very light skin. Sharon’s skin tone is very white in color.

Senator Barack Obama is bi racial, his mother was white and his father was a black man from Kenya. Some blacks questioned whether or not Obama was black enough to be considered worthy of the black vote while he (Obama) companied as a presidential candidate. Barack Obama has caramel brown skin, and many black Americans have this Carmel brown skin color. This shows and proves that your mannerisms, culture, upbringing, environment, and ideas play a role in whether or not you are seen as being black culturally or white culturally.

Obama is seen as white culturally because when he lived in Kansas he lived I n a white neighborhood with his white grandparents. Obama also, lived in Indonesian for awhile as a little boy and attended school there. So this makes him culturally white American and internationally cultured. Barack Obama acknowledges that he is also black, and he accepts the fact that he is biracial.

When Vanessa Williams was crowned the first black Miss America – some blacks criticized the pageant because the judges elected a woman who was light skin and not black enough. Vanessa William has blue eyes and a Caramel beige skin color. There have been many situations of where the light skin versus dark skin phenomenon has played out I the work place, universities (promotion and hiring and other situations), politics, employment, hip hop music videos, and in the entertainment industry. Many blacks have complained about seeing colorism among blacks manifest to the point of arguments, criticism, favoritism, and fights.

When Washington DC mayor Mayor Marion Barry was under political pressure for drug taking, he tried to get his fair-complexioned wife to have her skin darkened in order to stabilize his waning Black support.

Blacks will never be at peace as long as the one drop rule (ODR) still misclassifies anyone in America who has black blood (visible black ancestry in your phenotype (physical appearance)) as black. One of the ways to stop this unhappiness about skin color among blacks is to establish a mixed race category. Therefore, when Vanessa Williams, Barack Obama, and other like them wil be classified mixed, and they will be referred to as mixed race instead of just black.

This will unset many dark skin blacks and even some caramel brown skin blacks (unless the dark skin and caramel brown skin blacks are blacks are bi racial) because they may complain about pretty yellow (light skin blacks) -- but at the same time they don’t want them to be labeled mixed race either. Blacks understand the advantages they have by having light skin blacks among them.

They don’t want to loose those advantages but they are forced into second place by constantly having light skin blacks among them. Often it is dark skin blacks and certain caramel skin blacks who are in positions to favor light skin blacks over other blacks. Light skin blacks (yellow skin, reddish skin, beige, white looking skin) numerically are small in numbers among blacks.

Carmel dark skin blacks are the majority, then dark skin blacks, and last light skin blacks. You have to accept second place status or help establish a government category called mixed race, and you will chose the less painful of the two. There is no doubt that blacks still prefer to have light blacks (LSB) among them, and view this as less painful than having light skin blacks and biracials labeled mixed race. This is advantageous for blacks but too some degree painful for biracials and light skin blacks -- because their identity gets sucked up into blackness, when they are not just black in phenotype (physical appearance).

Colorism will gradually disappear among blacks when America creates a category called mixed race. You can be mixed race and still be on friendly terms with blacks, whites, Asian, Latinos, and what ever racial groups you are mixed with. Dark skin blacks have to learn to like themselves more and stop letting the media influence their opinions about themselves.

Urban League Lawsuit Points Out Touchy Racial Issue: Light vs. Dark Posted by Marjory Raymer | The Flint Journal December 19, 2007 15:42PM

Categories: Breaking News,

Flint, Legal FLINT — Now, the issue isn’t just black and white. It’s, but everything in between, too. A lawsuit filed this month against the Urban League of Flint points to the increasingly complex issue of race and equality. A biracial employee, Jamie Kendall, sued the Urban League after not being promoted to CEO.

She claims that she was asked if she was “black enough” to lead the organization dedicated to creating equal opportunities for African Americans and other minorities. “It is a touchy situation. We need to have some honest dialogue about it within our own culture,” said local NAACP President Frances Gilcreast. Glen Lenhoff, Kendall’s attorney, is one of the area’s leading attorneys on discrimination in the workforce, including reverse discrimination.

He acknowledges, though, that this case is a first for him. “I think it is an unusual case, but I think you’ll see more and more of these cases as time go on,” Lenhoff said. And, he still maintains it is simply discrimination based on skin color — just that this time it’s about the shade of the color because Kendall is light skinned.

The Urban League’s CEO, Lorna Latham, referred all calls to board president Valaria Conerly Moon, who could not be reached for comment. “I’ve always been a proponent that we need to clean our house and make sure our house is strong. We need to do what’s right for ourselves,” Gilcreast said. “Light brown, green, purple, whatever, you should have the same opportunities.”

