Many of the ideas in "The Covenant with Black America" are very reasonable, and seem a step in the right direction for blacks to focus on constructive behavior, etc. As some of you may have noticed (or not) I don't share the extreme disgust that many of you possess toward this group, nor do I personally wish to indulge in vulgar talk against them; I instead feel sorry for them and hope they stop blaming whites, stop committing so many fucking crimes, work harder, stop serving as a target for lawyers and liberals to stir up white guilt, start studying more, and especially that they stop their hunter-gatherer non-marital reproductive practices that are inappropriate for a settled (read: "civilized") society. And I think that "The Covenant with Black America" may move in the right direction to solving some of these problems, so I desire to respect it if possible.
However, this section of "The Covenant with Black America" deserves some closer criticism. Here I post it, with my comments inserted.
"Since before this country’s inception, black people have struggled against deeply ingrained race-based expressions of power, privilege, and exclusion."
First of all, what does this very vague, generalized sentence mean? It rails against "exclusion." Are the early inhabitants of this land-mass to be expected to have practiced "inclusion"? That is rather historically naive, is it not? They were busy trying to survive in a harsh world. What do they mean by "power"? Why did "power" become a bad word, anyway? When did it become a bad word? When Foucault started using it as such in the 1980s? Also, what about privilege? Do we not seek our children to have more privileges than we did? Is this not a normal goal for most people, to improve the lot of their offspring? Are these expressions always "race-based"? Aren't they normal goals for normal people?
"After post-Civil War Reconstruction was defeated in 1877 and the era of Jim Crow was ushered in the mid-20th century, America’s elite universities and well-respected "scientists" advanced claims of biological evidence connecting black physical features to inferior intelligence and predisposition to criminal behavior. This "evidence" further fueled the national hysteria about a growing black population and offered justification for criminalizing black men."
This is completely insane. First of all, why is the word scientists enclosed in scare quotes? Are these not biologists and anthropologists? Second, are all the IQ tests somehow WRONG that show sub-Saharan lower IQ? If so, can someone please furnish an IQ test that is not "biased" and that shows higher IQ for sub-Saharans? As for linking a population group to criminal behavior, how is this not scientific? Higher testosterone without IQ to temper it = impulsivity and aggressiveness. Unfortunately in a non-hunter-gatherer society, these actions are criminalized. Genes spread through population groups which have been RELATIVELY isolated since the splitting of sub-Saharans from other populations, when humans left Africa. This was quite a while ago, long enough for different alleles to be present in different population groups. It is not unscientific to discuss these things. As for "national hysteria" about a growing black population: well, they do reproduce at a high rate, and without marriages: this means no man around to help correct the children; this means the children don't see examples of responsible behavior, so they end up acting criminal. Is it hysterical to be worried about this? I don't think so. As for "justification for criminalizing black men": Isn't an EXTREME crime rate enough of a "justification"? We don't need more justifications than that, do we?
"This Covenant with Black America represents a realization that there is a multi-headed, multi-tentacled monster out there devouring blacks who live in certain neighborhoods."
Sounds interesting. What could this monster be? No doubt the author will name it in a moment. I'm at the edge of my seat. Sounds like Cthulhu, or another H. P. Lovecraft monster, or a 1950s B-movie ...
"Incarceration is just one aspect of this menace, but it is an overwhelmingly damaging aspect."
OK, so incarceration is an "aspect" of this "tentacled monster." What is the monster?
"Our job, in working to achieve fairness and equity, is to sound the alarm about the unjust criminal justice system and demand that our leaders and those in power act now to halt this destructive, unfair treatment of our brothers and sisters, especially of our children."
Still waiting for the monster. What is the monster? I scan and scan the text but to no avail. What is the monster dammit? Is it the ... no ... is the monster the CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM? Is that what the author means? Let me get this straight. If cops fail to patrol black neighborhoods, they aren't doing their job. And if they incarcerate blacks "unfairly" (is the implication that blacks commit violent crimes only as often as whites in the same socio-economic status? THINK AGAIN -- and look at Department of Justice crime stats as you think!) then they are racists? What? How is the criminal justice system unjust? The author has never stated the answer. And we are still awaiting the identity of the multi-tentacled monster.
"Together we must challenge individuals, communities, cities, counties, regions, states, and the nation to be accountable for the outcomes of the justice systems at every level of government."
Now we have completely left the monster and I want to know what it is. We instead have a vague "call to action" to "be accountable" for the OUTCOMES of the justice systems. This talk of "outcomes" makes me think of the utterly insane logic behind affirmative action: that outcomes, not just opportunities, need to be equal. So if there are not enough truly qualified black men to fill a job, we have to hire unqualified ones so that the OUTCOME will be desirable. In any case, the monster has not been identified.
What is the monster? WHAT IS THE MULTI-TENTACLED MONSTER?