Dilbert’s creator and the worrying return of racial separation
Scott Adams told white Americans to stay away from black people
During a YouTube livestream last week, Dilbert comic strip creator Scott Adams cited data from a Rasmussen Reports poll which found that 47% of black Americans disagreed with the statement “It’s okay to be white.” In conjunction with what he admitted was “anecdotal” evidence of black-on-white hostility on social media, Adams stated that while he didn’t support active discrimination, he was tired of helping black people and urged white listeners to “get the hell away” from them. “There is no fixing this…you just have to escape,” he said.
In response to these remarks, Dilbert was dropped from Andrews McMeel Syndication along with a number of other publications, nearly three years after Adams said that the Dilbert TV show was cancelled by UPN because of his race. In fact, given Adams’s history of controversial remarks dating back to the 2016 elections, it’s remarkable that Dilbert — a strip about white-collar office workers which reached its peak popularity during the booming economy of the 1990s — has remained commercially viable for decades, consistently generating revenue for the cartoonist.
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Already registered? Sign in
In any event, Adams doesn’t seem particularly surprised by or concerned about the reaction. He has directed people attempting to cover the story to the YouTube video in question, and his defenders, including Elon Musk, have mostly agreed that there’s an “element of truth” to them. Musk also observed that the media, which for years was racist against non-whites, is now “racist against whites & Asians”.
Musk’s preferred remedy — “maybe [the media] can try not being racist” — harkens back to the idealistic and (never fully realised) “colourblind” or “equal rights under the law” rhetoric popular on both Left and Right during Musk’s childhood. Adams is correct that “anecdotal” echo-chamber usage of social media — including his own — has increased polarisation along racial lines. Yet his comments also foreshadow a troubling turn in America life — one in which discussions around race separation are becoming more commonplace.
There are politicians like Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene who promote the idea of a “national divorce” that would reduce the power of the federal government and return more power to Republican or Democrat-dominated states. But it is also easy to envision a fringe candidate entering the 2024 primaries — like ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in 1992 — to urge de facto separation of the races along the lines Adams suggested. It is even possible to envision a fringe far-Left candidate advocating ethnonationalist separation along similar lines for the benefit of particular racial minorities, as Stokely Carmichael and Harold Cruse did during the 1960s.
Scott Adams may have faced swift reprisals for his remarks in the short term. But it seems safe to predict that the public political discourse of the not-so-distant future will feature explicitly racialised rhetoric that would’ve been beyond the pale only a decade earlier — everything from mainstream politicians and intellectuals urging people to “take phenotypic differences seriously” in terms of IQ to arguing that the different races are actually different species. These are concerning developments — and ones that do not appear to be going away any time soon.
I hope the “progressives” are happy with themselves, they’re destroying social cohesion between races at a rate the far right could only dream of (the actual far right, not the people that get labelled “far right” these days). Progressives: the true useful idiots of our generation.
It’s a very sad thing to watch.
Critical race theory actively promotes hypervigilant thinking about ethnicity, it doesn’t help to minimise racism, it actively creates it. It also tends to have a reductive approach to ethnicity and frequently conflates it with culture.
There is no such thing as a white race, or a black race, or a brown race, those are rough ranges of skin tones that are not exclusive to specific ethnic groups. Africa does not have a single race and a single culture, it is a continent shared by hundreds of different ethnic groups and distinct cultures. The same is true for Europe, Asia, the Americas, etc.
Criticising cultural norms that conflict with our own cultural norms and seeking to preserve our own cultural traditions is as necessary as challenging cultural norms and traditions of our own cultures that no longer work within the present context. However, we have enabled a situation where cultures are split in a totally nuance free manner, where some are deemed above criticism and others deemed to be irredeemably evil, not based on any logical reasoning, but based on disordered thinking, emotional instability, and ideological zealotry.
Differences in skin colour, physiognomy and physicality between peoples are indicative of groups following a different evolutionary path.
The differing environments and physical challenges presented as human beings moved out of Africa not only resulted in an evolution in our physical appearance, but inevitably in mental faculties and natural behaviour.