The debate is sure to grow: The number of multiracial residents in Genesee County has steadily increased since 2000, the only racial category to do so, Census data shows. The issue has gone mainstream in recent years with the likes of Tiger Woods, whose ancestry is black, Caucasian, American Indian and Asian, and presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, whose mother was a Caucasian from Kansas and father a black from Kenya. And in Detroit, a club promotion allowing all-night free admission to black women with fair or light skin set off widespread complaints and opened old deep wounds in the black community. The event planned in October was canceled, and the promoter, who is black, apologized.

“There is an irony because the Urban League is supposed to be the bastion of civil rights,” Lenhoff said. The lawsuit asks for damages in excess of $75,000. It claims Conerly Moon asked Kendall if she was bi-racial and then asked if she was “black enough” and if she could identify with black people. Kendall, manager of finance-operations, was one of three finalists for the CEO post but did not get the job.

She continues to work for the agency. Kendall also suing is for slander, claiming that Conerly Moon told at least one individual that Kendall was having an affair with the previous CEO. The Urban League has not yet responded to the lawsuit. The deadline is Dec. 26, although extensions are often given.

Male Day Laborers and Prostitution

Male Day Laborers and Prostitution

By Chance Kelsey, chancellorfiles.com 

Many Latino day laborers have reported that some of the men who come to pick them up to work for money are under cover gay men who pay for sex, some men pretending to be employers drug day laborers and sexually assault (rape) them once they arrive at the location, and others after the job is complete offer the day laborers lunch -- but drug them food and beverages, which renders the laborers unconscious, and then sexually assault them.

Through word of mouth about these men who come looking for day laborers to have sex with --- this has caused certain day laborers in Long beach, California and Rancho Cucamonga, California to come to these spots to sell their bodies. These locations are gradually becoming male prostitution rings.

I believe also in other cities through out America where there are day laborers the same sexual assaults take place.

Many day laborers carry tuberculosis, and other illnesses that they brought with them from their countries. These men who pretend to be employers and also, gay men themselves can easily catch HIV, AIDS, or STD (sexually transmitted disease).

The day laborers don’t report these sexual crimes to the police because they are often illegal immigrants from Mexico and South & Central America.. The men don’t like talking about it because of shame and embarrassment. Now with the Newspapers and media being aware of what has been happening this is the first step towards dealing with the problem.

Male Day Laborers Turn to Prostitution

La Opinion, News Feature, Story by Claudia Núñez, Translated by Elena Shore, Posted: Dec 22, 2007

Traducción al español

Editor's Note: As harsh immigration measures punish those that employ undocumented workers, an investigation by La Opinión newspaper found that large numbers of male day laborers are now being targeted for a different kind of underground activity: sex work.

This is the first of two articles judged as "best from Hispanic media in 2007." It was originally posted Sept. 19, 2007.

LOS ANGELES – Their faces reflect how uncomfortable it is for them to talk about. On street corners where day laborers congregate, it’s no longer as easy to find work – but there are plenty of offers of sex for money. There is also a high incidence of workers being drugged and raped, something suffered by many, and hidden by all out of shame.

"The situation is happening more frequently. It happens more on the unorganized corners than in day labor centers, but the problem itself is widespread. It’s like a well-known secret that everyone knows and has experienced, but no one talks about,” explained Pablo Alvarado, national coordinator of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

In an investigation by La Opinión on various day labor corners in Long Beach, Rancho Cucamonga, Los Angeles and Moreno Valley, more than half of those interviewed admitted having received at least one offer of sex in exchange for money.

“Gringos see us as cheap brothels and not as day labor centers. Many enter into it (knowingly), but the majority of us are tricked into it. They tell us it’s a job and later it turns out they want sex. I have co-workers who have even been drugged without realizing it,” said Ricardo Ceniceros, who is registered to find work at a day labor center in Rancho Cucamonga.

Mauricio Rodríguez, a day laborer at a center in Long Beach, was hired to paint the bedrooms of an apartment. "'We’re going to pay you well,'" two men, one white and the other Latino, told him when he opened the door of their green Honda Civic.

According to Rodríguez, when they arrived at the apartment he was supposed to paint, a middle-class apartment in the heart of the Southern California city of Signal Hill, the shouts and insults began.

“'We don’t want you to talk, pendejo. Take off your clothes and move over there,'” the Latino man ordered.

