早些时候，保罗·戈特弗里德（Paul Gottfried）： 前MLK美国真的需要赎回吗？
当询问“是 吉姆·斯诺 比吉姆·克劳还差？” 我还需要定义“更糟”。 更糟怎么办？ 对谁更糟？ 我会一起回答这两个问题：对我们的国家来说更糟。 美国是否更稳定、更和谐、更公平、更安全、 快乐 在吉姆·斯诺 (Jim Snow) 治下比在吉姆·克劳 (Jim Crow) 治下？
然而，民权活动家想要改革的是 1950 年代的吉姆克劳：一个与今天非常相似的国家，普遍繁荣， 福利国家， 现代媒体和通讯等； 生活记忆中的一切。
所以这是我更准确的调皮问题：考虑到种族问题，2021 年的 Jim Snow America 是否更稳定、更和谐、更公平、更安全， 快乐 比 1950 年的 Jim Crow 美国？
安全方面也是如此。 以杀人为极端。 1950 年，白人有时会杀死黑人，反之亦然； 今天一样。 数字是多少？ 资产负债表如何运作？
然后，和谐。 最近几个月你读了很多关于白人妖魔化的文章：学校、大学和公司对白人的消极态度。 在 1950 年代 Jim Crow 美国有什么平衡吗？ 是否有妖魔化黑色的负面宣传？ 我想有一些； 但同样，资产负债表是什么样的？
所以这是我顽皮的问题。 我把它留给你们自己讨论。 我有一些我可以提供的猜测； 但作为一个老数学专业，我希望看到好的定量形式的答案。
Sure, I know the common Narrative. It’s what I call “美国黑人浪漫史”. I use the definition of the word “romantic” given in Webster’s 第三:
…marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of the heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized characteristics of things, places, people.
We love a romance, all of us do. That’s why there has always been myth and legend. That’s why there are novels, plays, and movies. Apart from the simple emotional pleasures of romance, it spares us the mental effort of extracting an accurate picture of reality from the buzzing clouds of information that assault our senses.
For example, I mentioned lynching back there. Here once again are the numbers of Americans lynched for 1890, 1920, and 1950: 96, 61, and two. Of those numbers, how many were 不是 黑色的？
A great many people would be baffled to be asked that. Why, they were 所有 black, weren’t they? Wasn’t that what lynching was all about, whites killing blacks?
Actually, no. In those three years, the numbers of whites lynched were 11, 8, and 1. In percentages: 11, 13, and 50.
No, I didn’t cherry-pick; those were normal numbers for the Jim Crow years. And yes, that’s still a lot more blacks than whites; but blacks have had high levels of violent criminality for as long as we’ve kept records. So given that lynchees were lynched for something they were believed to have done, and surely in 很多情况 民政事务总署 完成, there was bound to be racial imbalance.
The closer you look, the more the lynching Narrative collapses. Keven McQueen，在他的书中 Gothic and Strange True Tales of the South, lists numerous counter-narrative lynchings. In Clarksville, Tennessee in 1914 a white man who’d raped a black woman was hanged by a black mob. (“The coroner’s jury decided it was a justifiable homicide and freed the black lynchers.”)
Blacks sometimes lynched blacks. As late as 1948 in Savannah, Georgia, police had to rescue a black man, Frank Mack, from a black mob who were on the point of lynching him for robbing and beating a popular white pharmacist.
Perhaps most counter-Narrative of all: In Columbia, Louisiana, 1891, a white mob lynched a white man for having “shot an elderly black woman named Hager Sterling to death.”
The Romance of American Blackness is just that, a romance. It wasn’t reality. Reality was black and white people living out ordinary lives of work and love in a society that had some customary unfairness and indignity built in, and that was very occasionally blighted by acts of criminal brutality—just like Jim Snow America.
Reality was what you hear if you talk to whites and blacks who grew up under Jim Crow, or if you read memoirs like Little Richard’s 故事 of growing up in Georgia in the ‘30s. Reality was the old lady who grew up poor white in Alabama, who I met twenty years ago when she was custodian of the Hank Williams birthplace in Georgiana, AL. I asked her about race in Jim Crow Alabama. 引用:
We didn’t mix much. Our schools were separate, of course. Not that different, though, that I could see. Their school had a teacher; our school had a teacher. They had a stove; we had a stove.
