November 22, 2009

"Precious" and "The Blind Side"

An excerpt from my new VDARE.com column:
This weekend saw the national rollout of two crowd-pleaser movies about impoverished 350-pound black teens: Precious and The Blind Side. (What an amazing country we have, where a pair of poor waifs can tip the scales at 700 pounds!)

Together, the two films reflect an emerging, if seldom fully articulated, consensus among all right-thinking people in this Bush-Obama era about what to do with underclass black children.

Precious is the story of an illiterate 16-year-old girl who was made pregnant and HIV-positive by her rapist father, but her even bigger problem is her abusive welfare mother with whom she shares a Section 8 apartment. Still, with the help of tireless teachers and social workers, she moves into a halfway house and begins to turn her life around.

The Blind Side is an adaptation of Michael Lewis’s 2006 nonfiction bestseller about Michael Oher. A homeless 16-year-old with a drug addict mother and a father who was thrown off a bridge, Oher was adopted by a rich white family. He’s now a rookie starting offensive tackle for the Baltimore Ravens of the NFL, with a five-year $13,795,000 contract.

The Blind Side’s writer-director John Lee Hancock told Michael Granberry of the Dallas News:
“He loves what he calls its nature vs. nurture story line. 'It's like a test case for nurture, and nurture wins in a big way. You've got a kid who's cast on the junk heap of life, socially and from an educational standpoint. And it's amazing what a roof, a bed, meals and an emphasis on schools can do, when everybody had written him off.'

The Blind Side is the rare movie in which white Southern Republican born-again Christians are portrayed favorably. One liberal commenter on IMDB.com raged, “I feel insulted (in the same way I felt insulted when McCain chose Palin for his running-mate) …”

But, whether Republican or Democrat, white or black, everybody who is au courant is coming to agree upon one solution for poor black children: keep them away from their own families as much as possible.

Read the rest of my review The Blind Side here and comment upon it below.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

110 comments:

Mr. Anon said...

"The 2007 movie Freedom Writers extolled a nice white lady teacher, played by Hilary Swank, who divorces her husband (played by Patrick Dempsey), who can’t understand why she devotes all her energy to her ghetto students instead of having a baby herself."

Sounds like this trend has the makings for a stolen generation of white children too. To those real-life counterparts of Hillary Swank (and they are numerous) - do they think that their ghetto kids will send them flowers on their birthday and take them in when their old?

By the way, NWL (Nice White Lady) sounds like a handy new acronym for the steveosphere.

Anonymous said...

Wow, he raised his IQ to 96.

Steve Sailer is wrong about race and intelligence.

Anonymous said...

How exactly does "Gargantuan Black Guy Becomes Successful Athlete" help the "nurture" argument, again?

Jimmy Crackedcorn said...

The Blind Side is the rare movie in which white Southern Republican born-again Christians are portrayed favorably.

It's Hollywood's version of good cop/bad cop. They're deliberately pushing all of society to accept multiculturalism and the multicultural agenda, which at its core is anti-white. Raising your own (white) children = BAD. Raising other people's (non-white) children = GOOD.

"You see - white Christians can be good people, too!"

That's why this movie was green-lighted.

Modern readers need to become reacquainted with Mrs. Jellyby.

Garland said...

You really don't get into the main point--you still haven't, after poking around this issue for months maybe years--WHY shouldnt we "steal" the kids? ARENT they better off with better people raising them? So it failed in Australia...why would it fail here? You said it's a "doomed panacea" but you dont explain why and that's the real question.

Joe Snuffy said...

Hey Steve, looks like the NYT has been cribbing off you:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34096713/ns/entertainment-the_new_york_times/

Middletown Girl said...

"How exactly does "Gargantuan Black Guy Becomes Successful Athlete" help the "nurture" argument, again?"

---------

Because without proper nurture, he could have become gargantuan black drug dealer, prison mate, or 6 ft underground.

Jimmy Crackedcorn said...

How exactly does "Gargantuan Black Guy Becomes Successful Athlete" help the "nurture" argument, again?

Nice.

FWIW, I still think people here are too dismissive of culture and parenting. I haven't seen the movie, and am only familiar with the outlines of the story, but the idea that the Tuohy's did Oher no good by adopting him seems silly.

We focus so much on the issue of IQ, and whether adoptive parents can increase the IQ of their adoptees. It may be true that they can't, or else only by a little. But what about crime rates among the adoptees? What about teen pregnancy? What about their ability to stay employed, in however lowly a job?

I have adoptees in my extended family and while they aren't as smart as their siblings they have matured to become, more or less, responsible human beings.

Michael said...

Garland,

It really isn't all that complicated...

1. The reason Blacks do so poorly in life and commit so many crimes is because they have such low adult IQs.

2. Twin studies, adoption studies, and intervention studies have all proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the quality of parenting received by a child has no effect whatsoever on adult IQ.

3. Therefore taking black kids away from their parents and giving them to smart whites to raise them won't have any effect on adult IQ.

4. Ergo, the incredibly expensive burden increasingly being taken up stupidly self-sacrificing whites won't have any effect on the negative life outcomes of the blacks they adopt and/or subsidize becoming wards of the state.

The whole point of what Sailer's trying to say here is that Liberals have brainwashed themselves into preferring ANYTHING to admitting the existence of racial heredity, and therefore they have no choice but to force themselves into believing "Black Culture" is to blame for Black kids being stupid and getting into trouble.

And this in spite of there being an absolute mountain of scientific evidence speaking against this explanation.

Michael said...

Richard Dawkins, in a rare moment of crystal clarity, once wrote: "What shall it profit a male if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his immortal genes?”

In regard to that Hillary Swank character, it could be adapted to:

"What does it profit a female if she shall make blacks feel better about themselves by lying her white ass off to them that they can accomplish things without natural talent, and lose her immortal genes?"

Anonymous said...

"You said it's a "doomed panacea" but you dont explain why and that's the real question."

It's "doomed" because no matter what happens there will be a huge backlash when these kids grow up. It's a no-win situation.

Peter A said...

I agree with Garland. Steve keeps dancing around the issue. Does Steve believe these kids would be better off with their birth families? I think it's pretty clear in 99% of the cases the answer is no. And you can take the nature vs. nurture side of the debate and still believe that low IQ black kids will do better raised in a responsible middle class environment. The reasons to oppose this program as I see it are a) cost - these social programs cost money and b) simple racism. Most opponents to these programs on the left are simply racist in the everyday sense - people who just don't like whites and don't want them "infecting" blacks (or native Americans) with their culture. I gather Steve's objections are mostly the cost and the fact that these programs are useless over the long term but maybe he could do himself and the dumber among us a favor and spell this out more clearly.

l said...

I like it when blacks call liberal whites on their condescension:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNFWRRaTL5I

Anonymous said...

I haven't watched Freedom Writers, but I actually met a Jewish woman this summer who was 37 and had all kinds of experience working in entertainment and community service with urban neighborhoods, the West Indies and Africa (and had done a stint in China), but had little/no interest in having her own kids. I found it interesting (I'm African, btw) but mildly puzzling how she continually put down her parents and siblings who had different attitudes from her. I thank God for the variation in attitudes amongst White people - keeps life interesting, even if it might ultimately destroy the quality of life in the United States.

TH said...

while the Main Stream Media’s obsession with finding what Wolfe calls the “Great White Defendant” made possible the Duke lacrosse hoax, no less than three (3) star minority football players—including Mark Sanchez, now quarterback for the New York Jets—had been arrested on rape or assault charges in the just the previous week. But those incidents didn’t get much press attention. They’re routine.

And not only in America. A few months ago in Finland three American athletes were charged for gang-raping a Finnish girl. The media did not publish their names or photos, only their nationality and the team they played for (it was an American football team). However, from the website of the team you could see that it had four American players in its roster. Three of them were black and one white, so it was not difficult to figure out who the three perpetrators were.

The verdicts were announced a couple of weeks ago. They got suspended prison sentences, and were ordered to pay damages. Yes, the Finnish penal code is a joke. (Had they not spent several months in custody waiting for the trial to begin, they would probably have received unconditional sentences of a few months.)

dr kill said...

But, whether Republican or Democrat, white or black, everybody who is au courant is coming to agree upon one solution for poor black children: keep them away from their own families as much as possible.

Poor kids of all colors would benefit from a change of venue.

David said...

Are there enough whites to perfume the underachieving races? How many white families are there to go around?

Whites are roughly 10% of the world's population, and shrinking.

I guess the thinking is that a little white goes a long way. After all, that's what we're in this world for - to serve the underachievers. Praise the Lawd!

(Please don't tell me the white chick in "The Blind Side" - I haven't seen it - is shown having the hots for or sleeping with the family's black pet.)

keypusher said...

It's a test case for nurture, and nurture wins in a big way.

No, turning Woody Allen into an NFL left tackle -- that would be a test case for nurture.

David said...

Jimmy Crackedcorn said

> Hollywood is deliberately pushing [the meme: r]aising your own (white) children = BAD. Raising other people's (non-white) children = GOOD. <

Knoxville Tennessee's own version of Brad and Angelina here.

(Note well how utterly drunk on religion they are.)

The only progress we've made in 100 years of fighting imperialism etc. is to change the sex in the phrase "the white man's burden."

I wonder if the Hamilton family will be put on trial in the World Court for helping to steal the cultural heritage of an Ethopian generation, in about 40 years time (Steve mentioned the year 2050)?

Drawbacks said...

"Doomed panacea"? If it raised his IQ by 16 points ("the fundamental constant of social science") then it's a moral obligation. Hope there's enough Baptist millionaires to go round.

Big Bill said...

We may have a liberal on our side. Read Melissa Anderson's review of Blind Side.

She utterly savages white people like the Southern Christian rescuers. Disembowels them and leaves their innards in the dirt.

Her savagery probably arises from white couples thinking they can do it themselves as opposed to just aborting their white babies, working two high-paying 80-hour-a-week jobs and paying their salary to professional minority social workers a la "Precious", of course, but it is at least a start.

The more we can drill into white folks heads that the Liberal Melissas of the world will NEVER give them credit --- indeed they will BLAME them as Evil White Christian Racists, the better.

Anonymous said...

White people taking over the raising of black kids. Aside from this football family, and to a certain extent, that one DC school, I don't see much happening here.

It's a nice trope though - white liberal comes into ghetto school to save a bunch of great kids. I like it better with Michelle Pfeiffer than Hilly Swank. Hillary is too damn butch.

Anonymous said...

I just read Steve's review at Vdare.



Steve wrote:

"For example, former NBA star Dennis Rodman lived with a white family while he was playing college basketball. Were Rodman’s subsequent adventures a product of nurture or nature? (The Worm is one of the 27 children of his aptly named father, Philander Rodman Jr.)."



A guy who fathered 27 kids, most of them assuredly bastards, who is named "Philander". God is mocking us......to death.

Simon said...

Garland:
"So it failed in Australia..."

It didn't 'fail' in Australia: the 'stolen' children did have much better life outcomes than those left behind. Many became Aboriginal Rights activists and made a good living!

What it won't do, of course, is close the black-white achievement gap. The same upper middle class white environment that boosts black IQ 10-12 points does the same to white IQ; the IQ disparity remains the same at all social levels.

To achieve parity you'd have to have all white kids raised by underclass blacks while all black kids were raised by upper middle class whites (you'd have to import a lot of underclass blacks, though). You just might conceivably be able to equalise IQs around 95 or so.

After one generation, though, there would be no underclass blacks or upper middle class whites and you'd need a whole new boost/handicap system to keep IQs equivalent, if you let parents raise their own kids then IQs would revert back to the genetic means.

Laguna Beach Trad said...

The spectacle of white Christian conservatives raising the offspring of the African underclass is totally bizarre. I find it hard to believe this film is not a comedy.

The plot sounds like a case of brood parasitism, although I assume there is zero chance European-American parents would ever mistake African kids for their own.

There is something about the mentality of modern white Christians that compels them to venerate the non-white Other. From sending money to Africa, to building houses for Mexican peasants, to importing Hmong and Somalis to the US. White Christians neglect their own.

Which brings me to the couple's real children. What do they make of this gigantic, mentally defective black man suddenly plopped down into the middle of their family home?

And how do they feel about having to share their family inheritance with this African stranger? WTF?! I would be enraged, to say the least.

White guilt + Multi-Cult + Christianity = insanity

Thras said...

Steve, did you catch this review of Precious? It comes at it from the "Oprah" angle.

Anonymous said...

>>>
Sounds like this trend has the makings for a stolen generation of white children too.
>>>

I agree. Scary stuff.

Globalists have already established that it is our duty as white Americans to admit hordes of non-white people into our country to the point where we become a minority. Now, they are pushing an angle which says we should also be -raising- the non-white children that NAMs cannot be bothered to care for, at the expense of our own reproductive success and communal integrity.

And really--'nurture wins in a big way'? Can Hancock really believe this? So much for the idea that Hollyweird filmmakers are more successful for their intelligence.

Svigor said...

You really don't get into the main point--you still haven't, after poking around this issue for months maybe years--WHY shouldnt we "steal" the kids? ARENT they better off with better people raising them? So it failed in Australia...why would it fail here? You said it's a "doomed panacea" but you dont explain why and that's the real question.

Kidding or serious? Can't tell. Seems in earnest, but, how can it be? Must be kidding. Right? Right?

Anonymous said...

How can it be a story about nuture over nature? Did a little bit of nuture at the age of sixteen make him into a giant bruiser?

dearieme said...

"So it failed in Australia...": could be, but I've seen no evidence to that effect, just a lot of emoting.

Oh, hang on; do you mean the British children or the abo ones? Irrespective, I suspect my first comment still stands.

Melykin said...

Garland wrote:
WHY shouldnt we "steal" the kids? ARENT they better off with better people raising them?
---------------------

Because when the kids grow up and are still dysfunctional, the people who "stole" them will be blamed, vilified, sued, etc. This is happening in Canada now. The government has spent billions paying out compensation, running a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission", and so forth, because some aboriginal people spent time in government/church run residential schools. It doesn't matter that the children were in terrible situations with drunken parents, etc. when they were put in the schools. No one talks about that now. The residential schools are blamed for ALL the problems that the aboriginal people have now. It is simply not acceptable to point out that they had problems with alcoholism, etc., BEFORE the schools ever existed. Anyone who points out this obvious fact is called a racist or a Nazi.

John Seiler said...

"The more serious question: will American taxpayers be forced to subsidize this doomed panacea society-wide?"

Probably not. Governments everywhere are broke. The high salaries and benefits given to government workers preclude hiring many more of them for very long. The Bush Depression continues, and shows no signs of abating. Raising taxes would only kill businesses and jobs, making matters worse.

Anonymous said...

During the "Different Strokes" run the actor that played 'Mr Drummond' (Conrad Bain) said that he was deluged with letters from poor black children that wanted him to adopt them. I wonder if the Tuohy family are seeing a similar phenomenon.

In precious, I have seen some blacks complain that the mulattos (Mariah Carey, Paula Patton) were the responsible characters while the dark skinned characters were all socially irresponsible

Whiskey said...

Steve, good comment except that rich White conservatives spend money on sports instead of politics.

Knowing a number of these rich, older guys (I'm on a board of a local charity and we regularly hit them up for money) I can say, they are not that conservative. Sure, they don't live the life of say, Roman Polanski or donate to Code Pink. But their general political attitudes are identical to Tom Friedman, who is not in any way conservative.

Being conservative and being rich are generally mutually exclusive -- if you are rich you tend to be drawn into polite society liberalism, to find social acceptance from other rich people. The few exceptions are guys like Chuck Norris who have a strong sense of self. Even Arnold adopted rich-guy liberalism.
-------------
As for depictions of Blacks onscreen, they are either portrayed as magical saints (the new South African movie about Mandela), or solidly Middle Class (Commercials have Blacks all over them when Middle Class Blacks are 5% of the population). As always, it is not about Blacks, rather it is about how rich White Liberals feel more "enlightened" than everyone else, and how the extraordinary amount of money that rich White liberals have (if you are rich, you are liberal) gives them unprecedented social and political and cultural power.

Anonymous said...

"And it's amazing what a roof, a bed, meals and an emphasis on schools can do..."

They can let a guy slam into people, throwing them on the ground and occasionally beaking their bones? Cause that's what he does now for a living.

"(The Worm is one of the 27 children of his aptly named father, Philander Rodman Jr.)."

OMG.

I haven't seen "Precious", nor will I, but the girl playing the main role doesn't look like she could possibly be her screen mother's daughter. I just looked her up and she's half Senegalese. Africans don't look alike any more than Europeans do. Her facial features simply do not occur among traditional African Americans, probably because they descend from different African ethnic groups from her. I always get annoyed when Hollywood ethnically miscasts people.

Anonymous said...

[The Blind Side’s writer-director John Lee Hancock told Michael Granberry of the Dallas News:
“He loves what he calls its nature vs. nurture story line. “It's like a test case for nurture, and nurture wins in a big way. You've got a kid who's cast on the junk heap of life, socially and from an educational standpoint. And it's amazing what a roof, a bed, meals and an emphasis on schools can do, when everybody had written him off."]

Gee, that’s amazing! A black kid adopted by rich white parents becomes a great…now what was it? A physicist? A mathematician? Oh, wait…no, a great athlete. Hancock has really disproved the nature hypothesis!

[Actually, more like 16 points: at the NFL draft combine, Oher scored a decent 19 on the league’s Wonderlic IQ test, which equates to a 96.]

I suspect that in this day and age many agents (or other handlers) have their athlete-clients practice for the Wonderlic, which means that the values are probably somewhat inflated. (I.e., training effects not reflective of g.)

RKU said...

White people taking over the raising of black kids. Aside from this football family, and to a certain extent, that one DC school, I don't see much happening here.

Actually, my impression is that the overwhelming majority of non-white children adopted into middle class white families in America are Asian, usually Chinese. And the adopting families are generally childless, possibly because the two-career couple missed their child-bearing window.

Nobody ever claimed that Hollywood movies are especially realistic, or maybe I've just missed Spiderman's crime-fighting deeds in my local city.

Anonymous said...

[I agree with Garland. Steve keeps dancing around the issue. Does Steve believe these kids would be better off with their birth families? I think it's pretty clear in 99% of the cases the answer is no. And you can take the nature vs. nurture side of the debate and still believe that low IQ black kids will do better raised in a responsible middle class environment. The reasons to oppose this program as I see it are a) cost - these social programs cost money and b) simple racism.]

You're forgetting about option c), the Darwinian case for not adopting kids when you are fertile: it takes away resources from raisings one own genetically related offspring. The Tuohys should have had another child of their own instead wasting resources on a genetically distant non-relative. This would have done more to propagate their own genes. And writing this beheamoth into their will simply takes resouces from their own biological offspring, potentially reducing their fitness.

Anonymous said...

"We focus so much on the issue of IQ, and whether adoptive parents can increase the IQ of their adoptees."

Ok! Why don't we focus on the fact that one biological group of humans is providing altruistic benefits - that has no benefits to their own genes - to another biological group of human beings AND is most likely going to be blamed by the other group for doing something morally wrong. Then they will resume the cycle of giving and accepting, where one group blames the the other for historical wrongs while at the same time migrating towards the first group's territories in large numbers and demanding more altruistic actions. The first group will in a hypnotic-like trance admit their historic and present 'guilt' and transfer their own resources to benefit the other group. The second's groups population numbers will increase rapidly while the first group's population will fall rapidly. In time the first group will be cleansed from its own teritorries with the pretense of group 'justice'. The behaviour of the second group of humans is understandable from a simple evolutionary perspective. The behaviour of the first group can be looked at as something of a mystery - but we can then just deduce that evolution has its losers too.

stari_momak said...

I seem to remember and ultra-Christian, maybe even promise-keeper type U of Colorado football coach that took several black quarterbacks into his home. I believe one or two even knocked up his daughter. But maybe I am hallucinating.

Thomas said...

All we need is a rich, white family, an athletic scholarship to a Division I school, and an NFL draft slot for every underperforming youth. Only cynics or racists would say we can't do it. No child will be left behind! Yes we can!

Anonymous said...

These parents do share genes with the Ravens tackle. Of course, less then with their own children, but more then with a pet dog or cat they may spend ample resources on. Helping others seems like a great way to spend resources.

However, while I like the idea of adopting (my children are well taken care of), I am hesitant for a number of reasons. Huck Finn comes to mind. I couldn't understand as a kid why he just didn't stay with the old lady civilizing him. He seemed to have it made. The reasons he ran away are at the core of HBD, and give me pause when thinking about adoption.

stari_momak said...

Oops, no need to post anything on the intrawebs without checking. The coach was one McCartney of Colorado, and then Buffalo. Daughter knocked up by a Samoan, then an African American. How lovely.

===
Kristy's odyssey has been as big a challenge as her son ever faced on the field. At 38, she is the single mother of two, working as an office administrator at Arvada's Faith Bible Chapel school after a stint with the Campus Crusade for Christ.

It helps that she lives next door to Bill and his wife and near Tom and his family. Aunese's parents in California have remained close, but not everyone in her life has helped.

In 1994, Kristy gave birth to Derek, now a 6-foot, 170-pound eighth-grade defensive end and the son of former Colorado defensive tackle Shannon Clavelle. Kristy said Clavelle gave money to her for support while in the NFL but he has not been in contact since 2000.

OneSTDV said...

"I always get annoyed when Hollywood ethnically miscasts people."

In Ashton Kutcher's remake of "Guess who's coming to dinner" entitled "Guess who", he plays a straight laced white guy getting engaged to a black girl, whose father is played by the very dark-skinned Bernie Mac. So the main premise of the story is: white guy and black girl.

Well they got Kutcher for the white guy, but the BLACK girl was played by Zoe Saldana who, according to Wikipedia is half-Dominican and half-Peurto Rican. Were there no actually black actresses to take the part?

RKU said...

You're forgetting about option c), the Darwinian case for not adopting kids when you are fertile: it takes away resources from raisings one own genetically related offspring. The Tuohys should have had another child of their own instead wasting resources on a genetically distant non-relative. This would have done more to propagate their own genes. And writing this beheamoth into their will simply takes resouces from their own biological offspring, potentially reducing their fitness.

Before some of the commenters here get all excited about this huge factor behind Approaching White Doom, maybe someone could try to get some actual stats on the *number* of white middle class families that adopt unrelated black ghetto children.

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it's under 1,000 in the entire country. My own guess is that the time and expense lavished on pet dogs and cats is a much greater factor behind lessened white fertility.

So let's all start denouncing Fido and Whiskers, the evil architects of looming White Extinction...

Middletown Girl said...

My batting average sucks lately.

Middletown Girl said...

"And it's amazing what a roof, a bed, meals and an emphasis on schools can do..."

-----------

Are we to suppose to believe that welfare socialism hasn't supplied black kids with roofs over their heads(public housing), beds(did they sleep on dirt or cement?), meals(why are they SO BIGASS FAT?), and emphasis on schools(which neither black parents nor kids took advantage of out of ignorance, laziness, indifference, and/or hostility).

By the way, I think Sailer is right to call this a 'fad'. In the 50s and 60s, there was A LOT of liberal propaganda for integration, but things didn't turn out the way liberals planned--indeed, liberals were among the first to run like a mofo from integration. Even ones who resisted white flight eventually ran just the same (Howard Stern's Private Parts.) Social engineering just doesn't work, at least in a democracy where individuals have freedom. Reality always creeps back in.

Okay, so two families in the Movies did okay with two roly poly fat black kids. But, what's gonna happen when white parents start taking in some truly dangerous dregs from the inner-city? Even if liberal media won't cover it, there's a thing called word-of-mouth. We all tsk tsk, wink wink, know about race, crime, and property values even though liberal media cover it up.

This is too bad in a way. The movie RAISIN IN THE SUN is powerful stuff and very persuasive. Even now, it's hard not to be moved by that simple but strong and noble old black woman and what she tries to do for her family. Her daugher is booksmart. The Poitier character is an ass but still a decent enough guy who comes to see the light. His wife is loyal and nice. The kid's likable. The story is pro-integrationist, and if most black families were like this, it would indeed have been a good thing. But, what happened? Reality crept into the picture of hope. Raisin in the Sun turned into prune on the moon.

Middletown Girl said...

Maybe the movie should be called "Precious and Few".

John Seiler said...

Maybe this is all about something else.

Blacks vote at least 90% for liberal Democratic candidates. Yet blacks remain the most socially conservative group in America, overwhelminly opposing abortion, same-sex "marriage," etc. For California's Prop. 8 last year (which made illegal the absurd impossibility of same-sex "marriage"), about 70% of blacks voted Yes, tipping the vote in favor. (It won 52-48.)

So the idea is to raise the literacy of blacks so they can more easily absorb liberal propaganda. "The Blind Side" portrays white Southern Republican born-again Christians, which seems to refute my thesis. But that's only one case.

If the blacks are kidnapped into "Stolen Generations" programs, you can bet they will be given the full, secular, atheist, liberal brainwashing treatment.

David said...

> I gather Steve's objections are mostly the cost and the fact that these programs are useless over the long term but maybe he could do himself and the dumber among us a favor and spell this out more clearly. <

Wow. Just wow.

Dunno Steve's view, but here's mine: Because they should be raising their own white offspring, not sacrificing their resources on someone not of their own race. You seem to be implying this is racist (a communist term). So be it. If being for your own people and refusing on principle willingly to sacrifice their full existence and properity to other peoples is racist, then I'm a racist and very proud of it. It's your vaunted and despicable altruistic morality that is killing the ever-loving ever-giving ever-suckered (10% of the world's population and shrinking) white race.

Explain to me once again, Jesus: how can I be my brother's keeper if he isn't my keeper? Charity begins at home, with your own people. Every people, every race, understands and practices this - except deracinated whites besotted with churchbabble and terrified of the sneers of reprobate and degenerate idiots who presume that implying "racism" is the ultimate argument against our survival.

Hope that clears it up for you.

David said...

Modern-day Christianity: those who are not your brother are your brother more than your actual brother is.

Praise the lard.

Steve Sailer said...

Adoption of Africans by celebrities, of football players by boosters, etc. is not and will never be a widespread trend. It merely reflects a growing theme in our culture that is related to the growing demands for more spending to keep black children in school or otherwise away from their mothers as much as possible.

Thomas said...

By the way, I'm surprised that you overlooked the most prominent example of a black raised by whites in the public eye today, the current resident of the White House.

David said...

RKU said

> Before some of the commenters here get all excited about this huge factor behind Approaching White Doom, maybe someone could try to get some actual stats on the *number* of white middle class families that adopt unrelated black ghetto children. <

Well, it's the principle of the thing, RKU.

Imagine someone in 1900 saying, "Let's all calm down about socialism and count the actual percentage of our wealth we're paying in taxes today. See? It's not that large."

Tim said...

Completing the unfinished business of the civil rights movement will take care of the IQ gap- Jewish-black intermarriage.

bgc said...

When I read The Blind Side, I was astonished to discover - did I get this right? - that to become a professional American Footballer you needed first to get admission to a university!

Is there no way into pro football except via college?

Anyway, the main barrier to the guy getting to play pro Football seemed to be the purely artificial one of passing some academic examinations; for which he required intense and prolonged one-on-one tuition.

But if footballers did not need to pass these artificial exams, then maybe someone like this guy could be picked off the streets by scouts and nurtured by agents from the pro teams; as being one of the handful of people who have the physique (size, strength and acceleration) which means they potentially can play in this specific position.

Middletown Girl said...

"Adoption of Africans by celebrities, of football players by boosters, etc. is not and will never be a widespread trend. It merely reflects a growing theme in our culture that is related to the growing demands for more spending to keep black children in school or otherwise away from their mothers as much as possible."

This can make all the difference. Most Christians didn't follow in the footsteps of Jesus and martyred saints, but their examples became powerful symbols which shaped the hearts, souls, and the nature of Western civilization.

Even if or precisely because most whites won't adopt and raise black kids, whole of white society will be burdened with guilt feelings for NOT CARING. So, whites will be morally bullied to tally or pay up in other ways.

Catholic Church pulled the same stunt for centuries. It would say, "look at those wonderful, noble, pure-hearted saints whom you should all emulate." Of course, most people could not be saints, so what did they do to compensate for their shortcomings? They donated huge sums to the Catholic Church.

Same with environmentalism. Most of us cannot live the noble GREEN Lifestyle, so guys like Al Gore morally blackmail us into paying into his Noble Cause to offset our sinful carbon footprints.

So, it doesn't matter if most whites don't adopt black kids. If SAVE-THE-FAT-BLACK-KID becomes a new kind of moral template, many whites will be filled with guilt for not having shared their lives, wealth, and house with a black child. They'll have to compensate by paying into some big fat liberal cause.

Indeed, there's a theory that a lot of white people watch Oprah or support Obama for just that reason. As white liberals, they feel somewhat guilty or less-than-noble for not interacting with enough black people or for being richer than most blacks. So, they compensate by going gaga over Oprah or Obama.

The Impossible Dream has a way of turning reality into nightmare.

rob said...

In objective terms, raising black slum kids with non-black caregivers would be good for the black kids. It would not be good for the non-blacks who have to do it. Neither the black children nor the babymammas would appreciate it.

And for unwanted consequences, without the trouble having children around, the r-selecting brood mares would have even more babies. Though without welfare, they might have fewer babies. Plus, a state that removes lots of kids from their mothers probably would have little problem sterilizing women who have proven that they can't raise children.

Demographic doom is getting too close. Maybe if the slum adults were placed in institutional environments where they could work...ugly, ugly thoughts.

Anonymous said...

"But, whether Republican or Democrat, white or black, everybody who is au courant is coming to agree upon one solution for poor black children: keep them away from their own families as much as possible."

But Steve - isn't this your story also? Weren't you also adopted at an early age by loving parents who kept you away from your real parents, and whatever pathologies led them to put you up for adoption. Did not your adopted parents deliver you to a warm loving home environment and good schools?

Pissed Off Chinaman said...

Mr. Anon, you ripped that acronymn from a Mad TV sketch.

Simon said...

LBT:
"There is something about the mentality of modern white Christians that compels them to venerate the non-white Other. From sending money to Africa, to building houses for Mexican peasants, to importing Hmong and Somalis to the US. White Christians neglect their own."

Sounds like you know my mother-in-law.

Matt G. said...

Why did Michael Oher's IQ increase by 16 points? Obviously going from the hell hole environment he came from to a supportive and nuturing one was bound to have an effect, but from what I've been reading on this site for the last few years environment plays a small role in IQ compared to the genetic component. The increase of his IQ by a whole standard deviation contradicts that assertion. I realize he is only one example, but again why the large increase?

Pissed Off Chinaman said...

Anonymous,

Folks like you are assuming that people my age (in our prime fertile years) want to have children. My gf and I are both busy people with careers that take up the vast majority of our week. Granted neither of us really find those careers satisfying (mostly due to the 12-16 hour days).

However, I don't see how getting married and having children will make us any happier. One of us would have to quit our job and the other one would have to stay at their job to support a family. Now instead of two people with some free time, there will be two people with no free time at all.

I mean really, what benefit is there to pass on our "immortal genes" when I will be dead (by 50 of a heart attack if I continue at my current job).

coldequation said...

I have an evangelical relative who adopted some underclass black kids. One of the kids now attacks them physically, so they had to lock up the knives. When are they going to make a movie about them?

Laguna Beach Trad said...

I suppose there is another option. A group of Indiana professors have recently proposed sending children of the African underclass to boarding school--in Africa.

josh said...

I havent seen the movie,and unless someone deems it worthy to obtain a cattle prod and point it in the vicinity of my genitals,I wont. However based on the ads, I'd say theres an underlying theme here besides the race issue,(or maybe its "intertwined",which a lot of critics say stuff is--I get those confused--anyway) and thats the issue of feminism. This movie celebrates this apparently obnoxious broad who totally disrupts her family and imposes her will,and whimsy,on them by adopting this character. She couldnt have known that he'd wind up hitting the jackpot(as opposed to hitting,er,them!)--tho how much athletic promise the young man showed at the time of adoption may have been an issue. We ARE getting the "feel good story of the year" version,not what REALLY happened. Point is the Bullock character is the boos of her family,doing what she wants,and no one can--or should--object cuz,damn it!!,she's doing something so GOOD! Good for her!! we cry. UGH! The husband is played by Tim McGraw,a country guy I never ever listen to but liked because he is the son of Tug McGraw,whose baseball card I had a s a mere lad. This normally wouldnt mean anything,but I happened to catch him being interviewed by somebody(I think it was that loathsome Robin Roberts(?),the pea brain who interviewed Madonna Constantine,the rotund Columbia professor who put the noose by her door after she got caught stealing a students work,and in said interview fawned all over this mountebank w/o ever breaching even the slightest possibility that she was a lying SOB. Perhaps she,madonna,was the role model for Precious??) a few days ago and he seemed a tad...creepy. he has a wife and three daughters,and he said he does what he is told by his "4 strong women". UGH! I know "country" is basically pop music for white women,and the men seem to have to project that soft,pliant image to be succesful. he fits into this movie very nicely,as his character seems to be a foil for the wife,one who spends a lot of time looking at her admiringly. As for "Precious", I may see it just to see Mariah Careys 'stache. I hear she brings back memories of Ben Davidson!

Middletown Girl said...

For a good laugh, do read the piece in FILM COMMENT on Precious. It's not criticism but high-five jive from some black critic on the Boston Globe. It's film writing as black soul family reunion.

travis said...

There is something about the mentality of modern white Christians that compels them to venerate the non-white Other. From sending money to Africa, to building houses for Mexican peasants, to importing Hmong and Somalis to the US. White Christians neglect their own.

What does this have to do with The Blind Side? Southern paternalism is not based on the venerating the non-white Other. That's definitely a liberal Yankee thing.

Anonymous said...

Simon - To achieve parity you'd have to have all white kids raised by underclass blacks while all black kids were raised by upper middle class whites

Somewhere in the back of many liberal minds is a cosy scenario where black children are billeted on white middle-class families. Simultaneously, white children will be bussed off daily to state run facilities to be schooled and cared for by wise Latinas and magic negro women and the like. Think of the Oracle from The Matrix, you get the idea.

ben tillman said...