“They shouted insults at me. You could tell they liked humiliating me. They had knives on the table and it really scared me, especially the white guy who pointed a syringe at me (supposedly) filled with drugs. I don’t know how I did it -- I didn’t stop talking and, when I could, I got closer to the door until I could open it and run away,” said Rodríguez.

With the memory of his experience still fresh, Rodríguez brought La Opinión to the place where, according to him, he had been attacked days before.

The word “Welcome,” painted with the colors of the American flag, hung from the door marked number six. From behind the door, rock songs in English could be heard. However, no one answered the repeated knocks at the door.

“They bring men to this apartment one after another and it always sounds like things are being knocked around,” said a neighbor who preferred not to give her name.

Mauricio is sure that he is not the only one who has been taken to this apartment.

***

The first car appeared a little before noon. As if out of habit, dozens of day laborers rushed toward the red Toyota truck that pulled up on the corner of Grove and Arrow streets in Rancho Cucamonga.

A mix of sweat and alcohol emanated from the small circle of men that formed next to the vehicle. In a matter of seconds, the group dissolved. Only four workers remained to negotiate.

“They play for the other team [they are gay]. They keep coming here in different cars but we know their faces and it’s best not to get too close," said Francisco Tapia, who is known to come to this corner to look for work on the weekends.

Of the group that continued negotiating, only the youngest got in the truck.

“What’s your motive for hiring day laborers?” La Opinión asked the two older white men as the worker settled into the backseat of the truck.

“Who are you? What’s this for?” the driver asked defensively.

Inside the vehicle, the worker looked scared.

“We are doing an investigation about people who hire workers for sex acts. What do you think about that?” La Opinión asked.

“I don’t know anything,” the driver answered and accelerated, clearing a path through a group of curious onlookers who were approaching the car.

On the corner, aggressive jokes and insults with words like “fags” could be heard. Everything was a mockery, a game. Some simply went quiet. No one talked seriously about the issue. It was clear that it made them uncomfortable.

In addition to those who choose to prostitute themselves voluntarily, experts say there is another population of temporary workers who have been drugged, sexually abused and tricked.

“I was offered a job on a ranch, together with three other (workers) from the corner. When we arrived there, they had us clean the stables and then they gave us lunch. A while later, I felt everything start spinning. Some of them started to grope us but I couldn’t even throw a punch. Everything was blurry. When I woke up, they had thrown me in a vacant lot and I didn’t know where I was. I think they ‘f…’ [raped] me. And what do I get out of suing them, if in this country the law always sides with what the boss says?” asked a 19-year-old worker who looks for work on the street corners of Moreno Valley in Riverside County.

Despite the high incidence of harassment and sex crimes, state reports show no records of such cases being brought by a day laborer.

“We’ve investigated the incidents and we have found a lot of cases but, because of fear and shame, the day laborer will not present the charges formally before a judge. There is not one case like this in the courts. These immigrants are afraid that they’ll be accused of being gay on their work corners or that they’ll be deported, and it’s very difficult to change that mentality. They can’t see that what happened to them is a crime,” said lawyer Anel Flores of the Los Angeles Legal Aid Foundation.

But not all are victims. There is also a growing number of men who go to the corners with the sole purpose of offering their bodies for money, according to researchers.

“We don’t know how much this situation has grown but we’re sure that the numbers of people who prostitute themselves are greater and the problem is growing,” said Víctor Martínez, director of the organization Bienestar.

On the corner where Ángel Sánchez goes to look for work, between 15 and 20 vehicles arrive each month with the intention of picking up men for sexual favors, according to workers consulted by La Opinión.

“They charge $100, $120 a night. A lot accept it or name their price. Some employers already have their favorites and they come looking for them. Those of us who don’t do it know their cars and we don’t approach them. For us, the danger isn’t them; it’s the perverts who hire us and then trick us. When you open the car door you never know what risks await you,” he said.

Sánchez’s words are rough as they come out of his mouth. The streets have taught him that this isn’t something one should talk about. “Men are not meant to be prostitutes,” he says and his face reflects the pain of talking about the issue, even though it is, simply, reality.

Male Day Laborers Turn to Prostitution

IQ And None Of The Above

Good article and a very interesting read!

 

None of the Above

What I.Q. doesn’t tell you about race.

by Malcolm Gladwell

(this article came from New yorker.com) 

 

If what I.Q. tests measure is immutable and innate, what explains the Flynn effect—the steady rise in scores across generations? Related Links Audio: Malcolm Gladwell on race and I.Q. Keywords I.Q.s; Race; Flynn, James; “What Is Intelligence?” (Cambridge; $22); Flynn effect; Intelligence; Racism Correction appended. One Saturday in November of 1984, James Flynn, a social scientist at the University of Otago, in New Zealand, received a large package in the mail. It was from a colleague in Utrecht, and it contained the results of I.Q. tests given to two generations of Dutch eighteen-year-olds.

