I can think of dozens of instances where lying is not only prudent, but circumstantially DEMANDED. One such might be if my wife asks me if those new yoga pants make her butt look fat. I’m NOT crazy enough to tell her the truth.
Pappadave, you can almost certainly honestly say “No”, because it usually ain’t the garment… (qix out for a deep dark hole to hide in )
It’s difficult being Black in white America. It was REALLY difficult back in the days when you could be lynched with impunity, and when many schools, neighborhoods and jobs openly discriminated against you.
But as things improved on the legal front, another problem came to the fore: almost everything worthwhile – everything that took intellect – had been done by whites, not Blacks. Yes, there’s music and sports and allied entertainment areas, but … science, medicine, engineering, architecture, mathematics, business … all white. (This is less and less true today, as other non-whites rack up achievements – see the latest National Spelling Bee champions – but it was really true in Cleaver’s day. James Baldwin writes movingly about this in his Notes of a Native Son. Of course, you could say to yourself – ‘it’s because of slavery’ – but way down deep is that feeling that … maybe we are inferior after all. Combine that with living surrounded by whites and their achievements, and… even if every white was the most self-debasing, condescending liberal possible – it would still eat at you. I think this drove intelligent Black people like Cleaver a ltitle crazy.
And … there is a personality type which is well known in the Black community – the ‘Hustler’. As the Civil Rights movement gained momentum in the 60s, Black hustlers realized gullible liberal whites were prime targets for smart hustlers. Tom Wolfe portrays one in Bonfire of the Vanities, the ‘Reverend Bacon’. (He had earlier described this type to a ‘T’ in his spot-on essay, "Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers".) [If you click on the link you can download his essay. You will see that nothing has changed.]
Lyndon Johnson made lots of money available to hustlers able to organize ‘Black Studies’ groups on campus, or ‘community organizing’ groups. The Black Panthers lost four members to a rival Black group, “US”, in a shoot-out over who would get this money to set up a group at UCLA. The egregious Al Sharpton is a high-level hustler.
Guilty white liberals are completely incapable of resisting a Black hustler. After all, if a white disagrees with, or criticizes, a Black … that must be white racism, right?
White hard-left radicals are actually sometimes more savvy, but, since they decided that American capitalism can only be destroyed by provoking a racial, rather than a class, war … they find themselves in alliance with Black hustlers in most situations. [The rapidly-growing radical student group SDS was destroyed by a split in 1969 between hardline Marxists who opposed Black nationalism, on the one hand, and white radicals who pandered to it, on the other – some of the latter went on to become the terrorist group, the Weathermen, and, later, advisors to Barack Obama and ‘distinguished professors of education’ who train our teachers.]
I am not so quick to pooh-pooh achievements by blacks. George Washington Carver’s seminal work on the peanut comes to mind along with the FACT that the scientist who discovered blood-typing and Rh factors was a black doctor–who, coincidentally, bled to death because a white-run hospital refused to admit him to their ER because of his color. Then, there was the female black mathematician who hand-calculated the orbits for the Apollo missions in the 60’s and whose name escapes me. Carver’s work on the peanut in fact SAVED a lot of southern towns from ruin when their cotton crops were devastated by boll weevils and soil depletion causing them to switch crops to peanuts instead, after which they prospered. Of course, I didn’t LEARN all this until I was well into my adulthood so I doubt many blacks did either.
You’re absolutely right. Given the horrible conditions that American Blacks lived in, expecially before the 1960s, these are remarkable achievements, and everyone should know about them. They ought to be on the curriculum of every elementary school in the US. (However, I think you have misread what I wrote, at least what I wanted to write.)
However, we can’t deny that American Blacks had to struggle against a lot of negative influences, and that these had, and still have, their impact. It’s just fatuous to pretend that Blacks have, in proportion to their numbers, made the same level of intellectual contributions to the general culture that, say, Jews have.
A good analogy here is women: up until very recently, almost all mathematicians and scientists have been male. You could count the great female mathematicians on the fingers of one hand. And for a long time, a popular explanation (at least among males) was that it was to do with women’s brains: they didn’t have good spatial sense, or something, due to evolutionary selection… That is now changing rapidly – four years ago, the Fields Medal (the Nobel Prize of mathematics) was won, for the first time by a woman. (Interestingly, an Iranian woman – but she had to come to a free country, the US, to flourish mathematically.)
The worst negative influence on Black people of all is the internal psychological impact … the feeling that, despite all the patronizing pats on the head from white liberals, we must really be inferior.