...while the Main Stream Media’s obsession with finding what Wolfe calls the “Great White Defendant” made possible the Duke lacrosse hoax, no less than three (3) star minority football players—including Mark Sanchez, now quarterback for the New York Jets—had been arrested on rape or assault charges in the just the previous week. But those incidents didn’t get much press attention. They’re routine.

Are you implying that Sanchez is Jewish, or are you simply reminding us that whites are a minority in California?

Elizabeth Wright said...

Gee, that’s amazing! A black kid adopted by rich white parents becomes a great…now what was it? A physicist? A mathematician? Oh, wait…no, a great athlete. Hancock has really disproved the nature hypothesis!

You are funny, and you make a good point. But you know what they mean -- the boy was no longer existing in the midst of social chaos, that is being given no attention or discipline, having the worst types brought into whatever home he lived in, i.e., the lowest common denominator, encountering people who are jealous of whatever advances he might make to improve his life and perhaps face violence at their hands, and living in an environment where he is unable to concentrate or focus on anything, even athletic training.

This is the real life setting faced by most children of these wonderful ghetto "Single Moms."

In terms of low IQ, anyone stands a better chance of making wiser choices in life when you begin to learn that the world is not a totally dismal place. Down through the years, we've all encountered whites with low IQs, who were decent human beings, and no one would ever connect inevitable violent behavior with their intellectual limitations. Growing up, while watching only the animal instinct prevail around you, does weird, funny stuff to the head and the soul.

Elizabeth Wright said...

I guess the thinking is that a little white goes a long way. After all, that's what we're in this world for - to serve the underachievers. Praise the Lawd!

I would say you've just hit on the core teaching now rampant in this country, when it comes to the role of white folks, i.e., To serve the Underclass. Black elites, for decades now, have surely made it clear that they're not going to play this role. Make Whitey pay.

keypusher said...

There are some ugly comments on this thread. How resentful are the Tuohy's natural children about having Michael Oher being adopted into the family? Probably not very. They are still going to be millionaires, aren't they?

As for some sort of pandemic of whites adopting blacks, guardians of the white race can relax about that particular peril. Black children are so hard to place in this country that many are adopted abroad.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20147746,00.html

Modern-day Christianity: those who are not your brother are your brother more than your actual brother is.

Where could modern Christians have gotten such an idea? Perhaps from the founder of their faith. Matthew 12:46-50

46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

RKU said...

Pissed Off Chinaman said... Folks like you are assuming that people my age (in our prime fertile years) want to have children. My gf and I are both busy people with careers that take up the vast majority of our week. Granted neither of us really find those careers satisfying (mostly due to the 12-16 hour days).

However, I don't see how getting married and having children will make us any happier. One of us would have to quit our job and the other one would have to stay at their job to support a family. Now instead of two people with some free time, there will be two people with no free time at all.

I mean really, what benefit is there to pass on our "immortal genes" when I will be dead (by 50 of a heart attack if I continue at my current job).


Actually, I think POC's lament is a much better description of the factors behind the low fertility rates of America's middle/upper classes. It's less a matter of "hostile propaganda" and the growing tendency to adopt black children from the ghetto than the competitive rat-race for urban professionals and pressures for financial Consumerism.

I think POC once mentioned that he had a pretty high IQ. So if he and his gf end up having zero or one child, while Philander Rodman, Jr. has 27, there will eventually be some significant changes in the nature of American society.

But who knows, maybe the Amish will ultimately save us all...

Anonymous said...

Matt G asked:
"but from what I've been reading on this site for the last few years environment plays a small role in IQ compared to the genetic component. The increase of his IQ by a whole standard deviation contradicts that assertion. I realize he is only one example, but again why the large increase?"

As noted above, the wonderlic has become somewhat important in the NFL draft, so many agents have their clients practice the test. Practice does raise test scores. This has been the basis for claims of success from early intervention programs. However, the literature is clear that the gains are "hollow", i.e., not related to g and not reflected in higher real world performance. The sample on which the wonderlic was normed wouldn't have had previous practice with the test, but most of the NFL players probably would, which means their scores are probably somewhat inflated relative to their true ability.

As a side note, the test prep industry is a good example of this: most people do better on the SAT with some practice and training than if they take the test cold without ever having seen it before. Also note that when everyone prepares for an aptitude test or nobody prepares, the rank order of individuals' performances is virtually identical (but the raw scores are higher, of course, if everybody prepares). However, when some people prepare and some don't, the performance becomes less reflective of g and the tests predictive validity is less for the sample.

Richard Hoste said...

I agree with Garland. Steve keeps dancing around the issue. Does Steve believe these kids would be better off with their birth families? I think it's pretty clear in 99% of the cases the answer is no. And you can take the nature vs. nurture side of the debate and still believe that low IQ black kids will do better raised in a responsible middle class environment. The reasons to oppose this program as I see it are a) cost - these social programs cost money and b) simple racism. Most opponents to these programs on the left are simply racist in the everyday sense - people who just don't like whites and don't want them "infecting" blacks (or native Americans) with their culture. I gather Steve's objections are mostly the cost and the fact that these programs are useless over the long term but maybe he could do himself and the dumber among us a favor and spell this out more clearly.

I thought he made it clear that he'd like to see whites have and spend money on their own children.

Anonymous said...

Bill Mccartney- U of Colorado- his str qb Sal Aunese knocked up his daughter- turned poor Bill into a hard core Christian- think he started the Promise keepers. Aunese died of cancer when the kid was born btw- sad.

Dan in Dc

Truth said...

"can more easily absorb liberal propaganda. "The Blind Side" portrays white Southern Republican born-again Christians, which seems to refute my thesis."

Maybe that means it's time for a new thesis, Sport. NO M.S. DEGREE FOR YOUR!!!

"Practice does raise test scores."

The wonderlic is the short version of an IQ test, and I though that IQ was predetermined?

Middletown Girl said...

"However, I don't see how getting married and having children will make us any happier."

When your parents pass away, your friends go their own ways, and when everyone you've known--girlfriends and pals and colleagues--grow old and drop like flies one by one, you will be ALL ALONE in a retirement home with NO ONE in the world to come visit you, care about you, think about you, or grieve over your passing. All you will have are professional nurses and healthcare aids grumpily cleaning your bed pan and feeding you stuff through your nose--not because they care about you but because they are being paid. To them, you're just an annoyance they gotta take care of to make a living.

Pissed Off Chinaman, you seem to have forgotten the wisdom of your ancestors. Youth and success don't last forever. When you're old, your fancy condo, dvd and videogame collections and computer files won't care about you. Only your kids and grandkids will--that is if you have them.

Are you pissed off chinaman or dumbass chinaman?

Middletown Girl said...

"A guy who fathered 27 kids, most of them assuredly bastards, who is named 'Philander'. God is mocking us......to death."

Philander and RODman. God and Devil are both mocking us to death.

Reactionary said...

He should change his name to Going Extinct Chinaman. He can get his squeeze to post here as Barren Aging Girlfriend.

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

"All you will have are professional nurses and healthcare aids grumpily cleaning your bed pan and feeding you stuff through your nose--not because they care about you but because they are being paid. To them, you're just an annoyance they gotta take care of to make a living."

Middletown Girl, I think you are painting an overly rosy picture of POC's old age.
Since Whites are slated to become a minority by 2040, when POC is old, he's going to have to rely on mostly NAMS as professional nurses and grumpy healthcare aides.
I suspect POC's future is that the professional nurses will be shockingly incompetent and the grumpy aides won't dependably do their jobs of changing his Depends at all.
Once POC becomes infirm, I suspect he won't stay alive long enough to get lonely.

Anonymous said...

Catholic Church pulled the same stunt for centuries. It would say, "look at those wonderful, noble, pure-hearted saints whom you should all emulate." Of course, most people could not be saints, so what did they do to compensate for their shortcomings? They donated huge sums to the Catholic Church.

I sense tribal hostility.

Little Mike said...

Why did Michael Oher's IQ increase by 16 points?

This is probably because his earliest test scores were artificially depressed due to his extremely unstable and likely abusive childhood. What IQ test does a child who changes schools more than once a year and disappears for over a year take anyway?

While interventions like Head Start have failed to produce any long term IQ boost over large populations, very extreme environments can probably depress IQ scores (abuse, neglect, fear).

Separated twin studies and SESvsRacevsSAT data suggest these cases are so few as to not affect IQ averages for populations.

idealart said...

keypusher,

I think your taking the bit in Matthew a little too literally.

SF said...

A lot of the Natives of the southwest used to be sent to the Sherman School in Riverside. When I lived on the Klamath River in the '70s, a lot of the middle aged natives had been there, but in recent decades, it has not been the politically correct way to treat the natives. The school still exists. I think they get a lot of students from law enforcement referrals now.
http://shastainquirer.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2009-11-01T09%3A56%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=7
Anyway, I haven't yet heard formal demands for an apology like in Australia.

Marc B said...

Leigh Ann Tuohy has been all over the news here in Memphis the past couple weeks and she certainly comes off as a sanctimonious harridan. She strikes me as more uncouth than driven. She lectures affluent whites to be more like her.

"It really isn't all that complicated...

1. The reason Blacks do so poorly in life and commit so many crimes is because they have such low adult IQs."

I disagree. I realize that there is a correlation between low IQ and poor impulse control, but you are ignoring the very important and difficult to quantify aspect of temperament.

Anonymous said...

I'd be surprised if couples like the Blind Siders weren't able to make a difference even for kids with poor genetic endowments. Neither am I surprised that they were evangelical Christians. I'm not part of it, but as far as I can tell evangelical christianity is about the only thing that actually makes a difference to the habits and success of the poor, depraved, and stupid.

The 'emerging consensus' that we should take 'disadvantaged kids' away from their parents is going to founder on the fact that we'll then give those kids to overworked, time-serving social workers preaching half-digested stupidity.

My wife sat in on parenting class offered by our state to parents whose kids had been removed. She said that the instructor was barely coherent and spent most of the time ranting that society should be more accepting of prostitutes, because marriage was really a form of prostitution when you think about it.

Anonymous said...

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if it's under 1,000 in the entire country. My own guess is that the time and expense lavished on pet dogs and cats is a much greater factor behind lessened white fertility.

So let's all start denouncing Fido and Whiskers, the evil architects of looming White Extinction...


Absolutely true. You say it like its a joke, but we'd probably be better off if all pets belonging to persons below age 40 died tomorrow.

Svigor said...

The wonderlic is the short version of an IQ test, and I though that IQ was predetermined?

I thought Wonderlic scores were considered correlated with IQ, like the SAT (which you can definitely study for). For that matter, IQ scores are considered to correlate with g.

Svigor said...

Tim:
Completing the unfinished business of the civil rights movement will take care of the IQ gap- Jewish-black intermarriage.

Tim, I think you're on to something. That's brilliant!

Jewish-black intermarriage is the key to saving America's soul.

Svigor said...

Well they got Kutcher for the white guy, but the BLACK girl was played by Zoe Saldana who, according to Wikipedia is half-Dominican and half-Peurto Rican. Were there no actually black actresses to take the part?

Am I the only one who thinks the entertainment biz couldn't give less of a crap about black women? On the rare occasion a black female role comes up, it's always a high yella chick. Black dudes abound, but black women? They seem to not exist in Bizarro World.

Pissed Off Chinaman said...

Middletown Girl

I realize youth and success are temporary but I do not see how having descendants will make my old age any better. I won't care whether my genes get passed on (or anything else for that matter) when I am dead. I really do not want anyone to grieve for me when I pass away either for that matter.

Svigor said...

POC, MG may not have yet internalized the idea that a certain type of person is barren ground for any belief system that involves caring about something beyond the self.

E.g., some people don't care if the world is destroyed by aliens .0001 seconds after they die; what's the point of hammering home points about the common good to people like this?

Pissed Off Chinaman said...

CCLF,

I think you're both being optimistic in assuming I will even live long enough to become infirm at the rate I am going :P

Curvaceous Carbon-based Life Form said...

"I think you're both being optimistic in assuming I will even live long enough to become infirm at the rate I am going :P"

Well, yeah, that's a viable alternative (sorry for the bad pun) to suffering geriatric debilities, including the excruciating pains of the bedsores you'll get due to the neglect of "caregivers" who do NOT love you -- who, in fact, because you are not of their race, and NAMS are very racially aware, to say the least, will likely despise your guts.

Gee, I'm glad I nursed my babies, and my children love me as a result. They just might, at that, pop in from time to time, when I'm in that NAM-staffed home, to check if my bedsore bandages have been changed in the last month. Or maybe even let me live with them if I promise to be nice.

Victoria said...

I think Pissed Off Chinaman is putting us on, but I can't resist having some fun with this:

... you will be ALL ALONE in a retirement home with NO ONE in the world to come visit you, care about you, ...

And who guarantees that the offspring you've made will perform as you outline here? Who says that they will not make your parenting years a living hell because of what they turn out to be, or that they will give a damn about showing up for your death bed scene?

Who says that you will not make other firm social connections along the way, not only with friends, but with the family members of your friends? And, due to the unhappiness that your children brought throughout your life, who says that your last years won't be spent in horrible regret BECAUSE you decided to have them?

You say "... won't care about you. Only your kids and grandkids will." Can you put that in a contract, in writing?

Mr. Anon said...

"Pissed Off Chinaman said...

I realize youth and success are temporary but I do not see how having descendants will make my old age any better. I won't care whether my genes get passed on (or anything else for that matter) when I am dead. I really do not want anyone to grieve for me when I pass away either for that matter."

You needn't worry. No one will.

Mr. Anon said...

"Victoria said...

And who guarantees that the offspring you've made will perform as you outline here? Who says that they will not make your parenting years a living hell because of what they turn out to be, or that they will give a damn about showing up for your death bed scene?"