“They had a stove; we had a stove.” That’s ordinary life. It’s 普通: sometimes unfair, occasionally cruel, but hardly ever romantic. That’s reality.
The problem is, reality isn’t anything like as popular as romance.
Charles Murray’s latest book has the title 面对现实：美国种族的两个真相. I gave it a brief review in my May Diary. Steve did a much more penetrating 全面检讨 at 塔基杂志; and geneticist Razib Khan has just posted an even fuller review over at Quillette.com [查尔斯·默里 (Charles Murray) 的“面对现实”——评论, [29年2021月XNUMX日]。
Razib, who is a friend of Murray’s (and an occasional acquaintance of mine) struggles not very successfully to keep from sinking into despair:
Those already familiar with the data on racial differences in cognitive tests and crime rates, and therefore predisposed to take Murray’s book seriously, will most likely give up on engagement due to intellectual exhaustion with today’s punitive and spiteful political climate. And those who might benefit from Murray’s book will not read it because it was written by someone who transmits ritual pollution to all those who acknowledge him.
Executive summary: Nobody’s much interested in reality. People in the generality prefer romance. When reality shows its face, in a news story for example, we process it through a romantic filter.
Case in point: Tony Timpa. Ever heard of him? Probably not. Tony Timpa was a guy who died in 2016 while resisting arrest in Dallas, Texas. One of the restraining officers used his knee to pin Timpa face down for 13 minutes waiting for paramedics to arrive. There’s bodycam footage on YouTube if you’d like to watch it.
Tony Timpa died while under that knee restraint; of “cocaine and the stress associated with physical restraint,” according to the autopsy report [Police laughed and joked as he lost consciousness in handcuffs. Minutes later, he died, by Reis Thebault, Washington Post, July 31, 2019].
So those restraining officers are serving long jail sentences, right?
And Tony Timpa’s family got an eight-digit settlement from the city of Dallas, right?
And it’s considered the height of bad manners to mention Tony Timpa’s long criminal record, right?
Wrong on all three. Those officers are still on duty. Dallas paid nothing to Timpa’s family. So far as I can discover, Timpa had no criminal record at all. Tony Timpa was white, you see. His story didn’t make it through that romantic filter.
This is where I let loose my inner geezer. I’ve been going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it, for several decades now. I was never in Jim Crow America; but I’ve known people that were, and done some listening and reading.
So: Is the Jim Snow America of 2021 more stable, more harmonious, more fair, safer, 快乐 than the Jim Crow America of 1950? My honest best guess is: No. And I am sure that the America of 1950 was more accepting of reality than we are here today, under Jim Snow. 方法 more accepting. Razib again:
Serenity evades us as long as we build upon a foundation of lies.
Charles Murray wrote this latest book, he tells us, as a warning: If we don’t return to a more balanced, more realistic view of human nature, he says, there will be a rising resentment among white Americans against the Jim Snow order, with unpleasant consequences.
In Murray’s preferred state of society, people accept reality, including the reality of race differences, and social advancement is strictly meritocratic, without racial favor or disfavor. He says this meritocratic Murraytopia, is what we should strive for. If we don’t, then white resentment will eventually boil over, and we’ll be back to something like Jim Crow.
I say he’s dreaming, and I think Razib agrees. To swallow reality, as laid out by Murray, you need to be able to think in a formally quantitative way about statistical distributions. How many people can do that? It takes a somewhat above-average intelligence: I’d guess an IQ of 110 or more. That’s 25 percent of whites but only five percent of blacks: nothing like enough to propel us to Murraytopia. Sorry, Charles, no sale.
A harmonious, meritocratic Murraytopia?
A return to Jim Crow, or something like it, when whites get fed up at last with the injustices and indignities of Jim Snow?
Or an almighty social upheaval when, to quote Razib yet again, “we’ll have to face reality with 21st-century solutions to our problems.”
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen.