Mencken Quote

[Legion]

Clergicide I'm not always the sharpest tool in the shed, but I just read over the quotes attributed to Mencken and I can't escape the impression that he was a racist.

[Warrior_of_god]

...but I just read over the quotes attributed to Mencken and I can't escape the impression that he was a racist.

True, but he can still be a person to be remembered. Patton was anti-Semetic and look what he did against the Germans.

[Dhampir]

Of course, there have been Christians in the KKK, but this does not make it a Christian organization. In fact, organizations cannot be Christian.

This statement would be to either negate the notion of religion itself, or to limit its definition, and assume that non-christians, or non-theists constituted at any point, most of or even an appreciable number of all racists, and more than a negligible number of kkk members.

 

You do realize that the criteria of Klan membership pretty much makes it impossible to not be a christian? That even a large number of sects are considered unworthy, and some of those are considered guilty of certain crimes against god? I wouldn't say that there were/are no non-theist Klansmen. Hell, there was once a very notable black klan leader (He worked for the FBI, and was never seen in person, but still...). You seem to be of the idea that christianity is not a religion, in much the same way that your mainstream counterparts would claim, whether they agree with your out of the box thinking or not.

 

In fact, organizations cannot be Christian.

That's a lot like denouncing the existence of MLB. As though organizations can't... organize around a central concept (like christianity!), or organize with a certain theme as the basis for it (such as that the god of abraham and isaac chose the white race to rule over all others, and destroy those that would not be subjugated; the pale skin of their race is more pleasant to look upon, and is an outward symbol of god's preference).

 

It almost smacks of denial of any position's truth but yours.

Some more. How about Dr. Daniel Hale Williams, who performed the first open heart surgery in the U.S.?

Thanks for that, btw. I keep forgetting whether he did the first open heart, or the first heart transplant.

[Clergicide]

Here's a link to some Black inventors that might or might not meet your criteria for "extraordinary." Some more. How about Dr. Daniel Hale Williams, who performed the first open heart surgery in the U.S.?

 

Daniel Hale Williams was bi-racial. This was the second pericardial surgery on record, and he assisted with 5 other surgeons. Nevertheless, extraordiary for that time.

 

This is an invention timeline: black inventors

 

Most of it's rubbish, but there's a few decent inventions along the way.

 

Of course, there have been Christians in the KKK, but this does not make it a Christian organization. In fact, organizations cannot be Christian. Only people can be Christian. Organizations cannot be Atheist, either; only people can be Atheist.

We're not talking about a few members..we're talking about the vast majority of members. As a predominantly southern organization do you seriously entertain the notion they would embrace an atheist in their ranks? Get real.

 

Clergicide I'm not always the sharpest tool in the shed, but I just read over the quotes attributed to Mencken and I can't escape the impression that he was a racist.

 

With 21st century goggles on I can read it that way too.

 

It's holding that some aspect of their person, identifiable as a quality of their race, makes them inferior, in absence of proof.

 

Direct observation was his evidence, as is stated in the quotes.

 

I don't know much about the first item, but the second and third are due to things such as affirmative action, and perceptions based on the original idea of 'negro inferiority', and in no way constitute proof or even reasonable evidence of such.

 

Cognition is too explosive a topic. Let's look at this another way. If you and I were the same height and weight and in roughly the same physical condition and we started training in cross country running..you are more likely to become better faster, and remain consitentantly better at it than me. I say this because you have more high friction leg muscles than me. Does acknowledging that genetically you physically have more of these muscle fibers make me racist?

[currentchristian]

Here's a link to some Black inventors that might or might not meet your criteria for "extraordinary." Some more. How about Dr. Daniel Hale Williams, who performed the first open heart surgery in the U.S.?

 

Daniel Hale Williams was bi-racial. This was the second pericardial surgery on record, and he assisted with 5 other surgeons. Nevertheless, extraordiary for that time.