In the natural world we see numerous examples of animals that have a common ancestor, but as a result of geographical separation in to differing physical environments, they have physically and behaviourally evolved to be very different from one another. Of course the human animal has gone through the same process.
Whether it is called race or something else, what it is recognising is the different evolutionary paths different groups of humans have taken and which created clear differences physically and mentally between them.
Whilst environmental factors do over time lead to accumulations of certain traits in a populace, these traits cannot be reduced into a framework that labels everyone as white, brown or black, and even where one environmental condition is shared across large distances, eg, a continent, and that may be expressed in a fairly narrow range of skin colours, reducing that to a small number of races is always going to be incredibly inaccurate and inefficient due to the myriad of other factors that vary across a continent.
That’s really my point, I’m not debating that ethnic background can and does have some influence on the kinds of traits an individual is more likely to inherit, rather I am asserting that the categories we use to express that are generally too reductive to be of much use for most practical purposes, and are especially destructive when they are made central to any political project.
I agree that the geographical differences within a large continent will inevitably lead to evolutionary differences.
Within, Africa, for example, there are arid desert regions where survival is difficult and precarious. Elsewhere there are bounteous rain forests where survival is much easier. These starkly different environments would favour distinctly different physical and behavioural traits.
So I agree with you that categories such as black, brown, white are far too crude to be meaningful designators, Curiously, however, blacks in the US accept other blacks as “brothers” and “sisters”, primarily on the basis of skin colour and physiognomy and not on their ancestors’ geographical origin. Although we may dismiss race a crude construct, It is still a very strong and powerful instinct in humans, as with other animals, to use crude physical characteristics as evidence of kinship, however remote.
What prompted my initial response was a hasty misinterpretation of what you were saying as: “we are all the under the skin.” -what I would categorise as a hopelessly naïve “progressive” conception of human beings.
Such a conception inevitably leads to the racist conspiracy that white oppression is to blame for disparities. The more likely explanation – that such disparities are the result of the different evolutionary and cultural paths humans have taken – remains taboo for scientific investigation.
Then please explain the radical and extreme differences in economic, financial, industrial, educational, scientific, academic and political freedoms, their history and evolution, that exists today between continents and peoples?
The book “Guns, Germs, and Steel” makes an effort to explain those differences; I’m not sure I really agree with everything put forth there, but it’s worth reading.
Nicholas Wade takes a shot “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History “
“they’re destroying social cohesion between races at a rate the far right could only dream of (the actual far right, not the people that get labelled “far right” these days)”
Thank you for making this important and very necessary distinction.
This is exactly what they want. They want to divide the working class to prop up their own interests. People will wake up.
“Wake up” is what “woke” was originally meant to mean! The problem is only one side of the spectrum has awoken over the last decade.
Universities are creating segregated spaces, K-12 schools are creating ‘affinity groups’ along race lines – they are doing David Duke’s job for him.
Indeed! And large corporations are encouraging groups of workers to segregate into racial and sexual preference identity groups within the spirit of DEI. And they elect CEO’s of each of the groups. As a product of the ’60’s and 70’s, I can’t believe that all this separation and segregation is being openly encouraged in the name of “diversity”. It’s the complete opposite of diversity.
Diversity does not work. People will gravitate to their own group unless they drank the utopian Kool-Aid of the ’60’s.
“Diversity” seems an ironical usage, inasmuch as actual Diversity of Thought seems to be the ultimate tabu.
Many people are highly invested in the issue never going away, they make a lot of money from it. How many jobs in universities, schools, workplaces are DEI specific? Bestsellers Ibram X Kendi, Robin DiAngelo make a nice living from this. Not mention long time grifters such as Al Sharpton.
Yup, it’s all about money!
It is not about money. Like the Fascists (National Socialists), the Hell the post modernist, Neo-Marxist Left create, it is to get the Power they seek. Absolute and crushing power. To get it they have to destroy the state and economy. Only from chaos can they create their nightmare of totalitarianism. The Democrat party of the puppet Biden is worse than Stalin – in the horror thy wish to make of the USA. 1984 is their road map.
