I see that Derbyshire's latest piece got him fired from National Review. Well, National Review has been run by cowards for a while now. Still, there is one part in particular that really deserves condemnation:
In that pool of forty million, there are nonetheless many intelligent and well-socialized blacks. (I’ll use IWSB as an ad hoc abbreviation.) You should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs. In addition to the ordinary pleasures of friendship, you will gain an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice.That's a hell of a thing to say to any man who was your friend -- or rather, who ever thought he was. If Derbyshire is advocating such deception -- toward a man you'd dare to call a friend! -- it's the kind of deception I admired him for never making. If he has actually made such deceptions in the past, he's not the man I took him to be from his writings.
Other flaws in the piece are lesser because they lie within the scope of fair play for social commentary: he is guilty of anecdotal evidence for very serious claims, which should expose him to refutation if there is stronger evidence against his positions. But that is fair play: refute him. Or, he makes much of IQ data the value of which is in serious contest; that's a fight that can be had fairly as well. Or, his recommendations for practical action are uncharitable and may be overwrought; but there, too, a response can be formulated. (I went down to Freaknik '93 myself, alone and after midnight, and suffered no ill effects; though several young men did advise me that I would be subject to violence if I did not leave, none of them seemed inclined to actually undertake it. Is that evidence for against his position? Whichever, it's only one more anecdote: where is the data?)
The question isn't whether Derbyshire is a racist: he always proclaimed that he was one. I'm an antiracist myself, but I've known enough racists who were otherwise good men -- even very good men -- that I have come to think that this is something we need to think through much more carefully than we usually do.
One of them we have almost forgotten: the Reverend Mr. Wright. He was a fighting man too, a former Marine, who nevertheless had some hostile and vicious things to say about us and our country. I always liked him, just because he was the kind of man who would call on God to damn me. God probably should. The whole miracle of Easter week is that God did so much to avoid damning those of us who merit it.
Derbyshire has written many things I disagree with, but that's why I always liked him. His word was good: right or wrong, he'd defend the ground where he planted his flag.
If his racism has caused him to travel under false flags, deeming black men unworthy of an honest accounting of his friendship, that is a very great offense. It is worse that it violates a virtue that he had otherwise given every appearance of mastering. It should not, however, prevent us from recognizing that he is currently defending his honest position -- whether he lives or dies on this ground, he has chosen it and will fight for it.
Grim:
ReplyDeleteBeing willing to defend a position may or may not be admirable. I've known many people in life who were stubborn, arrogant, inflexible and completely unwilling to listen to anyone else. They were unfailing convinced of their own self-righteousness and utterly unconcerned about what anyone else thought of them or of their opinions.
I'm not sure where Derbyshire fell in relation to that type of person but my impression of him (from the few things of his that I read) was that he was a person of this general type.
So to my way of thinking, it required no particular courage to do what he did - he was simply doing what he wanted to do. If he chooses to defend the hill of saying women shouldn't be able to vote (presumably blacks and Jews also, as they vote far more reliably Dem than women), or that it can be "useful" to appear to befriend "good" blacks as innoculation against accusations of racism (ask George Zimmerman how that one worked out), he can certainly do so.
I don't see why another other than the editors of the National Review should have any say in whether they choose to associate themselves with his ideas, though.
And I don't really see how wishing to take a stand as opposing such ideas (even belatedly) should merit an accusation of cowardice.
Hypocrisy, perhaps, though frankly I think that's a bit overheated too. But calling them cowards because they don't accept your values strikes me as unjustified.
Cass:
ReplyDeleteI've known many people in life who were stubborn, arrogant, inflexible and completely unwilling to listen to anyone else. They were unfailing convinced of their own self-righteousness...
That may be relevant to the Rev. Mr. Wright: since what we've heard of him is his sermons (and sermons by design tend to righteousness) I can't say.
It's not true of Mr. Derbyshire, whose work is reasoned and expresses his reasons. To disagree with him -- as I often, and even usually do -- is generally a pleasant exercise. You know just why he stands for what he stands for, and can point out why you've chosen to stand elsewhere.
I don't really see how wishing to take a stand as opposing such ideas (even belatedly) should merit an accusation of cowardice.