 

Dr. Williams was extraordinary, an extraordinary Black man. There was no such thing as "biracial" in his day. Remember Homer Plessy proclaimed himself 7/8ths white when arrested on that Louisiana train for sitting in the "white" section. He was jailed as a black man, for being 1/8th "black." His court case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1896: Plessy vs. Ferguson. It established the "separate but equal" provision that was not overturned until the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education case.

 

-CC

[Dhampir]

Daniel Hale Williams was bi-racial. This was the second pericardial surgery on record, and he assisted with 5 other surgeons. Nevertheless, extraordiary for that time.

Irrelevant. The "purity", so to speak of the black bloodline has been diluted by centuries of interacial breeding in America. That he was directly bi-racial is meaningless. If my facts are straight, Doctor Benjamin Carson has two 'completely' black parents.

 

Direct observation was his evidence, as is stated in the quotes.

Direct observation of what exactly? That underprivaledged blacks in the 20's tested poorly?

Cognition is too explosive a topic. Let's look at this another way. If you and I were the same height and weight and in roughly the same physical condition and we started training in cross country running..you are more likely to become better faster, and remain consitentantly better at it than me. I say this because you have more high friction leg muscles than me. Does acknowledging that genetically you physically have more of these muscle fibers make me racist?

Here's the thing. It can be said that a large portion of slaves had been selectively bred for a degree of superiority in physical pursuits, and to attempt at any rate, to breed out as much of their original intelligence as would be considered unnecessary to perform the menial labor chores that made up most slaves work.

 

It must of course be said that they met with a degree of success, though to generalize it would be a definite overstatement. Like I said, there was a degree of interbreeding that must've counteracted some of it, not all blacks during slavery were slaves, many slaves managed ways around it, and some few never had slave ancestors to begin with. Furthermore, the general idea of physical superiority in blacks has been demonstrated, however, as it is a generalization, it can't be counted upon as axiomatic. Take me for instance-- there's a very good chance that were we to be the same height and weight, and all else being equal, you could take me in cross country. I neither fit the mold of that generalization, nor does my legacy appear to be one of *much* ancestral gene manipulation. My father was powerfully built, but as he wasn't very large, I can assume that was from a life of heavy lifting.

 

Additionally, I am unaware of any conclusive evidence, that, all things being equal, blacks are consistently inferior, or anywhere near as unable to bridge any mental gaps that may exist between us as mr. Menken seemed to believe. I've considered the idea that by and large blacks may exhibit such qualities, but I've determined, given my experiences with blacks that this is more of a manifestation of cultural and social conditioning, stretching back to way before the end of slavery. If anything, the superior white intellect is negligible, if noticeable at all by anything other than the very longstanding perception thereof. I have to think that not all racism requires actual malice; if one honestly believes a certain way, they will act it out. Like those people who think they're doing blacks a favor by providing bonus points on tests. That's racism too, y'know.

[Taphophilia]

Excuse me, but since humans originated in Africa, every single human who ever existed is of African ancestry. Race is a social taxonomy in order for humans to classify other humans on the basis of a mere handful of genes. If people of different "races" are not as successful as others within a society, that says more about the society than it does about the actual identified group.

[Clergicide]

Irrelevant. The "purity", so to speak of the black bloodline has been diluted by centuries of interacial breeding in America. That he was directly bi-racial is meaningless. If my facts are straight, Doctor Benjamin Carson has two 'completely' black parents.

 

Neurosurgeon from Johns Hopkins...damned impressive by any standard. The genetic component in the Williams case 'may' be a factor, but there is also a socialization factor that are far more important. The opportunities his mixed race afforded him cannot be denied. Dr. Williams wasn't raised in the south where he need worry about seperate waterfountains, and train cars.

 

 

Direct observation of what exactly? That underprivaledged blacks in the 20's tested poorly?

In settings of equal education, yes. He points out himself this isn't necessarily a genetic predisposition, but that the blacks just hadn't been properly assimilated into the superior culture at that point. The quote says something about 50 generations in the future...a little misguided, but at least understanding of the fact that they were capable assimilation, equally human just at a disadvantage from their cultural inheritance.

 

Furthermore, the general idea of physical superiority in blacks has been demonstrated, however, as it is a generalization, it can't be counted upon as axiomatic.