When Flynn looked through the data, he found something puzzling. The Dutch eighteen-year-olds from the nineteen-eighties scored better than those who took the same tests in the nineteen-fifties—and not just slightly better, much better. Curious, Flynn sent out some letters. He collected intelligence-test results from Europe, from North America, from Asia, and from the developing world, until he had data for almost thirty countries. In every case, the story was pretty much the same.

I.Q.s around the world appeared to be rising by 0.3 points per year, or three points per decade, for as far back as the tests had been administered. For some reason, human beings seemed to be getting smarter. Flynn has been writing about the implications of his findings—now known as the Flynn effect—for almost twenty-five years. His books consist of a series of plainly stated statistical observations, in support of deceptively modest conclusions, and the evidence in support of his original observation is now so overwhelming that the Flynn effect has moved from theory to fact. What remains uncertain is how to make sense of the Flynn effect.

If an American born in the nineteen-thirties has an I.Q. of 100, the Flynn effect says that his children will have I.Q.s of 108, and his grandchildren I.Q.s of close to 120—more than a standard deviation higher. If we work in the opposite direction, the typical teen-ager of today, with an I.Q. of 100, would have had grandparents with average I.Q.s of 82—seemingly below the threshold necessary to graduate from high school. And, if we go back even farther, the Flynn effect puts the average I.Q.s of the schoolchildren of 1900 at around 70, which is to suggest, bizarrely, that a century ago the United States was populated largely by people who today would be considered mentally retarded.

For almost as long as there have been I.Q. tests, there have been I.Q. fundamentalists. H. H. Goddard, in the early years of the past century, established the idea that intelligence could be measured along a single, linear scale. One of his particular contributions was to coin the word “moron.” “The people who are doing the drudgery are, as a rule, in their proper places,” he wrote. Goddard was followed by Lewis Terman, in the nineteen-twenties, who rounded up the California children with the highest I.Q.s, and confidently predicted that they would sit at the top of every profession.

In 1969, the psychometrician Arthur Jensen argued that programs like Head Start, which tried to boost the academic performance of minority children, were doomed to failure, because I.Q. was so heavily genetic; and in 1994 Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, in “The Bell Curve,” notoriously proposed that Americans with the lowest I.Q.s be sequestered in a “high-tech” version of an Indian reservation, “while the rest of America tries to go about its business.”

To the I.Q. fundamentalist, two things are beyond dispute: first, that I.Q. tests measure some hard and identifiable trait that predicts the quality of our thinking; and, second, that this trait is stable—that is, it is determined by our genes and largely impervious to environmental influences. This is what James Watson, the co-discoverer of DNA, meant when he told an English newspaper recently that he was “inherently gloomy” about the prospects for Africa. From the perspective of an I.Q. fundamentalist, the fact that Africans score lower than Europeans on I.Q. tests suggests an ineradicable cognitive disability.

In the controversy that followed, Watson was defended by the journalist William Saletan, in a three-part series for the online magazine Slate. Drawing heavily on the work of J. Philippe Rushton—a psychologist who specializes in comparing the circumference of what he calls the Negroid brain with the length of the Negroid penis—Saletan took the fundamentalist position to its logical conclusion. To erase the difference between blacks and whites, Saletan wrote, would probably require vigorous interbreeding between the races, or some kind of corrective genetic engineering aimed at upgrading African stock. “Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern,” Saletan declared, claiming to have been “soaking [his] head in each side’s computations and arguments.” One argument that Saletan never soaked his head in, however, was Flynn’s, because what Flynn discovered in his mailbox upsets the certainties upon which I.Q. fundamentalism rests.

If whatever the thing is that I.Q. tests measure can jump so much in a generation, it can’t be all that immutable and it doesn’t look all that innate. The very fact that average I.Q.s shift over time ought to create a “crisis of confidence,” Flynn writes in “What Is Intelligence?” (Cambridge; $22), his latest attempt to puzzle through the implications of his discovery. “How could such huge gains be intelligence gains? Either the children of today were far brighter than their parents or, at least in some circumstances, I.Q. tests were not good measures of intelligence.” The best way to understand why I.Q.s rise, Flynn argues, is to look at one of the most widely used I.Q. tests, the so-called WISC (for Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children).