Lowry wrote: "Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise."
As far as I know, there's no evidence whatsoever that Derbyshire is doing any such thing; he wrote this piece without publicity on a little-read website in another country. The accusation is false.
Nevertheless we saw the writers and editors of the magazine jumping over themselves to get away from it, even to the point of drafting this false accusation of bad faith. That strikes me as a cowardly response.
It's clear that they don't share my values: but it ought also to be clear, from what I have written here, that sharing my values isn't what causes me to respect a man or not. I don't share Mr. Derbyshire's values or the Rev. Mr. Wright's -- not even close. What I do respect is an honest enemy.
The other thing, of course, is that the editors of National Review have published every one of Derbyshire's factual claims ("factual" in the sense of being the kind of claims that can be proven true or false, as opposed to opinions). The only difference between this piece and the ones they've published is that this time he spelled out the logical conclusions of his ideas -- ideas the editors have always allowed him to publish and forward in their magazine.
ReplyDeleteThat's genuine cowardice, it seems to me: the willingness to be associated with an idea and to forward that idea, but to demand to be free of the consequences of that idea.
I don't respect Rev. Wright at all.
ReplyDeleteSaying openly racist things to an audience who (from all accounts) is not hostile to such arguments requires no real bravery. As I demonstrated back during the 2008 election, Wright's remarks were anything but uncommon in that venue. We've heard the same drivel from too many black pastors wrt George Zimmerman.
Lowry wrote: "Derb is effectively using our name to get more oxygen for views with which we’d never associate ourselves otherwise."
As far as I know, there's no evidence whatsoever that Derbyshire is doing any such thing; he wrote this piece without publicity on a little-read website in another country. The accusation is false.
Not necessarily. It is dubious on its face. Neither you nor Lowry know Derbyshire's motivation. The argument I've defended for some time is that the burden of proof is on the accuser in these cases. Lowry hasn't proven his case, but then neither have you.
Both of you are assuming you know someone else's motives, when in fact neither of you has that knowledge.
There is little doubt in my mind that people are paying more attention to Derb's column because he writes for NRO. There is no doubt that the association has been beneficial to him as a writer.
And I have no doubt that the NRO ought to be able to associate or disassociate itself from views (and people) it considers antithetical to their values.
I might have handled it differently, but then I am not in that position. They are a business and (according to you) it is cowardly for a business to consider the bottom line or their image.
I don't agree.
The only difference between this piece and the ones they've published is that this time he spelled out the logical conclusions of his ideas -- ideas the editors have always allowed him to publish and forward in their magazine.
ReplyDeleteThe offensive part of what he wrote had nothing to do with logic, nor was it necessarily "the logical conclusion" of the stats and anecdotes he cited.
You might want to think about what you just said a bit, Grim. Because if what he said was 'logical' that your disagreement with what he said is 'illogical'.
No, my disagreement with him is based on a rejection of his premises. A logical argument follows because if the premises are true, the truth of the conclusion is guaranteed.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a logical argument can still be wrong: if its premises are false, then the conclusion does not follow even if the form is perfectly logical.
Derbyshire's interpretation of Charles Murray's argument is a serious challenge to antiracists of my particular stripe. I hold (as you know) that race represents nothing but a kind of intellectual error: race points to nothing real in the world. It's easy to see how the mistake was made (in the pre-scientific age of exploration, people saw groups in different places looked quite different, behaved quite differently, etc). It's just that, as we have learned more, we find that those concepts don't hold up -- there's no real division.
The consequences of this intellectual mistake have been very severe. I hold that we ought to take reasonable steps to repair the damage, but work toward a goal in which these categories are forgotten (because they are meaningless).
Derbyshire's argument is that my view is wrong on the facts. He uses IQ measurements (as well as some physical differences, at times, especially measurable in athletics) to show that there are in fact recognizable categories of people who do demonstrate something like 'racial' identities at a statistical level. That's a pretty serious problem for me, if he's right about that.
