2007 Selwyn Duke
a racial profiling lawsuit against the Maryland State Police (MSP), a
plaintiff’s attorney named Eliza Leighton said that some training documents
contain “startling examples of racial stereotypes about Hispanics.”
(Just so you know, when leftists use the word “startling,” it usually
means, “Man, this truth hurts!”) According to the Associated
example, one document cautions that Hispanics generally do not hold their
alcohol well. They tend to drink too much and this leads to fights. And it
notes, Hispanic males are raised to be MACHO and brave, while females are raised
to be subservient. Other sterotypes [sic] include the assertion that the weapon
of choice for Hispanics is a knife and that Hispanics are reluctant to learn
of the outcome of this lawsuit, we can now expect such information to be purged
from the training documents. But, as
I wrote about Dr. James Watson’s comments regarding Africans, intelligence and
genetics, this is part of a very distressing pattern.
Everyone fixates on the fact that such comments constitute
generalizations (about groups that are supposed to be immune from such things),
as if this is an offense in and of itself. Yet,
no one seems to ask the only relevant question.
the generalizations true?
anyone waxes stupid, please don’t tell me that all generalizations are invalid
because not every member of the given group will conform to a generalization.
Intelligent people understand that legitimate generalizations are
statements about a group’s general characteristics, not individuals’
specific ones. For example, if I say
that men are taller than women, I don’t mean that every man towers over every
woman; nevertheless, it is an accurate relation of a general difference between
brings us to an important point: While we must judge everyone as an individual,
we must also judge every individual group as an individual group, for there are
differences within groups but also differences among them.
Thus, it makes no more sense to paint every group with the same brush
than it does to paint every individual with the same brush.
response to those who cannot or will not accept this is that if they can’t
understand commentary written for adults, they shouldn’t read it.
Besides, not all generalizations can be invalid simply because the
statement that all generalizations are invalid is itself is a generalization.
reality, implicit in leftist ideology is concurrence with this belief.
Think about it: Modern dogma holds that diversity is one of the greatest
qualities a society can enjoy, that it bestows many advantages.
But what does this imply? Well,
by definition “diversity” refers to differences among groups.
Now, not only is it illogical to assume that every one of these
differences will be flattering, the supposition that diversity is beneficial
implies otherwise. After all, if
diversity is beneficial, it is only because certain groups bring
qualities or strengths to the table that others do not.
And, if a given group possesses a certain unique strength, then other
groups are wanting in that area relative to it.
which way you slice it, this is a corollary of diversity dogma.
ironically, despite the fact that the diversity dogmatists would eschew
stereotyping, a version of it imbues their ideology.
So it’s not that they don’t have biases relating to generalizations,
only that their understanding of group differences is clumsy and primitive, sort
of like Archie Bunker but with advanced degrees, the illusion of intellectualism
and the inability to be honest with themselves and others.
So let’s be honest now.
often arise because they have a basis in reality.
For example, it was always said that Irishmen liked to drink.
Once again, intelligent people know this doesn’t mean that every
Irishman is a drunkard, but informed people might know something else: Ireland
ranks number two in the world in per capita alcohol consumption
next to Luxemburg (both people who live there can really tie one on).
difference among groups is that some are more patriarchal than others.
We know that Moslem societies are quite so, as women are usually afforded
fewer legal rights. In fact,
Westerners will often emphasize and lament this difference as a way to burnish
their credentials as a believer in women’s liberation.
light of this, let’s now analyze the MSP’s statement that “Hispanic males
are raised to be MACHO and brave, while females are raised to be subservient.”
Since some groups are more patriarchal than others, this can be true; and
I venture to say that anyone who has had great contact with Hispanic people and
possesses eyes and common sense will know it’s true.
to these matters, Raul Caetano, Catherine L. Clark and Tammy Tam, three PhDs who
received a government grant to study common sense, implicitly vindicate two of
the MSP’s assertions. They write
in their paper, Alcohol Consumption Among Racial/Ethnic Minorities:
traditional explanation for heavy drinking patterns among Hispanic men,
particularly Mexican-Americans, is the concept of ‘exaggerated machismo.’”
these researchers didn’t accept or reject this explanation, they didn’t
question the suppositions that Hispanic men drink too much and are “macho.”
So then why are the Maryland State Police probably going to have to pay
money for saying what these academics got money to say?
Well, it neither serves the left’s agenda to sue a few eggheads nor can
cash be extracted from them.
there is another factor: If a truth hurts, since you can’t destroy the Truth,
you destroy the truth-teller.
here is another truth. I have only
one thing to say about the idea that Hispanics are reluctant to learn English:
I’ve never been asked if I wanted to press two for German.
aren’t just woven into flawed leftist ideology (please forgive the redundancy)
and million-dollar research substitutes for common sense, but also
entertainment. Just think about all
the times that whites are characterized as nerdy, lacking rhythm or liking
mayonnaise (as to this, watch the movie Undercover Brother or Al
Yankovic’s music video “White & Nerdy”).
Yet, golfer Fuzzy Zoeller was practically clubbed to death for quipping
that Tiger Woods shouldn’t request fried chicken or collard greens after the
latter’s record-setting performance at the 1997 Masters tournament.
(I was “startled” myself; since Woods’ mother hails from Thailand,
I would have thrown in phat gapow). Seriously,
though – or almost seriously – if whites can be smeared with mayonnaise,
other groups can be coddled with their cuisines.
isn’t to say that every stereotype or generalization – or what is known as a
“profile” in the realm of law enforcement – is completely accurate.
But when one is found wanting, it simply warrants the alteration of its
flawed elements, not the throwing out of the baby with the bath water.
If a difference is frivolous and fun, it should be a source of mirth; if
it indicates greater ability, it should be applauded; and if the difference is
damning, remedy should be sought.
this standard won’t be embraced until we accept what is perhaps the most valid
generalization of all: The leftist thought police are a menace to civilization
and free speech. They are turning us
into an ideological state, a place where ideology isn’t rejected when it
departs from Truth but Truth is rejected when it departs from ideology.
for remedy, the best antidote to political correctness is its opposite.
We don’t have to speak and joke and talk and think in a way that
pleases those who prove that infantilism doesn’t always peak in infancy.
Instead, we should stand up for truth – be it in the form of wit,
policy or paradigm – and those who speak it.
Do this en masse and “startle” those thought police enough, and we
just might be rid of them after all. That
is, if they actually do have hearts.
Selwyn Duke is a freelance writer out or Larchmont, NY. He has written for various publications including: IntellectualConservative.com, AmericanThinker.com and is a regular columnist for RenewAmerica.us.