I do not favor segregation across the board. In no way, shape, or form do I want to separate the races from each other. I think it's a shame that Asians have found it necessary to segregate from the rest of us. But it may be that Chinatowns are the way to go.
What I want to see is the non-hypocritical allowance of segregation if a given community wants it. It's happening anyway: Spanish Harlem, Black Harlem, Chinatown, even Little Italy, the Russian enclave (Brighton Beach?). In Jersey City, NJ, we see a full and thriving Indian community.
Why not allow the whites their own neighborhood; one which they don't have to surreptitiously maintain at the risk of lawsuits. I wouldn't live there but I must respect their right to live in a manner that they find most agreeable with their sentiments. Under no circumstances do we insist that workplace segregation take place. Education and the workplace must remain integrated but, the neighborhood? The home environment should extend to the neighborhood if the the people of the community in question want it that way. We shouldn't fear these segregated neighborhoods any more than we fear Chinatown or any other segregation. Personally, I doubt very much that because Whites are a majority that they will all opt to live segregated. I am white and I don't want that kind of life.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
The Reverend Jackson
I recently submitted a letter to the editor about how I disagreed with Reverend Jackson' stand against the recent Supreme Court decision which was pro-segregation.
I was glad that the newspaper did not publish it. Not because I changed my mind about being pro-segregation but because I had not stated a crucial point.
In the letter I stated that segregation was how evolution created new species. That is true. It also needs to create a characteristic (skin color) that could be perceived as radically different from that of another population. Whites have remained white because they do not procreate often with other races. That principle applies to all races.
The problem with segregation is that it is not economically possible to give each race it's own country/city/region. But, in any event, I do not favor segregation in the workplace or government. I do, however, think that segregation in the elementary schools or in the neighborhood is mandated by evolution.
We can not help that we consider a certain race unsuitable for procreation. That is, after all, the reason that the races themselves got their start. At some time in the past a black population migrated north and changed skin color in order to make more
vitamin D. We've remained separate ever since.
But, here in the U.S., we noted that Blacks and Whites were no different in terms of their economic abilities. Both had superior minds and bodies that could adapt to any Homo Sapient niche. Also noted was that marriage between the races did not produce inferior Human Beings.
That's the truth but Humans are under a Yin/Yang principle. At one end, they do not consider another race to be different enough to avoid; at the other end, they join the Ku Klux Klan and seek the elimination of those who are different.
By allowing segregation we are catering to those who view irrelevant characteristics such as skin color as reason enough to remain separate. But only with regard to procreation. It should not (and, does not to intelligent being) pertain to the workforce. For, what does it matter to one race if another race is superior in a certain respect--is it not for the benefit of all?
Education had a good motive for integration--the good teachers were "spread around."
It's still a good idea were it not for the cost. Why not just ensure that all communities get equal funds for a given teacher talent. Higher education, however, must remain integrated until such time that they provide equal opportunity. But it may be that they should remain integrated to prepare the different races for the workplace.
I know, it's scary to be politically incorrect but I am speaking from my scientific heart and I welcome the opposition of any one who strongly disagrees. The issue of race, evolution, and so-called bigotry must be addressed in public. All must be made to understand the truth. As a scientist, I am, of course, open to change.
I was glad that the newspaper did not publish it. Not because I changed my mind about being pro-segregation but because I had not stated a crucial point.
In the letter I stated that segregation was how evolution created new species. That is true. It also needs to create a characteristic (skin color) that could be perceived as radically different from that of another population. Whites have remained white because they do not procreate often with other races. That principle applies to all races.
The problem with segregation is that it is not economically possible to give each race it's own country/city/region. But, in any event, I do not favor segregation in the workplace or government. I do, however, think that segregation in the elementary schools or in the neighborhood is mandated by evolution.
We can not help that we consider a certain race unsuitable for procreation. That is, after all, the reason that the races themselves got their start. At some time in the past a black population migrated north and changed skin color in order to make more
vitamin D. We've remained separate ever since.
But, here in the U.S., we noted that Blacks and Whites were no different in terms of their economic abilities. Both had superior minds and bodies that could adapt to any Homo Sapient niche. Also noted was that marriage between the races did not produce inferior Human Beings.
That's the truth but Humans are under a Yin/Yang principle. At one end, they do not consider another race to be different enough to avoid; at the other end, they join the Ku Klux Klan and seek the elimination of those who are different.
By allowing segregation we are catering to those who view irrelevant characteristics such as skin color as reason enough to remain separate. But only with regard to procreation. It should not (and, does not to intelligent being) pertain to the workforce. For, what does it matter to one race if another race is superior in a certain respect--is it not for the benefit of all?
Education had a good motive for integration--the good teachers were "spread around."
It's still a good idea were it not for the cost. Why not just ensure that all communities get equal funds for a given teacher talent. Higher education, however, must remain integrated until such time that they provide equal opportunity. But it may be that they should remain integrated to prepare the different races for the workplace.
I know, it's scary to be politically incorrect but I am speaking from my scientific heart and I welcome the opposition of any one who strongly disagrees. The issue of race, evolution, and so-called bigotry must be addressed in public. All must be made to understand the truth. As a scientist, I am, of course, open to change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