I have not finished formulating a response to the ideas he's been putting forward, but I've been thinking about it on and off for some years. I think you don't get "race" as such out of these differences, to the degree that they are real: and I also think he and Murray and others overstate the importance of IQ measurements. For example, he cites an academic psychologist's claim that communication becomes difficult across more than one standard deviation of IQ, and indeed "impossible" very much beyond that. I'm pretty sure that won't hold up to serious pressure.
If everything he claims to be factually true is in fact factually true, then much of what he says follows logically (e.g., the 'DMV woman' as a 'statistical truth').
Still, we don't get to a good answer by just simply saying that 'these opinions are vile' and we won't consider them. If he were right -- and remember that he's arguing from research, and I'm arguing from a sense that the research won't hold up rather than from actual data -- then my view of the world may be mistaken. There are real consequences to that, as for example in my hope for an eventual colorblind society.
We ought to have the courage to face the truth, even if it is unpleasant: and so I've thought a lot about his arguments, just because they are unpleasant challenges to what I believe. Wright is like that too (indeed, Derbyshire would probably be more upset at my comparing him to Wright than by Lowry's firing him, but nevertheless I think the comparison is apt). He represents a worldview seriously held by a lot of people, including a rather large church in Chicago attended for twenty years by the President of the United States. Presumably most of the people who show up at that church don't find his views too far from their own, especially if they attend for a long time; but Wright is the one guy who has the courage to admit that he believes it and to make the argument openly, rather than to try to hide from the consequences.
One other thing:
ReplyDeleteNeither you nor Lowry know Derbyshire's motivation.... Lowry hasn't proven his case, but then neither have you.
Please note that I'm not making an argument about Derbyshire's motivation. I'm pointing out that publicity seeking of the kind Lowry charges is perforce done in public; and thus we would be able to observe it if there were any evidence to support the claim. There is none: the claim is false. (Even on his own website, Derbyshire makes clear that this article was not an NRO piece.)
I've known many people in life who were stubborn, arrogant, inflexible and completely unwilling to listen to anyone else. They were unfailing convinced of their own self-righteousness and utterly unconcerned about what anyone else thought of them or of their opinions.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure where Derbyshire fell in relation to that type of person but my impression of him (from the few things of his that I read) was that he was a person of this general type.
I've been reading his columns pretty regularly for ten years, and can tell you your impression is wrong. Listening to other people, on the subject of biology, was the major factor that lost him his religious faith - yet in the column I linked to, see the tone he takes in the question about whether religion is good or bad for a society. This isn't a Chrisopher Hitchens or a Sam Harris - as opinion columnists go, Mr. Derbyshire is one of the least self-righteous I know. Given his public changes of mind on the existence of God and the Iraq war, I don't think you can make a charge of "inflexibility" stick. And this piece is not the work of the man who's convinced he's always right or unwilling to listen.
I thought these links seemed relevant:
ReplyDeleteRich Lowry's firing post at NRO
Followup to the earlier interview Grim linked where Derbyshire claimed to be mildy racist and homophobic, explaining his comments
Thanks, Joseph. I had found the second link Tom posts (above) where Derbyshire explained his comments.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read your links yet, Joseph (and probably won't have time to until tomorrow) but am prepared to accept your word. As I said, I really wasn't sure about Derbyshire, but the two or three essays I had read by him struck me as not particularly well thought out and unnecessarily inflammatory to the point of being deliberately offensive.
I'm thinking of the one Grim posted one or two times (only reason I saw it) where he goes on about "the end of men" and how horrible it is that offices no longer have hot and cold running strippers and the one (I think this may have been an interview or a book excerpt) where he wished women didn't have the vote.
Neither impressed me as being well thought out at all, and both impressed me as having been written under the influence of strong emotion.
Tom, on Lowry's post at NRO (which I had also read) I have no problem whatsoever with it except for one word: "Using", which implies that Derbyshire deliberately used his association with NRO to air views he knew they would not and could not endorse.
As I already conceded, that was unjust as Lowry can't know someone else's subjective intent. But he also used the word "effectively", which was (I think) just. I don't think anyone can fairly say that this would have gotten as much attention as it did if he hadn't been associated with NRO. Certainly I would never have heard of him, but for that association and the Left emphasized it.