Money is a measure of purchasing power, so you’re not really disagreeing at a profound level with S.Sutherland.
Money = Power
Yes, Elliott, and thanks for saying that. This assault on Western civilization is for many or even most people about much more than the personal acquisition of money/power. And the difference between them and the rest of us is one of kind, not quantity. To take one obvious example among many, consider Hitler. Unlike some of his entourage, he was not merely an opportunist. He was a true believer in his ideology. He was motivated by an urge that went much deeper than personal gain. It was hatred: the irrational urge to afflict or destroy, which became an end in itself and not merely the means to some political, economic or societal end.
The response of Thomas Sowell to accusations years ago of being a sell out was to point out that those hyping race and ethnicity issues were the ones making the money not him.
There is little money to be made saying that race relations have greatly improved in the US from the days when blacks and whites could not even get married in many US states in the 1960s. Despite the rather bizarre poll result – and you can’t imagine a similar one asking whites if it was OK to be black today – I don’t believe anything near that proportion of blacks are in fact so racist as to believe being white is not OK. In any case the remedy of blacking up to be less white is deemed racist. The whole story is a manufactured click bait where a humorist took the bait and gave a sarcastic take on it.
I think it was all about money but now it has gone further. Those pioneers(?) of these theories have got to where they are and can only progress by suggesting even-more-crazy ideas; otherwise they have nowhere to go.
It’s created an entirely new career path for the least competent of the professional managerial class.
While Scott Adams was acting the idiot, the problem I have with this “debate” is that the scorn goes one way when the instigators get off scott free.
The progressives manufactured some bogus “poll” or “study” saying that almost half of black people hate white people, or find being white problematic, or something like that. This of course is shite and I know it is shite as I live in a red city in a red state in the American south and I know many black people and hardly any harbor any animosity towards white people. Most of the racism you see in this state towards whites or blacks are in the poor rural communities, same as in the blue states. It’s hardly the even near the majority and it’s laughable to suggest otherwise.
So Scott took the bait on a bogus study meant to divide us and played right into their game of division. Then a million articles are written about it, even in the conservative press, decrying Scott but never pointing out the rediculousness of the premise that triggered him into such a rage to begin with. Rinse and repeat. The left really are master manipulators. They even have National Review taking their side in this.
Maybe change the headline. “Democrats False Stats Trigger Anti-Black Concerns”. Then interview someone from the black community who is offended that the original poll was manipulated to make black people look racist and who fears backlash.
I live in the South in a mixed Black and White town – Race in the South is not a problem, everyone works together, every one just gets along, it is not political – outside of Memphis, Atlanta, New Orleans, Houston – and so on, and there even it is not militant. But East and West coasts, and the North Central – there it is a totally different thing, totally, it is political in the Soros Left Cities..
Mayors such as Muriel Bowser (DC) and Brandon Scott (Baltimore) and maybe Adams (NYC) are like m1nstrel show performers in a way. They perform black racial politics, thus providing cover for other powerful interests–developers, universities and so-called health care industry–to dictate policies behind the scenes.
Support for interracial marriage in the US is something like 94% now.
Marriage? It’s disappearing.
The prevalence of unmarried black women is responsible for many a destructive policy in East Coast cities and probably beyond.
When a black woman marries at all, she marries a white man, Asian, Indian, etc. If she hooks up with a black man, there’s no marriage, just them living together for a while, then he leaves her and his children on their own. This is true 8 out of 10 times.
A sort of trifecta myth? Racist, sexist and classist all in one go?
I think that the majority consensus in the US for equal-access conjugal contracts is over-stated with the word “support”. In my experience I have found that although educated black women may defend interracial marriage as a civil right, they view the reduction of the pool of educated black men with understandable disfavor. The majority of humanity blamelessly and naturally prefers its own kind, but we have progressed sufficiently that outliers are not unduly persecuted.
Rasmussen who did the poll can hardly be characterized as “Left” or “Democrat”. If you got out of your bubble for a moment you would see that commenters on the “Left” see Rasmussen as part of the a far right conspiracy. Scott Adams saw this situation as an opportunity for satire and to provoke. He did this knowing this would trigger universal condemnation and cancelling. Adams describes himself as a lefty but seems to admit that “progressive” solutions have run their course and a more inclusive/wide ranging discussion needs to take place. For an example of that more wide ranging discussion Goggle Hotep Jesus Scott Adam interview.
A good interview.
“The progressives manufactured some bogus “poll” or “study” saying that almost half of black people hate white people, or find being white problematic, or something like that2
How do you know the poll is not accurate?
The poorest must fight hard to survive and must use tribalism. The answer is to help educate them. Polls are conducted for a mission. Scott has been brave to speak out, but he lacks the answer as do most progressives for different reasons.
After living through the 70’s and 80’s as a student in minority majority schools, I have to respectfully disagree.
There is a trend in modern journalism where a writer, let’s call him Ollie, approaches a difficult topic – let’s call that topic “race in America” – and then writes a thousand words of careful jabberwocky on the subject. Race relations are bad in the US, but Ollie can’t really talk about the Left’s decades of stoking racial tensions and fomenting racial division for political gain as a cause because that would leave him open to charges of being right-wing. And we know he’s not right-wing, he studied at UNC Chapel Hill. Ollie, instead, writes a thousand words of carefully crafted obfuscation on the topic because…I don’t know…he has a deadline or something.
” But it is also easy to envision a fringe candidate entering the 2024 primaries — like ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in 1992 — to urge de facto separation of the races along the lines Adams suggested.”
This guy checks under his bed at night to see if a trans-phobic racist is hiding under it before going to sleep.
The author’s comment was absurd.
Scott Adams does not suggest “separation of races”, he is a satirist not a racist. Unfortunately not a lot of people get satire these days. People who want to know the truth cannot rely on mainstream or social media. For the truth Goggle Real Coffee with Scott Adams #2027 and #2029 and Hotep Jesus Scott Adams Interview
Ugh. Awful analysis. CRT does not support or uplift ordinary black Americans. It is a tool to divide working class people and prop up a political alliance that benefits the professional managerial class. Nothing else.
At some point racial minorities will look around and realize the CRT narrative hasn’t improved their lives. Hispanics are waking up to this reality now and so are many black Americans, to a lesser degree.
This is the comment that left me gobsmacked. “But it is also easy to envision a fringe candidate entering the 2024 primaries — like ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in 1992 — to urge de facto separation of the races along the lines Adams suggested.”
Ya. It would have to be so far fringe that no one would pay attention. For all I know, there is a fringe candidate like this who runs in every primary. But it’s a fringe candidate. It means nothing.
After 57 years of voting in the exact same numbers regardless of the consequences I think you are being a bit naive.
‘‘ But it is also easy to envision a fringe candidate entering the 2024 primaries — like ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in 1992 — to urge de facto separation of the races along the lines Adams suggested.”
Nice bit of gratuitous race-bating there writer….It is this sort of lies which are causing all the problems.
And Yea, well it is easy to imagine you Leftards putting chips in everyone’s brains, forcing CBDC, Tracking everyone every second in a hyper surveillance State, and creating hell on Earth with your techkno-transhuman nightmares. Likely even, if your guys remain in Office – inevitable. With your 15 minute pod cities and ‘eat the bugs’ and ”your carbon allotment is used” – no leaving the town for you this month….
But about Adams – do you not see the Left, via its capture of MSM, the Deep State, Social Media, Entertainment, Education, the Soros Capture of the ‘ Justice Departments’, the ‘Race industry’, the ‘Equity’ BLM Antifa, and so on are 100% entirely out to Cause Racism. They are 100% to break USA Apart by creating race hate. That is what Adams is saying – Politics Today are entirely about destroying USA by creating Race Hatred – and so to keep out of the mess they create, to not be part of this dystopia they create – you have to just keep away.
South Africa could be the most amazing Nation – instead it is a Failed State descending into breakdown because Race is used to create a corrupt oligarchy of incompetence and dis-unity, and the greatest wealth differences of anywhere on Earth. Rolling blackouts are the norm. Walls and big dogs and guns required. This is what Outside Leftards did by their pathological imposed policies. They want the exact thing for USA – So is Why Musk chimes in….
The only racism I see in USA is Created Racism by the Left. Same as in UK. This is what Adams protests.
South Africa … truly a magnificent ‘before-and-after’ Social Science Experiment with crystal clear conclusions for all to see.
You almost got what Adams was saying. However Scott is not a fan of neo Nazis white supremacists. He is also waging war against what he sees as systemic racism. So if you just remove your right wing insanity, you more or less have it. Don’t rely on me, you can form your own opinion by Goggling Hotep Jesus Scott Adams Interview.
So what satire was his statement about anglos getting the schidt beat out of them on a daily basis? Because that is easy enough to research (although the frequency may be incorrect).
He was defending ‘white flight’. If you are subject to harassment, insult, crime etc., why shouldn’t you leave if you can? It’s self-defence of the meekest kind.
I don’t know if my other comment on this ever made it out of Purgatory but it’s worth noting that “black fight” is now taking place in cities. Anyone who can, leaves, and it is hardly because of racism. Blacks who can afford to are rejecting black mayors’ policies and moving to the suburbs–Trump recognized this–leaving behind an underclass. This underclass trades votes for municipal jobs, goes on welfare and/or becomes criminal. The blighted areas just sit there while the mayors/representatives blame racism. Developers/hospitals/universities are waiting in the wings for the moment these blighted areas become a reasonable investment.
I’m not sure the original white flight had to do with racism so much as the automobile, allowing workers to commute, and so be able to raise their families away from the inner city.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the endgame of identity politics. It’s impossible to focus on race in politics without creating and exacerbating racial tensions. Politicians, some for noble reasons and some for ignoble ones, pushed a narrative of victimization on black voters and created a nearly monolithic voting bloc that nursed grievances, both present and historic, with the majority group and the whole of society. Some of it is undoubtedly justified. Africans were enslaved and brought to America against their will and made into slave labor. Even after they were freed, they still suffered considerably from racial prejudice as second class citizens in a hostile society. The facts are not in dispute. However justified it might be to focus on these racial grievances, the act of doing so perpetuates the issue, passing it down from one generation to another, furthering the division. Nobody alive has ever owned a black slave, not legally or openly at any rate. There aren’t many people left that even remember Jim Crow, and none who actually created those laws. Yet, here we are, still arguing who owes what to whom over both. Like that one mean comment your significant other made when drunk decades ago, it continues to be an issue so long as one party keeps bringing it up and using it as a cudgel against the other. This is why wars have been, and still are, being fought over things that happened centuries ago. How do we escape this vicious circle? I honestly don’t have a better answer than Dilbert or his pointy haired boss. I watched a video a while back with a pot bellied KKK guy holding a Confederate flag say something to the effect of “well, it’s just natural for everybody to keep to their own kind.” The older I get, the more I’m inclined to just yield to this simplistic, if depressing, wisdom. One cannot fight human nature with any hope of victory.
And yet Scott Adams is still trying to fight the good fight.
10 years ago a new physician moved to town (we are desperately short of doctors here). I heard she was a triathlete, as I am, so as part of the medical community I reached out to her. I introduced her to the club, brought her to some events, etc.
As part of meeting her, I asked her a lot of questions about herself: “Where are you from? Where did you go to med school? Residency? Where do your parents live? Do you have kids?
2 years later there was an article in the Medical post – a national publication that goes out to all physicians in Canada. The cover story was about “Microaggressions” and talked about how physicians “of colour” (her heritage is from India) were treated in a racist way. She was featured, and talked about how people asked her where she was from very often, which was obviously racist. (Here in Cape Breton “Where are you from” and “What’s your father’s name” are standard conversation-starters. We are a small community, and we are genuinely interested in other people).
One can imagine how this article changed my approach to meeting new physicians “of colour”. Much safer to keep my distance. Don’t show interest. Don’t ask any questions. I generally don’t go beyond “Hello, nice to meet you” anymore. Too dangerous.
Sorry to hear. As a Canadian myself, not sure unless you are Canadian, that people will get this. “Where are you from .. etc.” are common innocent conversation starters amongst the majority of the population – small community or not. Unfortunately most of Canada still has not heard of Post Modernism or Critical Race Theory even as its main stream media via the CBC and Canada’s “National newpaper” The Globe and Mail pump it out to them daily.
All the same, it’s pretty shocking that 47% of black Americans are racist.
Even Scott Adams questions the validity of the Rasmussen pole. Remember he is a satirist. He just saw the opportunity and took it. The aftermath is more revealing of our society than anything he could have dreamed. Going out with a bang! If you are interested check out the Hotep Jesus Scott Adams Interview.
All of this is eerily reminiscent of the Bolshevik revolution. Liberal Russian “intelligents” supported the far-left till the end being unable to have a backbone to say no to their excesses. The double-bind arguments used by anti-racists (e.g. on White fragility) were a common technique in the Soviet Republic. Incidentally Bolsheviks were admired by the liberal progressives of US at the time to the point of turning a blind eye to Holodomor in Ukraine later. This does seem to be heading towards some kind of awful clash unless the intelligents of America somehow find their common sense some time along the way.
Given the backlash this man appears to be correct to want to distance himself from racial issues.
So-called ‘anti-racists’, which is how cool contemporary racists have decided to rebrand themselves, have been fomenting a race war for some years now. Scott Adams was satirising them by pretending to take their rhetoric seriously.
Latest media thing about which to get excited. I don’t avoid my black neighbors, nor do I attempt to avoid them on the street. Normal media pot-stirring.
Scott Adams agrees with you. Ignore what mainstream and social media is saying. If you want to know the truth go to the source.
The more recent history of segregation in US cities is poorly understood, mainly due to willful distortions.
“White flight” for example had less to do with race than technology. Affordable automobiles allowed workers to commute, so of course they fled the inner city in order to raise families.
It is safe to say that most of the “heroic” people in charge of enforcing Civil Rights Acts–desegregating businesses and institutions–lived in completely white exclusive neighborhoods and made no effort to “desegregate” these or the clubs and schools where they sent their children.
“Black flight” now exists. Any black person who can, flees the inner cities for the suburbs in order to raise a family. The remaining black [email protected] is swept under the rug, and pacified to an extent with various forms of welfare, including grant money, from which a professional/administrative black class extracts benefits.
Gentrification is not a racist plot, though this is convenient for blaming white developers and extracting concessions from them. It is apparently lost on people that white working class neighborhoods are also gentrified. In some areas, such as Baltimore, this is in fact the norm, rather than the other way around, and happened as much in white neighborhoods in Queens and Brooklyn as in black neighborhoods.
If you were a black person, raised to be wary of white people, who, so it goes, hate you and want to call the cops to come shoot you, why would you ever want to move to a majority white neighborhood anyway? And yet some blacks do. . .
Every wealthy one does, and they still bleat about their victim hood.
When it comes to race, I always advise “flipping the polarity switch”. Basically, if you hear an offensive statement about race such as ‘stay way from black people’, imagine the media reaction and repurcussions to someone that said ‘stay away from white people’. If there’s a difference, that’s where the bias is. It should be as obvious as a compass that points north, or water that seeks a level.
It obviously doesn’t matter to anyone that true, systemic white racism died out about 30 years ago. It has gradually been replaced by black racism, which is trying to become systemic. That the media avoids talking about black racism like a vampire avoids sunlight is just gasoline on the fire.
Scott Adams makes the argument that if you are Black would you move into a neighbourhood where 20% where neo Nazi White Supremacists. He also notes that if “Blacks believe that it is not ok to be White”, then they have an historical reason to believe that. Scott Adams is also a great believer in system racism against blacks. So the two of you have a lot to discuss.
The bottom line issue is that blacks still only comprise 13% of the American population. Yes, I realize that some polls asking the question of the general public put the number at 50%+. That’s because our culture has been taken over by DEI over the last decade or so, pushing a false narrative.