There are various bad ways to respond to this: the ‘Black Pride’ movement, which started in the late 60s, was not bad, just vacuous. Worse was the phenomenon of ‘Afro-Centrism’, which invented a mythical Black history by appropriating Egyptian history, or actually just inventing history: the liberal Portland Oregon school board fell for this nonsense – and maybe still does. (The best refutation of the Porland insanity was done by the leftist American Federation of Teachers, whose expose of this bs can be found here.)
A Black historian has written a good book about the self-delusion of ‘Afro-Centric’ history, here.
Another negative influence is Affirmative Action – racial preferences. It means that whites all secretly believe that any Black who gets academic credentials didn’t really deserve them. The only person I ever successfully supervised through to his PhD (in Computer Science) was Black, from St Lucia. He got it fair and square, no affirmative action – in fact, I know for sure that one of the external examiners for his PhD was a racist. He once asked me for advice about moving to the US (he lives and teaches in the UK) – I told him that his worst problem there would not be white racism, but the assumption of whites, including, maybe even especially, white liberals, that his PhD was a pity-award instead of the real thing. He stayed in the UK.
Since race is the principal possible fracture line in the US today, and since the hard Left has finally recognized this and is pushing as hard as it can towards racial civil war, every conservative needs to be well-versed in this issue.
I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the fate of the USA will be determined by whether commonsense in the non-white communities is able to triumph over the Pied Piper of racial chauvinism.
And yet Corrie Ten Boom was ashamed of lying to the Nazis. As I said above, God calls us to obedience, not expedience. The results may be horrid from our perspective, but He knows what He’s doing.
Evidently you are a consistent truth-teller. Te salud! (I guess. But I hope you don’t get a job guarding Ameria’s miltiary secrets from its enemies.)
But you are symmetrically matched by some people who aim to be absolutely consistent liars – that is, they have vowed NEVER to tell the truth. (They want jobs writing socialist political platforms, with promises of security, happiness, liberty, prosperity.)
But these people have a problem – when applying for a job writing a socialist political platform, for which only consistent liars are suitable, they will be asked to avow that they are indeed consistent liars.
But they won’t be able to.
There are actually many, many more blacks who have accomplished many wonderful things. And the interesting part is that most of them were Republicans!
Just so you know, the black community before Affirmative Action, etc., were actually much more family oriented with married parents and a male black as head of the household. You don’t see that anymore–at least not as the norm. The problem as I see it is that more often than not, teenage girls get pregnant, the fathers have no responsibility or interaction with their children, girls have to go on welfare and the beat goes on. The education system as a whole in this country is a cesspool of left-wing Marxists and commies. So, where do young black men get their father-figures? From gangs and rappers. You never hear of a black teenager wanting to become a doctor or businessman, or lawyer. They all want to be “rap artists”. Why? Because in their minds it’s a quick means to lots of money. But, even the richest black rapper doesn’t change his gangsta ways about him. Look at Tupac and BIG. Until blacks realize that the dem party is their new massers they’ll never change.
There is no such thing as a circumstance in which someone should have lied.
Every single word of this is true.
Before 1960, over half of Black children were born in wedlock. Way too many weren’t, but a majority were. Now, it’s approaching 80% who are not. And the Whites are catching up!
Now … middle-class radicals pooh-pooh this, and say “Oh, that was the nuclear family … we have a broader definition of ‘family’ today, which includes single mothers.” And in a certain sense, they’re right: for well-educated middle-class women, with solid financial support from middle-class parents, raising a child without a father-figure may not be disastrous. I have several acquaintances, of my generation, who have done just that, and their children seem to be doing well. But they all, by and large, had well-paying jobs, were intelligent and educated, had a supporting social network, and doting grandparents.
The reality for a poor woman, without skills, in a rough environment, without much education … is very different. That was the reality for my parents grandparents, in the first half of the 20th Century, but … they had a strong nuclear family, had the church (most of them), had the so-called Protestant work ethic … and they HAD to have it because there was no welfare state around then. My mother, as a little girl, picked cotton for fifty cents a bag in Texas … but she had a mother and father who set her on her path in life.
And it’s the same with drugs. Middle-class college students can ‘do drugs’ and come out the other end with no problems. So they, and their professors and teachers, think that everyone can. But the reality is different further down the social scale, where it’s not a bit of marijuana and the occasional snort of coke, but becomes much worse – crystal meths and opiods.
This is all explained verywell by Myron Magnet in his book The Dream and the Nightmare - The Sixties Legacy to the Underclass.
That’s why, I try to explain to middle-class radicals, people out in ‘fly-over country’ “cling” to their religion: it provides a rock of stability, moral guidelines, in a chaotic world full of the most attractive temptations modern capitalism can think up. Forget whether their religion is ‘true’ in the sense that laws of mathematics are true … the religion they sneer at provides a guide to a True Life. That’s why people who are probably atheists, like Jordan Peterson and Charles Murray, urge us to take religion seriously.