Once again, I see no rational reason why the NRO should have to endorse his sentiments or defend them. And I see no reason they should be criticized for not wishing to associate themselves with him any longer. This is what groups do - they are usually formed by like minded people pursuing the same goals. When one person does something inimical to the goals and values of the group, must they ignore this? If a writer for a Catholic ezine writes something terribly critical of the Pope or of Catholic dogma, must they defend him?
I don't think so. My point was that Grim seems to think Derbyshire's statements should have been defended. I think that if the staff of NRO don't agree, it's their call.
Any other stance amounts to a form of tribalism - we have to defend him no matter what he says because he's "one of ours".
I didn't say that either he or his comments should be defended -- the man can defend himself, if he cares to do so. Far from defending his ideas, I criticized one of them in particular. (Contrast it with a very similar piece from 2006, but which contains a very different expression of how whites and blacks should interact, one that condemns segregation; I responded to that article here, as part of the general problem cited above.)
ReplyDeleteI've said the response was cowardly, and I've said why. I see no need for them to defend him, and I never suggested they should have done.
I have not done so either. You'll notice that the extent of a defense for him that appears here is to say that I respect a man who stands up for what he believes. That's not a defense of his ideas, which come in for strong criticism; and it puts him in with some bad company. Still, it's a quality I do respect, and it's not tribalism to respect it in him if I also respect it in the Rev. Mr. Wright (who would certainly not take me for one of his 'tribe').
...how horrible it is that offices no longer have hot and cold running strippers and the one (I think this may have been an interview or a book excerpt) where he wished women didn't have the vote...
ReplyDeleteWhoah! I've never seen him say that, that's for sure. I remember Florence King writing that women shouldn't have the vote - but not John Derbyshire. (His "Straggler" column took the place of her old "Misanthrope's Corner" on the back page of print NR - is it possible Grim got them mixed up? But he knows what he quoted and perhaps will show us again.) Mr. Derbyshire has written that nonmilitary government workers shouldn't have the vote, but women? That would be a shock to me.
In fact, on relations between the sexes, Mr. Derbyshire takes the view that feminism and the sexual revolution were, overall,
good things, though they came with costs as good things often do.
I think she's referring to a comment he made that things would 'probably be better' if women did not have the vote.
ReplyDeleteNow, it may have been that very comment that prompted the lengthy discussion we had a while back on the franchise -- I thought it was one of the best things we ever did here, although one of the most challenging. (Unfortunately, the good part of the series -- the debates -- was on Haloscan comments, which are no longer available online.) We ended up reaffirming the universal franchise, but not reflexively, but rather from a position of knowledge based on thorough investigation and careful argument.
I do remember the piece she is citing -- it was pre-9/11, I believe. It was before I was blogging, to be sure. I wrote him a response to it longhand, and he wrote back a thoughtful response. As I recall my letter, it was largely along the lines of: 'Enjoy it while it lasts, because the softness in our society that you bemoan historically usually ends in war; and the war will have room enough for men, but not for the pleasures we have now.'
9/11 came shortly after that; but as it happens, it proved us both wrong. America proved to be more than rich enough to segregate its war from its peace, aside from the TSA lines: we've had both the war and the softness for a long time now. Whether that is good or bad -- or whether it can last -- is another question.
(I see Grim posted as I was writing.) I don't see the NRO response as cowardly. Mr. Derbyshire has often acknowledged, without rancor, the editors of any publication can and should decide the "tone" and the range of opinion that occurs inside.
ReplyDelete"Race realism" - I think that is the better word for his views than "racism" - and authors who actively promote it, simply lies beyond what they want. Given that they're a political publication that wants to influence U.S. elections, deciding not to be associated with someone who's that easy to smear - it's simply policy, a business decision, and possibly a smart one.
Now, for someone to drop a personal friendship with him on that basis, for the sake of image, that would be cowardly.
The problem, Joe, is that they've published his "race realist" arguments (to take your term -- although, in his 2003 interview, he himself uses "racist" to describe himself) for more than ten years. It wouldn't be cowardly but tactical, I suppose, were this a business decision made in the absence of controversy, and privately -- 'Hey, John, look we've decided this election is going to be about race to a larger degree than usual, and...'
ReplyDeleteWhat makes it cowardly is that they never made such a decision: they've published his stuff right along, up until the moment when the consequences showed up at the door. Then, all of a sudden, 'Oh, we have nothing to do with that kind of thing here at National Review! Why, that scoundrel has been trading on our name! ... by, er, publishing elsewhere, without fanfare, on a small website in another country, and not mentioning it anywhere except his personal website, where he clearly marked it as not being at our magazine.'
That's what's cowardly about it, in my opinion. Others are welcome to feel otherwise about it.
Now, it may have been that very comment that prompted the lengthy discussion we had a while back on the franchise -- I thought it was one of the best things we ever did here, although one of the most challenging.
ReplyDeleteIt was, indirectly. I re-read my post on the subject before writing about it today.
I'll dig up the link later.
The problem, Joe, is that they've published his "race realist" arguments (to take your term -- although, in his 2003 interview, he himself uses "racist" to describe himself) for more than ten years.
ReplyDeleteUnless they published the very same sentiments contained in this latest essay, (not some more watered down version and not one where he advises whites to avoid blacks, not help them if they're in trouble, etc.), I don't think that's the same thing.
We've agreed in the past that there are inflammatory and less inflammatory and even non-inflammatory ways to make essentially the same argument. I would defend the less and non- inflammatory arguments but would not defense needlessly inflammatory ones.
That was my point. I've already conceded that I'm not a daily reader of NRO (though I am a frequent reader and was for many years a subscriber to their print magazine). So I could well have missed something!
"Race realism" - I think that is the better word for his views than "racism" - and authors who actively promote it, simply lies beyond what they want. Given that they're a political publication that wants to influence U.S. elections, deciding not to be associated with someone who's that easy to smear - it's simply policy, a business decision, and possibly a smart one.
ReplyDeleteI agree :p
Naturally you do, Cass, because the line is from Falstaff -- the same character who gave us "Villainous Company."
ReplyDelete"The better part of valor is
discretion, in the which better part I have sav'd my life."
Should Lowry say that running away here makes good sense because it will let him fight another day, more effectively perhaps, would be to make an analogous argument. It's not incorrect as a point of fact; but it's no defense against a charge of cowardice!
But your charge of cowardice presupposes some moral duty to defend with (or continue to associate with) Derbyshire.
ReplyDeleteYou are taking as given what is not a given: that they *should* defend/continue to associate with him.
You yourself say that you're not defending his ideas, but you think NRO should. The question is, "why?". For what reason?
*If* (and only if) you establish that NRO published the very same (not watered down, not substantially different) ideas and only now objects to them because attention was called to the Taki article, I would agree that it was cowardice.
But you have not established that.
As to Falstaff, it does not logically follow that having quoted a single line from Falstaff constitutes any kind of endorsement of his behavior or morality.
Lowry obviously got caught out by Derbyshire's column, which probably would not have got printed in the NRO, but, because Derbyshire is/was a contibutor, the NRO is getting 'guilt by association' and I'm pretty sure Lowry's reaction was probably along the lines of "He wrote WHAT?" and decided pretty quick that the quickest and easiest thing to do would be to 'fire' Derbyshire, so he and the rest of the NRO won't have to defend/explain/rationalize/etc either Derbyshire's continued employment or his writing, which likely would be a complete waste of time and treasure, and would convince no one, least of all those that would be criticizing the NRO for continuing to employ him after what he wrote.
ReplyDeleteLowry obviously got caught out by Derbyshire's column, which probably would not have got printed in the NRO, but, because Derbyshire is/was a contibutor, the NRO is getting 'guilt by association' and I'm pretty sure Lowry's reaction was probably along the lines of "He wrote WHAT?" and decided pretty quick that the quickest and easiest thing to do would be to 'fire' Derbyshire, so he and the rest of the NRO won't have to defend/explain/rationalize/etc either Derbyshire's continued employment or his writing, which likely would be a complete waste of time and treasure, and would convince no one, least of all those that would be criticizing the NRO for continuing to employ him after what he wrote.
ReplyDeleteCass,
ReplyDeleteThe problem isn't that National Review may have published "watered down" versions of the idea. This piece everyone objects to is the watered-down version: it contains the ideas only as assertions, largely without the arguments, and then the conclusions he draws from those ideas about what he should tell his children.
National Review published the arguments themselves. Consider this piece, or this one, or this one (which argues, among other things, that research into Alzheimer's is stymied by racial politics: "Alzheimer's correlates with IQ, you see. Also has different incidence among different races … Once researchers know that, they go find something else to work on. The state our science is in right now, there's plenty of low-hanging fruit. No need to go committing professional suicide."
Or just this piece on "race-norming" and exams as they relate to public policy, if you like.
I'm chiding NRO for being cowardly in just the sense you're praising them for exercising discretion. I think it's cowardly to publish these ideas and arguments, but then try to hide from the consequences -- especially by an invented claim of bad faith. I don't think they have to defend his ideas, or even him, but I do think it's cowardly of them to avoid taking responsibility: instead of saying, 'He is falsely trading on our name to publicize these ideas!' (which happens not to be true) they ought to have said, 'We accept that we have lent our name to his ideas for a long time' (which is in fact the case).
However, there's another sense in which it is cowardly: this is intellectually cowardly, too. Intellectual courage would require grappling with the ideas that they have published, and determining just which parts of them represent ideas they wish to endorse or forward; but also which parts they think are wrong, and just why.
What they've done instead is thrust the whole thing away from themselves, as if it were a bag of plague-bearing rats: and then cried out that he had somehow tricked them into carrying it. The scoundrel!
Intellectual courage would require grappling with the ideas that they have published, and determining just which parts of them represent ideas they wish to endorse or forward; but also which parts they think are wrong, and just why.
ReplyDeleteBy this rule, anyone who declines to grapple with some topic is a coward?
I'm not sure externally imposed litmus tests of intellectual courage are something I want to see more of.
Grim:
ReplyDeleteHaving now read two of the papers you link, they are in a different universe from the Taki essay.
I will refer you back to my earlier comment:
We've agreed in the past that there are inflammatory and less inflammatory and even non-inflammatory ways to make essentially the same argument. I would defend the less and non- inflammatory arguments but would not defense needlessly inflammatory ones.
So far, the articles you cite and the Taki article are alike in only one respect: they deal with the topic of whether there are racial differences.
The articles you cite do NOT make recommendations about whether one should view blacks with fear or suspicion, nor whether a person ought to refuse to help a black person in trouble.
I'm surprised that you would seriously compare them. I also don't think they establish that the National Review ever published anything like the Taki article, which went way beyond scientific (or anecdotal) evidence to advice that young people should fear and avoid blacks not previously known to them.
Cass:
ReplyDeleteBy this rule, anyone who declines to grapple with some topic is a coward?
There is an important difference between "anyone" and "any topic" on the one hand, and "National Review and "a topic they have regularly published articles about for more than ten years."
I also don't think they establish that the National Review ever published anything like the Taki article...
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. It strikes me that there is a much stronger common thread than you allow, which is that our society's racial relationships represent a fraud enforced by fear and abuse. That comes across clearly to me in all of those articles, where one is threatened with 'career-destroying' consequences if one should dare to bring it up in the wrong way; but I suppose Derbyshire himself represents a kind of anecdotal confirmation of that aspect.
The fraud aspect, though, is what is troubling to me. The article on testing is based on a claim -- apparently based on scientific testing -- that blacks and non-white Hispanics are so mentally inferior that they cannot compete in any fair competition.
Here's another example, also from National Review, which might be fairly titled 'Why no one would ever employ black people at all, if it weren't for the bad publicity.'
Not adding anything to this discussion - but in case anyone comes back to it:
ReplyDeleteAs I noted at Cassandra's site, in a follow-up to that interview, Mr. Derbyshire explained the sense (and the only sense) in which he describes himself as a "racist":
"Racism: All I mean there is that I believe that race is real, and important. Nowadays, that makes you a “racist.” Again, I consider myself mild and tolerant here–I don’t believe in any discrimination by public authorities, and of course I am familiar with the awful historical record of the United States in the matter of race slavery. I take individual people as they come, as I believe every sane person does. I can imagine circumstances where I would certainly practice private discrimination; but, as I have said, I don’t see anything wrong with that."