The WISC is composed of ten subtests, each of which measures a different aspect of I.Q. Flynn points out that scores in some of the categories—those measuring general knowledge, say, or vocabulary or the ability to do basic arithmetic—have risen only modestly over time. The big gains on the WISC are largely in the category known as “similarities,” where you get questions such as “In what way are ‘dogs’ and ‘rabbits’ alike?” Today, we tend to give what, for the purposes of I.Q. tests, is the right answer: dogs and rabbits are both mammals.

A nineteenth-century American would have said that “you use dogs to hunt rabbits.” “If the everyday world is your cognitive home, it is not natural to detach abstractions and logic and the hypothetical from their concrete referents,” Flynn writes. Our great-grandparents may have been perfectly intelligent. But they would have done poorly on I.Q. tests because they did not participate in the twentieth century’s great cognitive revolution, in which we learned to sort experience according to a new set of abstract categories. In Flynn’s phrase, we have now had to put on “scientific spectacles,” which enable us to make sense of the WISC questions about similarities.

To say that Dutch I.Q. scores rose substantially between 1952 and 1982 was another way of saying that the Netherlands in 1982 was, in at least certain respects, much more cognitively demanding than the Netherlands in 1952. An I.Q., in other words, measures not so much how smart we are as how modern we are. This is a critical distinction. When the children of Southern Italian immigrants were given I.Q. tests in the early part of the past century, for example, they recorded median scores in the high seventies and low eighties, a full standard deviation below their American and Western European counterparts. Southern Italians did as poorly on I.Q. tests as Hispanics and blacks did. As you can imagine, there was much concerned talk at the time about the genetic inferiority of Italian stock, of the inadvisability of letting so many second-class immigrants into the United States, and of the squalor that seemed endemic to Italian urban neighborhoods. Sound familiar?

These days, when talk turns to the supposed genetic differences in the intelligence of certain races, Southern Italians have disappeared from the discussion. “Did their genes begin to mutate somewhere in the 1930s?” the psychologists Seymour Sarason and John Doris ask, in their account of the Italian experience. “Or is it possible that somewhere in the 1920s, if not earlier, the sociocultural history of Italo-Americans took a turn from the blacks and the Spanish Americans which permitted their assimilation into the general undifferentiated mass of Americans?”

The psychologist Michael Cole and some colleagues once gave members of the Kpelle tribe, in Liberia, a version of the WISC similarities test: they took a basket of food, tools, containers, and clothing and asked the tribesmen to sort them into appropriate categories. To the frustration of the researchers, the Kpelle chose functional pairings. They put a potato and a knife together because a knife is used to cut a potato. “A wise man could only do such-and-such,” they explained. Finally, the researchers asked, “How would a fool do it?”

The tribesmen immediately re-sorted the items into the “right” categories. It can be argued that taxonomical categories are a developmental improvement—that is, that the Kpelle would be more likely to advance, technologically and scientifically, if they started to see the world that way. But to label them less intelligent than Westerners, on the basis of their performance on that test, is merely to state that they have different cognitive preferences and habits. And if I.Q. varies with habits of mind, which can be adopted or discarded in a generation, what, exactly, is all the fuss about?

When I was growing up, my family would sometimes play Twenty Questions on long car trips. My father was one of those people who insist that the standard categories of animal, vegetable, and mineral be supplemented with a fourth category: “abstract.” Abstract could mean something like “whatever it was that was going through my mind when we drove past the water tower fifty miles back.” That abstract category sounds absurdly difficult, but it wasn’t: it merely required that we ask a slightly different set of questions and grasp a slightly different set of conventions, and, after two or three rounds of practice, guessing the contents of someone’s mind fifty miles ago becomes as easy as guessing Winston Churchill. (There is one exception.

That was the trip on which my old roommate Tom Connell chose, as an abstraction, “the Unknown Soldier”—which allowed him legitimately and gleefully to answer “I have no idea” to almost every question. There were four of us playing. We gave up after an hour.) Flynn would say that my father was teaching his three sons how to put on scientific spectacles, and that extra practice probably bumped up all of our I.Q.s a few notches. But let’s be clear about what this means. There’s a world of difference between an I.Q. advantage that’s genetic and one that depends on extended car time with Graham Gladwell. Flynn is a cautious and careful writer. Unlike many others in the I.Q. debates, he resists grand philosophizing.