 

Blacks have more type 2 muscle fibers, high friction muscle fibers. You and I have different skeletal morphology. If we were so trained we could identify the race of skeletons just by looking at the bones. My question was simply if recognizing a difference, was inherently racist.

 

Additionally, I am unaware of any conclusive evidence, that, all things being equal, blacks are consistently inferior, or anywhere near as unable to bridge any mental gaps that may exist between us as mr. Menken seemed to believe.

 

Again, his statement was based on the conditions of the time. He also suggested that the largest barier was probably cultural inheretance. At the time what he was examining was two very seperate societies. Two cultures coexisting seperately, one playing catch-up. Assimilation was just much much faster than he, or anyone else, could have anticipated.

 

I've considered the idea that by and large blacks may exhibit such qualities, but I've determined, given my experiences with blacks that this is more of a manifestation of cultural and social conditioning, stretching back to way before the end of slavery.

Exceedingly true. But we shouldn't underestimate the degree of difference at the end of slavery. I believe that's all that Mencken was bringing to light.

 

I have to think that not all racism requires actual malice;

 

I think racism should require an element of malice. Otherwise it would seem we can't explore anything genetic that distinguishes races. The reason we don't have hard data on race and cognition, is because the ethics, in a time where cognitive neuroscience exists, prevents it. But is asking that question truly racist? It could in fact put a nail in that coffin, and prove that culture is king.

[Clergicide]

Excuse me, but since humans originated in Africa, every single human who ever existed is of African ancestry. Race is a social taxonomy in order for humans to classify other humans on the basis of a mere handful of genes. If people of different "races" are not as successful as others within a society, that says more about the society than it does about the actual identified group.

 

Australian Aboriginees don't share mitochondrial DNA with the rest of us. There are clusters that prove the multiregional model. If we're all just human, and genes don't matter, why are there skeletal morphological differences, testicular differences, cranial differences, etc etc. We react to climatology differently, we react to disease differently. Hmm, if the physical characteristics can be so markedly different, isn't it at least fair to examine whether these differences carry to neural pathways? Our minds our biochemical, the same as the rest of our bodies, why can differences exist in these areas of biochemestry, and not exist in the mind as well?

[currentchristian]

Blacks have more type 2 muscle fibers, high friction muscle fibers. You and I have different skeletal morphology. If we were so trained we could identify the race of skeletons just by looking at the bones. My question was simply if recognizing a difference, was inherently racist.

 

Acknowledging a perceived difference is not racist. Researching that perceived difference by means of the scrutiny of the scientific method is not racist. Application of results to the betterment of humanity is not racist (examples: learning more about the genetic/ethnic characteristics of Tay-Sachs disease and Sickle Cell disease).

 

What is racist are the views of H.L. Mencken expressed in the excerpts previously posted. (We could find many more where these came from, as well as examples of his anti-Semitism, his anti-religious intolerance, etc.)

 

These defects in his character (by today's general standards) do not suggest in any way that he doesn't have a lot of good things to say, a lot of smart things to say, a lot of helpful things to say and that we can't learn from and enjoy his writings. What we must do, however, seems to me, is bear in mind that he saw the world through lenses we have since cast into the dustbin of history.

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Excuse me, but since humans originated in Africa, every single human who ever existed is of African ancestry. Race is a social taxonomy in order for humans to classify other humans on the basis of a mere handful of genes. If people of different "races" are not as successful as others within a society, that says more about the society than it does about the actual identified group.

 

Australian Aboriginees don't share mitochondrial DNA with the rest of us. There are clusters that prove the multiregional model. If we're all just human, and genes don't matter, why are there skeletal morphological differences, testicular differences, cranial differences, etc etc. We react to climatology differently, we react to disease differently. Hmm, if the physical characteristics can be so markedly different, isn't it at least fair to examine whether these differences carry to neural pathways? Our minds our biochemical, the same as the rest of our bodies, why can differences exist in these areas of biochemestry, and not exist in the mind as well?

 

I didn't know this about Austailia's native population. Very interesting. Much to study, that's for sure.

 

We place far too much emphasis on IQ anyway. It's common doctrine these days that there are a "multiple intelligences," including musical, verbal, logical-mathematical, EQ (emotional intelligence), SQ (spiritual intelligence), etc., etc., etc.

 

I don't know about you, but I'd trade a few IQ points (not too many!) to be two inches taller and to add two points to my score on the looks scale.

 

-CC

[Taphophilia]

Australian Aboriginees don't share mitochondrial DNA with the rest of us. There are clusters that prove the multiregional model. If we're all just human, and genes don't matter, why are there skeletal morphological differences, testicular differences, cranial differences, etc etc. We react to climatology differently, we react to disease differently. Hmm, if the physical characteristics can be so markedly different, isn't it at least fair to examine whether these differences carry to neural pathways? Our minds our biochemical, the same as the rest of our bodies, why can differences exist in these areas of biochemestry, and not exist in the mind as well?

 

The Austrailian Aboriginees migrated from Africa some 50,000 years ago, they were first major wave of human migration. They share halogroup C with the mongols and Tingit American Indians.

 

What you are insinuating is that people of Western European decent have advantages over other peoples. The fact is that Western Europeans, which make up most of the US, and which our society owes much of it's way of thinking, had geographical and political advantages that the rest of the world did not have, this propelled them to be in a position to conquer the world and adapt it to their way of life through slaughter, disease, and enslavement.

 

For instance, Western Europeans had animals to domesticate that the rest of the world did not have like cattle in which a disease that affects cattle eventually transferred to humans. Their exposure to the disease built up an immunity. When the disease was introduced to the rest of the world during European arrival, it decimated populations where it was introduced. Thus, the Eurpeans were more easily able to conquer a decimated population ravaged by the effects of Small Pox.

 

The Aboriginees of Austrailia, by the time Europeans arrived, had started to harness water power, engineering and building complicated dams. If the Europeans had not arrived, and left them alone, they would have advanced out of their hunter-gatherer stage.

 

Similarly, China was an incredibly advanced society, while Eastern Eurpoeans were still a stone's throw from the bronze age. What did China in was the political climate that forced thier society backwards.

 

What makes a particular people "superior" to others is circumstance, timing, luck, and advantages that others do not have.

[Mythra]

I don't know about you, but I'd trade a few IQ points (not too many!) to be two inches taller and to add two points to my score on the looks scale.-CC

 

Tell ya what, cc.

 

I'll give you two inches - hey - HEY! I'm talking about HEIGHT, now.....

 

In exchange for 20 IQ points.

 

I've got stature to spare.

 

And, from what I've read of your posts, you've got brains to spare. Let's make deal....

[Clergicide]

The Austrailian Aboriginees migrated from Africa some 50,000 years ago, they were first major wave of human migration. They share halogroup C with the mongols and Tingit American Indians.

 

Not Lake Mungo 3.

 

What you are insinuating is that people of Western European decent have advantages over other peoples. The fact is that Western Europeans, which make up most of the US, and which our society owes much of it's way of thinking, had geographical and political advantages that the rest of the world did not have, this propelled them to be in a position to conquer the world and adapt it to their way of life through slaughter, disease, and enslavement.

 

For instance, Western Europeans had animals to domesticate that the rest of the world did not have like cattle in which a disease that affects cattle eventually transferred to humans. Their exposure to the disease built up an immunity. When the disease was introduced to the rest of the world during European arrival, it decimated populations where it was introduced. Thus, the Eurpeans were more easily able to conquer a decimated population ravaged by the effects of Small Pox.

 

The Aboriginees of Austrailia, by the time Europeans arrived, had started to harness water power, engineering and building complicated dams. If the Europeans had not arrived, and left them alone, they would have advanced out of their hunter-gatherer stage.

 

Similarly, China was an incredibly advanced society, while Eastern Eurpoeans were still a stone's throw from the bronze age. What did China in was the political climate that forced thier society backwards.

 

What makes a particular people "superior" to others is circumstance, timing, luck, and advantages that others do not have.

This nonsense is taught in Anthro 101. We can dismiss China's rapid advances as dumb luck, we can take on faith that some civs invented written language by chance...but what if the answer is slightly more sophisticated.

 

These defects in his character (by today's general standards) do not suggest in any way that he doesn't have a lot of good things to say, a lot of smart things to say, a lot of helpful things to say and that we can't learn from and enjoy his writings. What we must do, however, seems to me, is bear in mind that he saw the world through lenses we have since cast into the dustbin of history.

 

The problem with tossing those lenses in the dustbin is that context tends to follow. For every quote you show me, especially ones that show cultural, not racial disparagement, I can find another where he wishes they could rise up out of predicament of that time.

[Taphophilia]

This nonsense is taught in Anthro 101. We can dismiss China's rapid advances as dumb luck, we can take on faith that some civs invented written language by chance...but what if the answer is slightly more sophisticated.

 

Are you serious?

[Clergicide]

This nonsense is taught in Anthro 101. We can dismiss China's rapid advances as dumb luck, we can take on faith that some civs invented written language by chance...but what if the answer is slightly more sophisticated.

 

Are you serious?

 

Are you? Dumb luck seems somehow inadequate to me.

[Taphophilia]

Are you? Dumb luck seems somehow inadequate to me.

 

Explain please.

[currentchristian]

I don't know about you, but I'd trade a few IQ points (not too many!) to be two inches taller and to add two points to my score on the looks scale.-CC

 

Tell ya what, cc.

 

I'll give you two inches - hey - HEY! I'm talking about HEIGHT, now.....

 

In exchange for 20 IQ points.

 

I've got stature to spare.

 

And, from what I've read of your posts, you've got brains to spare. Let's make deal....

 

Tell you what, Mythra. If you can give me two inches of height and two points on the "looks scale," I'll give you 10 of my IQ points. Whaddayasay, huh, huh?

 

In case anyone notices that the post is being done at 2:43 a.m. (in the morning, for some redundancy) my wonderful kitty knocked something off my nightstand and that something (three books and a heavy bookend) made "such a clatter that I sprang from my bed to see what was the matter." I figured out what was "the matter," then had to use the latrine, which is right next to the room with the computer, so I had to check my e-mail and check on my friends here at what my partner still calls "the heretic site" (I think he's jealous, actually, of all the time I spend with you!), and then I had to respond to Mythra's offer with a counteroffer.

 

The ball is in Mythra's corner: 10 IQ points for 2 inches and 2 points!

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Australian Aboriginees don't share mitochondrial DNA with the rest of us. There are clusters that prove the multiregional model. If we're all just human, and genes don't matter, why are there skeletal morphological differences, testicular differences, cranial differences, etc etc. We react to climatology differently, we react to disease differently. Hmm, if the physical characteristics can be so markedly different, isn't it at least fair to examine whether these differences carry to neural pathways? Our minds our biochemical, the same as the rest of our bodies, why can differences exist in these areas of biochemestry, and not exist in the mind as well?

 

The Austrailian Aboriginees migrated from Africa some 50,000 years ago, they were first major wave of human migration. They share halogroup C with the mongols and Tingit American Indians.

 

I think you typoed there and mean haplogroup C. I had never heard of either halo- or haplogroup, but when I went searching for "halogroup C," my good friend Mr. Google asked, "Did you mean haplogroup C?" For others who are not professional or amateur geneticists among us, here's a link about haplogroup C.

 

I learn so much here, and that's why I keep coming back!

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

What you are insinuating is that people of Western European decent have advantages over other peoples. The fact is that Western Europeans, which make up most of the US, and which our society owes much of it's way of thinking, had geographical and political advantages that the rest of the world did not have, this propelled them to be in a position to conquer the world and adapt it to their way of life through slaughter, disease, and enslavement.

 

For instance, Western Europeans had animals to domesticate that the rest of the world did not have like cattle in which a disease that affects cattle eventually transferred to humans. Their exposure to the disease built up an immunity. When the disease was introduced to the rest of the world during European arrival, it decimated populations where it was introduced. Thus, the Eurpeans were more easily able to conquer a decimated population ravaged by the effects of Small Pox.