Cassandra helped me articulate why I think this isn't right to term racism...the thing that draws moral opprobrium to the term "racism," and ought to, is the idea that a different race is inferior in a moral sense or ought to be so legally. And that he does not think. Thinking that race is real, and matters, to my mind makes you a "race realist." (But this we already talked about over there.)
I hadn't noticed that the old "admired voices" column was gone. I've placed Mr. Derbyshire's page under my own favorites, one of which it certainly is.
Hey - not ignoring the discussion. Am just slammed at work.
ReplyDeleteGrim - I'm not sure what to say about his other articles. They are thought provoking but like you I'm not inclined to give too much weight to IQ and some of the reasoning is a bit one-sided.
On the Race on Wall Street article, I found it very interesting that his ostensible reason for writing the article was the part about Wall Street firms intentionally hiring blacks for positions to insulate themselves from accusations of racial bias.
That's pretty much what Derbyshire advocated (and you objected to) in the Taki piece, which makes me wonder why he would advise his children to do something he found so morally repugnant in the Wall Street article?
No, the thing he attacks in the "Race on Wall Street" article is the way discrimination complaints are used to extract tribute from employers. Fire the black guy (or the girl, or the person who took medical leave), no matter the real reason, get sued for discrimination, settle for a fortune. That is what he finds repugnant, as I do.
ReplyDeleteI have a little experience with lawsuits of this kind, though not on Wall Street - I used to work in a federal court in Alabama - I noticed often these cases, if the employer was willing to fight them, disappear on summary judgment. (Because there is no evidence of discrimination; the employee says "I just feel like it was my race"...which is not good enough.) But the firms Derbyshire worked with always settled instead of fighting - and that he thinks is wrong, because it encourages more of the same.
Joe:
ReplyDeleteI can't remember when I took it out, but the old "admired voices" section had largely become links to retired writers (like Raspberry). I should find a place for Mark Steyn, who is the last of them still operational.
Cass:
I can understand a distinction between a business decision and a personal one, so that I'm not sure that it's exactly the same thing to (a) hire black people to avoid a discrimination law suit and/or bad publicity, and (b) befriend black people for the same reason.
However, making that distinction does Derbyshire no good: I think it's far, far worse to treat friendship the way he advocates. Friendship is a bond of honor as well as of mutual enjoyment (and, as Aristotle points out, the benefits of a virtuous life that come from having a 'second self' with whom you can explore the good life). To enter into something you pretend is a friendship under false pretenses is a very great dishonor, to my way of thinking.
"I think it's far, far worse to treat friendship the way he advocates. Friendship is a bond of honor as well as of mutual enjoyment (and, as Aristotle points out, the benefits of a virtuous life that come from having a 'second self' with whom you can explore the good life). To enter into something you pretend is a friendship under false pretenses is a very great dishonor, to my way of thinking."
ReplyDeleteI think you're spot on with that one.
I think you're unfair to the man, Grim. Why do we make friends? Is it not normally because we see some benefit to ourselves in associating with that person? Do we not teach our children to befriend those who would be good influences and useful, as opposed to those who would be poor influences and detrimental to them? Why is this case different than any other? Of course, he must still honor the friendship and it's obligations, but to say it's wrong based on motive seems to me odd. I think there are better criticisms of the piece.
ReplyDeleteDouglas,
ReplyDeleteThat is a good question. The subject of friendship is an important one. I could give you a short answer, but maybe you deserve a long one.
My view of social relationships generally is that there is an organic basis for them -- our nature -- that is then trained by reason to perfection. Take any institution (marriage, say) and you'll find that I believe we should first figure out what human nature tells us about the role of that institution (it is for provision for the next generation); and then we use reason to train the institution to perfection (children need not merely to be conceived but educated to adulthood, which implies a certain structure). To fall away from that is bad enough if you preserve the principle end (that which nature requires -- so for example Islamic polygamy preserves everything about the procreation and education, but not in the perfect way); it is far worse if you are now destructive of the principle end (marriage between a woman and a dolphin is a mockery of the institution, and therefore destructive of a basic human good).