He comes back again and again to the fact that I.Q. scores are generated by paper-and-pencil tests—and making sense of those scores, he tells us, is a messy and complicated business that requires something closer to the skills of an accountant than to those of a philosopher. For instance, Flynn shows what happens when we recognize that I.Q. is not a freestanding number but a value attached to a specific time and a specific test. When an I.Q. test is created, he reminds us, it is calibrated or “normed” so that the test-takers in the fiftieth percentile—those exactly at the median—are assigned a score of 100. But since I.Q.s are always rising, the only way to keep that hundred-point benchmark is periodically to make the tests more difficult—to “renorm” them. The original WISC was normed in the late nineteen-forties.

It was then renormed in the early nineteen-seventies, as the WISC-R; renormed a third time in the late eighties, as the WISC III; and renormed again a few years ago, as the WISC IV—with each version just a little harder than its predecessor. The notion that anyone “has” an I.Q. of a certain number, then, is meaningless unless you know which WISC he took, and when he took it, since there’s a substantial difference between getting a 130 on the WISC IV and getting a 130 on the much easier WISC. This is not a trivial issue. I.Q. tests are used to diagnose people as mentally retarded, with a score of 70 generally taken to be the cutoff.

You can imagine how the Flynn effect plays havoc with that system. In the nineteen-seventies and eighties, most states used the WISC-R to make their mental-retardation diagnoses. But since kids—even kids with disabilities—score a little higher every year, the number of children whose scores fell below 70 declined steadily through the end of the eighties. Then, in 1991, the WISC III was introduced, and suddenly the percentage of kids labelled retarded went up. The psychologists Tomoe Kanaya, Matthew Scullin, and Stephen Ceci estimated that, if every state had switched to the WISC III right away, the number of Americans labelled mentally retarded should have doubled. That is an extraordinary number.

The diagnosis of mental disability is one of the most stigmatizing of all educational and occupational classifications—and yet, apparently, the chances of being burdened with that label are in no small degree a function of the point, in the life cycle of the WISC, at which a child happens to sit for his evaluation. “As far as I can determine, no clinical or school psychologists using the WISC over the relevant 25 years noticed that its criterion of mental retardation became more lenient over time,” Flynn wrote, in a 2000 paper. “Yet no one drew the obvious moral about psychologists in the field:

They simply were not making any systematic assessment of the I.Q. criterion for mental retardation.” Flynn brings a similar precision to the question of whether Asians have a genetic advantage in I.Q., a possibility that has led to great excitement among I.Q. fundamentalists in recent years. Data showing that the Japanese had higher I.Q.s than people of European descent, for example, prompted the British psychometrician and eugenicist Richard Lynn to concoct an elaborate evolutionary explanation involving the Himalayas, really cold weather, premodern hunting practices, brain size, and specialized vowel sounds.

The fact that the I.Q.s of Chinese-Americans also seemed to be elevated has led I.Q. fundamentalists to posit the existence of an international I.Q. pyramid, with Asians at the top, European whites next, and Hispanics and blacks at the bottom. Here was a question tailor-made for James Flynn’s accounting skills. He looked first at Lynn’s data, and realized that the comparison was skewed. Lynn was comparing American I.Q. estimates based on a representative sample of schoolchildren with Japanese estimates based on an upper-income, heavily urban sample. Recalculated, the Japanese average came in not at 106.6 but at 99.2. Then Flynn turned his attention to the Chinese-American estimates.

They turned out to be based on a 1975 study in San Francisco’s Chinatown using something called the Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test. But the Lorge-Thorndike test was normed in the nineteen-fifties. For children in the nineteen-seventies, it would have been a piece of cake. When the Chinese-American scores were reassessed using up-to-date intelligence metrics, Flynn found, they came in at 97 verbal and 100 nonverbal. Chinese-Americans had slightly lower I.Q.s than white Americans. The Asian-American success story had suddenly been turned on its head. The numbers now suggested, Flynn said, that they had succeeded not because of their higher I.Q.s. but despite their lower I.Q.s. Asians were overachievers. In a nifty piece of statistical analysis, Flynn then worked out just how great that overachievement was. Among whites, virtually everyone who joins the ranks of the managerial, professional, and technical occupations has an I.Q. of 97 or above. Among Chinese-Americans, that threshold is 90.