It’s almost silly to imply that white racism still exists when black culture is the predominant culture and many large cities are completely run by blacks. Chicago is the epicenter. 30% black population with a black mayor, black police chief, black county president, black fire chief, black district attorney and on and on. Yet we are racist and need to fight for equality?
A black politician from Baltimore recently lamented that the failure of their schools – I read that most/all of students are not reading at grade level – and by extension the failure of the city itself cannot be blamed on ‘racism’. Words to the effect, “I look around, everyone looks like me”. In other words, “we can’t pin this mess on whitey”.
To a logical mind, problem-solving begins with self. You exhaust your own means of solving the problem before you look for outside help. You don’t point fingers and cry ‘racism’ because you’re too stupid or too lazy to take responsibility and do what’s in your own power to fix things first.
Education is a key part of the “fix”. But it can’t happen – the rigorous standards, the enforcement of discipline, rejection of grade inflation and passing failing kids along to the next grade automatically – because the people in charge of it, which are teacher’s unions and government, are infected with wokeism to the point it would make the (old) Twitter blush. And as I said, only a part, because the other more crucial part is the cultural issue of creating/maintaining/supporting intact families, and as it stands, only 30% of black children grow up in one. And as everyone knows, you can’t legislate morality (or a culture war).
So the drum beats on. Kids grow up learning what to think, instead of how us oldsters grew up, being taught how to think.
The results are not surprising in the least.
This is the point.
I don’t see a link in the article to the Scott Adams video that initiated the story. Did I miss it? Please add a link.
Google Real Coffee with Scott Adams #2027 and #2029. Also check out Hotep Jesus Scott Adams Interview. You are right in being suspicious of this article.
Scott Adams merely stated the obvious. With the more vocal elements in black American society demanding segregated college dorms and graduation ceremonies, with the rise of the risible BLM movement and CRT in schools, with DEI having become the call to action for every sort of so-called social justice whim, people with less epidermal melanin are bone weary of the game playing. He may have over-stated the case, but that’s what normal people who go about living their lives as decent, fair, hard-working individuals are likely to do when they are accused of being “unconscious racists”, which is about as intelligible as being an “unconscious rapist”. Paint any person into a corner with false accusations and you’re likely to draw an intense reaction.
The black community had a lot to answer for, not the least of which is allowing race hustlers to convince it to shoot itself in the foot by claiming “victim” status and “micro-offense” at every turn, long after those things don’t characterize the general cultural attitudes toward them. Time to move on with their actual lives as part of a larger reality.
I don’t agree with Scott Adams, but his remarks reveal a very deep and growing sentiment in this country. It should not be ignored. The authentic legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. needs to be re-awakened in this country, so that everyone’s children will be judged on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. It’s well past the time for people of all colors to commit to making his dream a reality. Drop the hatred, drop the excuses. Bear the burden of loving one another. We are all brothers and sisters.
What would be wrong with trials taking place that pioneered separation? Has forced diversity on a huge scale not caused limitless issues? What can non-Europeans do that Europeans cannot do for themselves? I am not advocating apartheid but the capacity for people to mix with their own should they see fit.
The Heritage Site | Adam McDermont | Substack
This is quite a neat concept but it wouldn’t stem the tide. Critical Race Theory says that:
1) Black people who go along with a White suggestion are merely White people in disguise – they have gone over to the other side.
2) No suggestions are valid because this is a White world – all ideas are White ideas and, therefore, should be ignored.
I think that you’re comparing apples and aardvarks: forced separation and voluntary separation. The former has a very long history in many parts of the world and thus requires no “trials.”
To judge from these comments, Bateman’s essay has opened a really unpleasant can of worms. Almost all of them miss the most important point. Growing up in NYC made it obvious that just because a person of a certain color of skin (or hair, or a surname that starts with Mc or ends with a vowel, or…) does something you object to doesn’t mean that all similar looking people are likely to do the same thing. Or that they’re in some way responsible for the actions of their “brother” or “cousin” or “paesano”.
On top of that, in the intervening decades the number of inter-racial children brought into this world has sky-rocketed. The distinctions you’re making, and that Kendi et al have made, are rapidly becoming nonsensical.
Bateman dismisses the “idealistic and never fully realized colourblind rhetoric.. of Musk’s childhood…” without recognizing that such an endevour is likely to take more than a generation or two. We came so far; we made so much real progress, it’s terrible to think of everyone giving up now.
It seems to me that the solution to any problem that might be embedded in Scott Adams’ remarks it not through ‘cancellation’ or the refusal to publish his very entertaining comic strip; but rather through a thoughtful discussion of and response to the things that he has said. The essence of free speech is allowing people to have their say without unreasonable threats, and the requirement for cultural and intellectual growth is the subsequent discussion of their statements, rather than the mobilization of the mob to beat down the speaker. Scott Adams may or may not be wrong in some, or all, of the things he has said. I do not know, as I have not yet heard them. But ‘cancelling’ him for saying the wrong thing is not the response of an intelligent civilization interested in dealing seriously with important issues.
Forward into the past. We have apparently regressed to the 16-17th century in the degree of fear and ignorance that is publicly expressed. Who was it who said, what we learn from history is that mankind learns nothing from history?
Another I-don’t-get-it article from Bateman. Adams sarcastically pointed out that if a huge proportion of people think it’s not “okay” to be a certain skin color, you should not associate with them – because they’re racists. Good God, if there wasn’t money in this – as Frederick Douglass warned 150+ years ago – we’d be getting on with one another.
The issue of race is the “squirrel” governments use to point us away from their heinous crimes. Let’s chuck this sh*t and focus on why, for instance, world governments created a global pandemic that killed millions – of every race.
I cannot hope but feel that Scott Adams’s words are being taken out of context as usual.
Commentary by Brandon Tatum on his YT channel are particularly insightful.
The thing a lot of people are unaware of is, for ages and ages now Scott has been asking if he’s been cancelled yet, and almost seemed disappointed not to have been. For whatever reason, he deliberately and purposefully has been on a path to get himself cancelled. So he had to say something provocative and unacceptable to liberal sensibilities. To witness the entirely predictable shrieks and howls in the wake of his comments in this context provides a very different parallax through which to observe events. A man says “Here, watch what I’m about to do, I’m going to say something so provocative that I get cancelled for it.” And then it happens, exactly as planned. I’m just not sure what his motivation is – maybe it is genuinely to start an honest conversation in the country as a whole, to open the window for people of all races to talk honestly and freely without tiptoeing around, and maybe Scott thought he was in strong enough a position to be able to withstand whatever slings and arrows would inevitably be hurled towards him. I genuinely don’t know, other than to say he’s been building up to this for weeks, it’s entirely premeditated, and despite what the haters might be saying about him “losing everything” or “crashing and burning”, it was a kamikaze action, done intentionally and deliberately to achieve a certain outcome. I just don’t know what that outcome is!
I think Scott Adam’s has cemented his status as King of the Trolls.
Interracial marriage was banned in the US.
Happily, it is no longer banned, but this has made it much harder for Black men to get married. You just have to look at TV adverts to see how much interracial marriage there is now.
And in turn this makes it harder for intergenerational wealth transfer where Black men transfer wealth to their children.
If you are in the UK I presume that you are being sarcastic referring to how, nowadays, almost every relationship in an advert is mixed race. And how this is clearly not a reflection of reality but an attempt to socially engineer.
Interracial marriage ban had to be repealed constitutionally for half of US in the late sixties with Alabama finally overturning their ban in 2000. People on these boards will still prefer to talk about slavery and its impact on society as something ancient like the Viking attacks in Europe.
So how many Black women get married now?
28% in Illinois, according to figures I have seen.
Majority of children in UK are born out of wedlock for quite a while now, do you think that points to a banning opportunity as well?
Gosh who was banned from getting married in 2000? I’m sure the media would love to speak with them.
No one in practice, but the (state) law was allowed to stand until that point.
Join the discussion
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.Subscribe