 

The Aboriginees of Austrailia, by the time Europeans arrived, had started to harness water power, engineering and building complicated dams. If the Europeans had not arrived, and left them alone, they would have advanced out of their hunter-gatherer stage.

 

Similarly, China was an incredibly advanced society, while Eastern Eurpoeans were still a stone's throw from the bronze age. What did China in was the political climate that forced thier society backwards.

 

What makes a particular people "superior" to others is circumstance, timing, luck, and advantages that others do not have.

 

I embrace the viewpoint of radical equality. On average, all "racial" (not really a meaningful category any longer), ethnic, cultural, linquistic, religious/non-religious, etc., groups are equal in their intellectual, emotional, physical and spiritual endowments. We're talking about the mathematical mean here.

 

Within each of these groups, of course there can and does accumulate particular skills in which that particular people excell, but there always are members of that group who do not excell in that skill and members of other groups who do excell in that skill. This accumulation of group expertise is natural and important for the advace of all human civilization.

 

But just as it is impossible, in my view, to gauge which religious group has done more harm and which has done more good or whether the Theists or the Atheists killed more people since, say, the French Revolution, it is similarly impossible to determine which ethnic or geographic group was more advanced. It depends on what one holds dear, really, and how one defines "advanced."

 

Onward exchristian soldiers! (making a joke here, not intending to offend anyone)

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

These defects in his character (by today's general standards) do not suggest in any way that he doesn't have a lot of good things to say, a lot of smart things to say, a lot of helpful things to say and that we can't learn from and enjoy his writings. What we must do, however, seems to me, is bear in mind that he saw the world through lenses we have since cast into the dustbin of history.

 

The problem with tossing those lenses in the dustbin is that context tends to follow. For every quote you show me, especially ones that show cultural, not racial disparagement, I can find another where he wishes they could rise up out of predicament of that time.

 

That's a valid point. While we might need the lenses in order to understand his points in the context of those days and times, we must ever keep in mind that he (and everyone else!) wears a set of lenses that colors her/her views. We all do!

 

-CC

[Mythra]

Tell you what, Mythra. If you can give me two inches of height and two points on the "looks scale," I'll give you 10 of my IQ points. Whaddayasay, huh, huh?

In case anyone notices that the post is being done at 2:43 a.m. (in the morning, for some redundancy) my wonderful kitty knocked something off my nightstand and that something (three books and a heavy bookend) made "such a clatter that I sprang from my bed to see what was the matter." I figured out what was "the matter," then had to use the latrine, which is right next to the room with the computer, so I had to check my e-mail and check on my friends here at what my partner still calls "the heretic site" (I think he's jealous, actually, of all the time I spend with you!), and then I had to respond to Mythra's offer with a counteroffer. The ball is in Mythra's corner: 10 IQ points for 2 inches and 2 points!

 

No deal. 10 additional IQ points, and I'd still be dunce.

 

You're a pretty good egg, though, cc.

 

Considering you're a christian, that is.

[currentchristian]

No deal. 10 additional IQ points, and I'd still be dunce.

 

You're a pretty good egg, though, cc.

 

Considering you're a christian, that is.

 

That's sounds almost christophobic, but I know better!

 

-CC

[Taphophilia]

I think you typoed there and mean haplogroup C. I had never heard of either halo- or haplogroup, but when I went searching for "halogroup C," my good friend Mr. Google asked, "Did you mean haplogroup C?" For others who are not professional or amateur geneticists among us, here's a link about haplogroup C.

 

I learn so much here, and that's why I keep coming back!

 

-CC

 

Thanks CC! This site is really addictive, beware!

 

I was tired when I wrote this. Man do you people stay up late! I've been reading about a project that is being undertaken comparing genetic markers to determine human migration out of Africa and in pre-history, that's how I knew that. Otherwise, I'd have no clue.

[Poonis]

I am beginning to suspect that Mencken was a racist.

 

Beginning to suspect or just beginning to read Mencken?