No one will guarantee it. Nothing in life is certain. But it is far more likely that your relatives will care about you than people who are not related to you, or certainly random strangers. This is simply common wisdom that has come down to us over the ages.

Here's a thought experiment for you, when your near the end: Instead of giving your family pictures to a son, daughter, niece, or nephew - give them to someone at random. Tell them that you are entrusting your family history to them, and that they should guard it as they would a great treasure.

See how long it takes for those family snaps to end up in a dumpster. Not long. And why should they not? Why should the person you gave them to care - it's not HIS family.

Pissed Off Chinaman said...

Victoria, I am not putting ya'll on. This is how I really feel. While going through life childless might seem unusual or even selfish for some of you guys; I feel it is the proper course for me.

Middletown Girl said...

"Well they got Kutcher for the white guy, but the BLACK girl was played by Zoe Saldana who, according to Wikipedia is half-Dominican and half-Peurto Rican. Were there no actually black actresses to take the part?"

Most Dominicans and a lot of Puerto Ricans are black!

Truth said...

"While going through life childless might seem unusual or even selfish for some of you guys; I feel it is the proper course for me."

POC; I have a 19-year old son that I had with a much older woman when I was in my early twenties. He is my only child, and while I took financial responsibility, I was unable to take emotional responsibility, and I would describe our relationship as "Icy." I was a lousy father, and I knew that I would be even before I met my ex.

You are right in saying that having children is not for everyone, yet I would say that for most people it's hard to make that discernment before about 35.

Victoria said...

Pissed Off Chinaman, lots of us don't have children, and could never envision ourselves in the parent role, but we don't have such elaborate expressions about it as you do.

What's this about passing on pictures? Is this some kind of given? Is this now a tradition that has sprung up as a result of the techno craze of cameras embedded in everything? Gee, another thing to worry about! What's to be done with the photos? Maybe single people or childless couples spend less time taking pictures. Don't be so sure that the pictures you hand over to your son don't wind up in that dumpster, too.

Bruce said...

Steve,

Is there any evidence for the claims about his original (80) IQ test results? Have the results been publically released? I'm assuming Lewis or the family itself could have just made that up to assist in the creation of a nice story.

Hockey Puck said...

I sense tribal hostility.

The comparison was highly disengenuous too; yeah, MG, that's great you think that alms-giving in the Medieval Church was functionally identical to comtemporary charity shake-downs, but the essential difference you neglect to examine is that in the Middle Ages, the money that people gave to the Church was not being being used to sponsor the importation of Ethiopians to Essex, but was instead being reinvested locally in the form of churches, monasteries, universities, hospitals and various other forms of community support.

Mr. Anon said...

"Pissed Off Chinaman said...

Victoria, I am not putting ya'll on. This is how I really feel. While going through life childless might seem unusual or even selfish for some of you guys; I feel it is the proper course for me."

I feel it's the proper course for you, too. We don't need anymore of you around.

Mr. Anon said...

"Victoria said...

What's this about passing on pictures? Is this some kind of given? Is this now a tradition that has sprung up as a result of the techno craze of cameras embedded in everything? Gee, another thing to worry about! What's to be done with the photos? Maybe single people or childless couples spend less time taking pictures. Don't be so sure that the pictures you hand over to your son don't wind up in that dumpster, too."

Here's news for you Victoria - cameras existed even before they were in cell phones. Even a century ago or more, people had family pictures.

And it was not just about pictures, though you are apparently too obtuse to have seen that - pictures were just a metaphor for......for everything - family heritage, traditions,.....memory. Whether or not you are remembered by the next generation. Who is most likely to do this? Your kin, or strangers? Most likely too. Not certain too.

PuffsPlus said...

"I feel it's the proper course for you, too. We don't need anymore of you around."

Why the hostility here to the voluntary childless? Some of us are not meant to have and raise children. The problem isn't those of us who choose not to have kids, it's those who have kids without blinking an eye about it.

POC, my husband and I are in your situation. I would have liked to have kids, but he doesn't want any and time and money are not on our side. He's younger, we're poor and we live in an area where two jobs are basically a necessity (even though we have a cheap house and mortgage).

And those of you on here who are concerned about the purity of the white race ought to rejoice about us not having kids. My husband is part Chinese and I have a little Asian ancestry too, so our children would be about 93% white and 7% Asian.

J. Caryn said...

While I enjoyed 'The Blind Side', I think a great underdog story would be an adaptation of Susan Boyle's life. I mean... TV Guide Network's already airing a documentary about her on the 13th. Have you guys heard about it? I'm a huge Susan Boyle fan so I'm really excited about it...

Here's a link to pics and more info. I heard it's only airing on TV Guide:
I Dreamed A Dream… The Susan Boyle Story

I can't wait for it. And I would definitely be first in line for the feature if Hollywood adapted it...

Anonymous said...

Actually, it is scores on conventional IQ tests (WAIS, Woodcock Johnson, Binet, SAT), that tend to stay relatively (to age) constant, as they are highly loaded in ‘crystallized’ content (75% crystallized, Blair estimate). These tests reflect, predominately, short term memory capacity and are hardly influenced by environment and training.

In contrast, there is plenty of evidence that has accumulated over recent years, which suggests that ‘fluid intelligence’ is highly permeable, and can increase with schooling and training. Fluid intelligence has been linked to the various structures of frontal lobe and prefrontal cortex, and significant discrepencies have been documented between conventional measures of IQ, and tests saturated in Gf. A range of mental disorders show largely negative correlation with Gf. On the other hand, it is not uncommon in individuals diagnosed with High-functioning Autism (Aspergers, HFA), to show differences of 30 or 40 points between the two factors (results, specifically, from the Raven’s, where the autistic sample showed higher fluid scores). However it is becoming more clear from theoretical work, that even among neurotypical (normal) individuals, there must be cases where through, at least some interval of time, large gf-gc differences exist. (Definitely , through childhood, and even at late adolescents and late teen, early adulthood as well). This is all very interesting, because it has come to challenge the ‘law’ of intellectual constancy, which has long been a convenient postulate, regarding general intelligence.

Intelligence is a poorly defined term, and especially so in the hands of the subset of elitist, who have aimed and ,arguably, succeeded, in monopolizing the concept. (The agenda they have, goes beyond the scope of this post) It’s value can never be measured by any written test (especially, through any arbitrary hour, posing an arbitrary set of problems). Maybe one day, we can scan a person’s brain, and infer individual limitations by elements of structure and reflex. Until that day, I think there are better measures of intelligence (and I won’t waste more time, describing this), and especially, for individuals in their adolescent and early adult years, when the brain is more plastic with regard to Gf.

But back to Michael Oher, with an 80 IQ. From what I saw in the movie, just for fun, I would guess he had a peak of about 105 and it would have been somewhere between his senior year in high school and first year in college. But to be fair, I should mention that someone who came from such an unprivileged background, was quite manageable. And such a fact, ultimately, further complicates the topic of intelligence.