A Chinese-American with an I.Q. of 90, it would appear, does as much with it as a white American with an I.Q. of 97. There should be no great mystery about Asian achievement. It has to do with hard work and dedication to higher education, and belonging to a culture that stresses professional success. But Flynn makes one more observation. The children of that first successful wave of Asian-Americans really did have I.Q.s that were higher than everyone else’s—coming in somewhere around 103. Having worked their way into the upper reaches of the occupational scale, and taken note of how much the professions value abstract thinking, Asian-American parents have evidently made sure that their own children wore scientific spectacles. “Chinese Americans are an ethnic group for whom high achievement preceded high I.Q. rather than the reverse,” Flynn concludes, reminding us that in our discussions of the relationship between I.Q. and success we often confuse causes and effects. “It is not easy to view the history of their achievements without emotion,” he writes. That is exactly right. To ascribe Asian success to some abstract number is to trivialize it.

Two weeks ago, Flynn came to Manhattan to debate Charles Murray at a forum sponsored by the Manhattan Institute. Their subject was the black-white I.Q. gap in America. During the twenty-five years after the Second World War, that gap closed considerably. The I.Q.s of white Americans rose, as part of the general worldwide Flynn effect, but the I.Q.s of black Americans rose faster. Then, for about a period of twenty-five years, that trend stalled—and the question was why. Murray showed a series of PowerPoint slides, each representing different statistical formulations of the I.Q. gap. He appeared to be pessimistic that the racial difference would narrow in the future. “By the nineteen-seventies, you had gotten most of the juice out of the environment that you were going to get,” he said. That gap, he seemed to think, reflected some inherent difference between the races. “Starting in the nineteen-seventies, to put it very crudely, you had a higher proportion of black kids being born to really dumb mothers,” he said. When the debate’s moderator, Jane Waldfogel, informed him that the most recent data showed that the race gap had begun to close again, Murray seemed unimpressed, as if the possibility that blacks could ever make further progress was inconceivable. Flynn took a different approach.

The black-white gap, he pointed out, differs dramatically by age. He noted that the tests we have for measuring the cognitive functioning of infants, though admittedly crude, show the races to be almost the same. By age four, the average black I.Q. is 95.4—only four and a half points behind the average white I.Q. Then the real gap emerges: from age four through twenty-four, blacks lose six-tenths of a point a year, until their scores settle at 83.4.

That steady decline, Flynn said, did not resemble the usual pattern of genetic influence. Instead, it was exactly what you would expect, given the disparate cognitive environments that whites and blacks encounter as they grow older. Black children are more likely to be raised in single-parent homes than are white children—and single-parent homes are less cognitively complex than two-parent homes. The average I.Q. of first-grade students in schools that blacks attend is 95, which means that “kids who want to be above average don’t have to aim as high.” There were possibly adverse differences between black teen-age culture and white teen-age culture, and an enormous number of young black men are in jail—which is hardly the kind of environment in which someone would learn to put on scientific spectacles.

Flynn then talked about what we’ve learned from studies of adoption and mixed-race children—and that evidence didn’t fit a genetic model, either. If I.Q. is innate, it shouldn’t make a difference whether it’s a mixed-race child’s mother or father who is black. But it does: children with a white mother and a black father have an eight-point I.Q. advantage over those with a black mother and a white father. And it shouldn’t make much of a difference where a mixed-race child is born. But, again, it does: the children fathered by black American G.I.s in postwar Germany and brought up by their German mothers have the same I.Q.s as the children of white American G.I.s and German mothers. The difference, in that case, was not the fact of the children’s blackness, as a fundamentalist would say. It was the fact of their Germanness—of their being brought up in a different culture, under different circumstances.

“The mind is much more like a muscle than we’ve ever realized,” Flynn said. “It needs to get cognitive exercise. It’s not some piece of clay on which you put an indelible mark.” The lesson to be drawn from black and white differences was the same as the lesson from the Netherlands years ago: I.Q. measures not just the quality of a person’s mind but the quality of the world that person lives in. ?

CORRECTION: In his December 17th piece, “None of the Above,” Malcolm Gladwell states that Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, in their 1994 book “The Bell Curve,” proposed that Americans with low I.Q.s be “sequestered in a ‘high-tech’ version of an Indian reservation.” In fact, Herrnstein and Murray deplored the prospect of such “custodialism” and recommended that steps be taken to avert it. We regret the error.

Afro Adolf Hitler

Afro Adolf Hitler

(afro Hitler and Germany)

By Chance Kelsey, chancellorfiles.com

What if Adolf Hitler had visible black ancestry, and let’s say it was his hair texture, do you feel white Germans would have viewed him differently? If Adolf Hitler had an afro hair style which would have been the result of black

ancestry, do you feel the nazi would have disregarded him, and not allowed him to be the leader of the nazi party and of Germany?

World War 2 would have never happened if Adolf Hitler had an Afro. Imagine Hitler standing up there on stage in front of an audience of thousands of German people waving his hands, twitching his body as he spoke, yelling, and spit coming out of his mouth as he spoke with his big afro hair. In Germany of the 1920s and 1930s Hitler with an afro would have be laughed at no matter what neighborhood or place of business he went to. Walking down the street people would have been staring at him.

His opinions about a master white race would have not been taken seriously by Germans because of the afro hair that Adolf had sitting on top of his head. The idea of a master white race may sound good to certain Germans but coming out of Adolf’s mouth would not have even been given consideration due to his visible black ancestry. There is a possibility that Hitler could have been a victim of a hate crime during that time seeing that he was hanging out at nazi meetings.

The Jewish would have never had to suffer, and lose six million of their people at the hands of the nazi, Hitler and

concentration camps. No large crowed of white German would have followed Hitler orders with a phenotype (physical appearance) stereotyped black due to visible black ancestry.

Adolf looked like a creep yguy already. Hitler’s afro would have prevented World War 2 Kept millions of people from being killed, kept 6 million Jewish people form being executed in concentration camps, kept 5 million other Europeans (non Jewish) from being executed in the concentration camps, No American, British, Belgium, or French solider would have been killed in war combat, France, England, Belgium, Poland, and other European countries would not have been destroyed,

The entire continent of Europe would not have suffered economically, Italy would not have been pulled into the war and thus causing their country to suffer, many fathers would not have been killed as soldiers and would have remain home with their families, no family mourning the loss of loved ones, etc it is amazing what one ethnic characteristic can do.

Tiger Woods, Racism, And Success

Tiger Woods, Racism, And Success

By Chance Kelsey, chancellorfiles.com

Tiger Woods: "I become aware of my racial identity on my first day of school, on my first day of kindergarten," "A group of sixth grades tied me to a tree, spray painted the word 'nigger' on me, and threw rocks at me. That was my first day of school. And the teachers really didn't do much of anything. I used to live across the street from school and kind of down the way a little bit. The teachers said 'okay, just go home.' So I had to out run all these kids going home, which I was able to do. It was certainly on eye opening experience, you know, being five years old we were the only minority family in all of Cypress, California."

Some of teachers at Tigers school were racist too, and did nothing to help or protect him from the racism of these white kids.

Tiger Woods: When my parents moved in, before I was born, they used to have these oranges come through the window all the time. And it could have not been racially initiated or it could have been. We don't know. But it was very interesting though people don't necessarily know it, that I grew up in the 1980's and still had incidents. I had a racial incident even in the 1990's at home where I grew up, the Navy golf course. And right before the 1994 U.S. Amateur, I was eighteen years old, I was out practicing, just hitting pitch shots and some guy just yelled over the fence and used the N word numerous times at me. That's in 1994," Tiger said.

Many black Americans feel Tiger does not like being black. This is not true, Earl Woods, Tiger's father was out working most of the time -- so Tiger was around his mother a lot as a little boy growing up, and he was more familiar with the Asian culture -- because that was his mother’s culture and she raised him mainly in Asian culture. Tiger’s mother is from Thailand. Living in a predominantly white neighbor was tough at times for Tiger because of the racism he experienced once in awhile.

Tiger grew up around whites and Asians; he did not grow up around black Americans, in black American culture. He grew up in white and Asian culture. He prefers to be called caublasian. Tiger created the name caublasian to symbolize the white, Asian, Native American, and black ancestry he has inside his genes. Tiger has a beautiful caramel brown skin tone.

This is an quote From a conference at Stanford university (May 1995), the conference was about discussing racial stereotyping in sports.

Stanford university Thursdays May 11, 1995: Woods, an economics major who is only the third black golfer in American college competition during the last 15 years, told of the racist mail he receives among his fan mail, the unwelcome attitude with which some tournament organizers greet his plans to host clinics for youngsters while he is competing, and of incidents where his golf prowess is invisible to people who see only his skin color. Just in the past two weeks, he said, he has received two letters from people telling him that "niggers" do not belong in golf. On a recent trip to his Southern California home, the owner of a house facing a golf course that Woods played was so convinced Woods was trying to hit balls at the house that he demanded course officials "kick this nigger off the f-ing course." "People get this stereotype that racism is in the South. That's B.S. It's everywhere," Woods told the campus audience.

Tiger has experienced racism, and he has suffered be called “nigger” just like many black Americans have. He did not let the negative experiences he has had as a kid growing up stop him, and hold him back from becoming one of the most successful athletes in golf history.

Written during the 21st century by Chance (Chancellor)