Friendship's natural basis is not in the human need to procreate, but in the human need to survive. We need friends to watch our backs while we hunt, sleep, eat, and so forth; we need them to ride with us to keep our frontier clear, and we need them to help us educate our children. Friendship is the basis of all human societies (see the "Frith and Freedom" section of links for a lot more on this -- frith is a word linked to both "free" and "friend").
That is to say, my essential view of friendship is that of The Battle of Maldon, or the Song of Roland: friendship is ideally a brotherhood who lives or dies together, united in mutual loyalty.
To that organic root I would add the perfections spelled out by Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics, which we should probably read at length because it's a very interesting topic. That is how I think we should shape and nurture the basic organic institution, but the nature of the thing being nurtured is as described above.
Derbyshire's move is a violation of the basic nature of friendship. It is not a true bond of mutual loyalty, but a deceptive use of the "friend" for ends you would never dare to describe to him. Such a basic deception does violence to the nature of friendship itself. It is not merely an imperfect way of pursuing the natural end: it is destructive to the end itself. No one can have frith with you if you do not honor it on equal terms.
Thank you Grim, for the full response. First, I think I should have been more specific by saying "...but to say it's wrong based on part of the motive seems to me odd." I don't know that from what he wrote, you can take him to say that you should befriend someone for that reason only. I see him indicating it has it's uses, which is undeniably so- motive or not- he's merely recognizing it. I can see your taking issue with the recommendation to "...consciously seek opportunities to make friends with IWSBs.", but would it be wrong to say 'Son, you should consciously seek opportunities to make friends with other Catholics as they will reinforce your faith, or wealthy people because they might provide good opportunities and connections later? I don't really see the difference. You also posit that Derbyshire "...would never dare to describe to him" his motives. I've not read much of him, but from what I have, and from what you have said to hold in esteem in him, he seems like a man who just might tell his black friends that part of the reason he made friends with them was 'as an amulet'. After all, didn't he in publishing this piece, just do so? A man that honest might be one of the best friends you could ever have. I'm not sure we can know from here. I do think it's at least plausible that he could have frith with a man, and have made friends with him at least in part because it could be convenient later. Isn't that also so in having firth itself- knowing that a man would be loyal to you- live and die with you- doesn't that also have utility that we might not speak of directly, yet we are both aware of it? I say yes.
ReplyDeleteThe model I'm thinking of contains mutual defense at its basic structure, so certainly it would be proper to befriend a man out of a desire that he should help you defend yourself (and in return, you would defend him).
ReplyDeleteHowever, consider the structure of the bargain you are proposing. "I wish to be your friend," your honest man would be saying, "in part to have a defense against accusations that I am biased against your kind. Those accusations happen to be perfectly true, but I want you to protect me from them anyway." That doesn't sound like an honest bargain, even though it is internally quite honest!
If you wanted a black friend in part in order to defend yourself against accusations of prejudice against blacks, I would think you would be obligated not to make a liar out of your friend. That seems like a pretty important part of friendship, doesn't it? You are defending his moral character in part by not asking him to say anything untrue.
In other words, if you want a friend for this purpose, you ought to deserve the defense you are asking from him. That means not using him as a mask for your heart, but struggling against your heart to train it so that your friendship could be genuine. That is the kind of friendship you are talking about re: a Catholic friend, and that kind of friendship is very good.
"If you wanted a black friend in part in order to defend yourself against accusations of prejudice against blacks, I would think you would be obligated not to make a liar out of your friend."
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not sure he's doing that- he is a self proclaimed 'mild racist' but in that he means he identifies differences between races- as in "Asians have lower bone density on average than other races", which is of course also fact. Prejudiced racism means treating individuals as part of a category regardless of their personal traits- which I do not see him advocating, in fact he seems to be doing the opposite in identifying 'IWSB's' as desirable as friends, and says as much somewhere in there.
Obviously, if it were as you're describing it, then I'd agree, but I'm not sure we can say that's so- and I say that even as I find his approach to the subject distasteful.