And yes, young males want a model of manliness to follow. They want to be part of a ‘gang’. It’s biological – evolution has programmed us this way. And if there is no father-figure to provide a model of hard work and decent behavior – then other models come in. Sometimes the military can provide this. I know of more than one young person – including my best friend – whose life was turned around by a spell of military service. And so isn’t it ironic that the Left do their best to prevent military recruitng in schools? I think they’ve succeeded in Los Angeles… it used to be a tradition among young Hispanic men to ‘go Airborne’ … the Left want them to, or act like they want them to, join MI13 instead.
Hmmm… so if a young Muslim living in ISIS-controlled territory converts to Christianity … he should tell his fellow ISIS members?
Or if an American who is holding military secrets is captured by the enemy who asks them, ‘do you know any military secrets?’ (or an equivalent question) – they should say ‘Yes I do!’??? It’s been a long time since I was subject to it, but I think this contradicts the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It certainly seems counter to the spirit of the Code of Conduct for captured American military personnel – “Article V - When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.”
I suppose you could say that a captured American soldier who knows valuable military secrets should readily admit that he or she does know them, if asked, but … should try to resist the ensuing torture. But what if they know they can’t resist? Wouldn’t it be better to lie to the enemy?
I think your ethics are great, for daily dealing with ordinary decent people – which most people are, in normal circumstances. With our friends and neighbors, we should be as gentle as doves.
But sometimes we have to be as wise as serpents, to protect the doves.
Actually, I had one of those; I served in the Navy in the '80s. I didn’t have top secret info, but most everything was at least classified as “for official use only.” And I don’t claim to be perfect about telling the truth; I do, however, acknowledge that I have no excuse for not doing so.
It keeps coming back to the point I made twice: God calls us to obedience, not expedience. We’re just supposed to do what He tells us to do, and trust Him for the results, even if it looks messy or ugly from our perspective.
We don’t have to lie like the serpent (Satan).
Hmm, it’s not a direct refutation, but quotes from Thomas Sowell like this have me believe that the rate was lower than that:
“In 1960, before this expansion of the welfare state, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent. By 1985, 67 percent of black children were raised with either one parent or no parent.”
Or make accusations, like the meaning of his name implies (accuser).
Relavance to this discussion?
As Gad Saad says; the left uses call out culture as “consequentialist” attempt to shut up their opposition.
The accusations aren’t true, yet it doesn’t matter, so long as the end is reached. Discrediting, and silencing the opposition.
If people on the right do it, they’re just as wrong of course.
Yeah, I wasn’t very sure of the current figures, so I used some weasel-words … “approaching 80%” assuming things haven’t gotten any better. I did a quick check and here is what Wikipedia says about current figures:
When Moynihan wrote in 1965 on the coming destruction of the Black family, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 25% among Blacks.[ In 1991, 68% of Black children were born outside of marriage. In 2011, 72% of Black babies were born to unmarried mothers. In 2015, 77% of Black babies were born to unmarried mothers.
The great (liberal) social scientist, James Flynn – who is the strongest, best-informed voice on the it’s-not-genes side of the horrible race-and-IQ debate – says the main problem facing Black women is the lack of responsible Black men to marry. So it’s either children without a father, or no children.
It’s a terrible problem, and one that cannot be addressed by just saying “You should be responsible.” I think there is a case for extending compulsory education backwards – rather than spending more money on sending mediocre students to mediocre colleges, we ought to spend it providing better pre-school facilities for poor children in particular.
I am familiar with the debates about the efficacy of Head Start (in fact, I worked in Head Start as a volunteer in Harlem back in the 60’s), but I believe an effective program could be designed. Children from homes where the parent is living in poverty, also have a poverty of vocabulary, and this evident by the time the child is two. By the time they reach school several years later, there is often a huge gap in vocabulary, the necessary raw material of thinking. We should try to deal with this.
By the way, just as you’d expect, there is a strong tendency on the Left to attack this idea – it’s racist, you see, or anti-working-class. These children, some of whom don’t know the words for colors, have a rich vocabulary and culture – we mustn’t impose white middle-class values on them. Here again the hard Left (not all of people on the Left) proves itself the deadly enemy of the very people it is supposed to be championing.
Mostly true, Doug. It’s also true that one of the purposes of Planned Parenthood is to prevent as many minority births as they can. Apparently, it’s not working all that well when nearly 80% of black kids are being born out of wedlock and without a father present. What’s CAUSING this disparity is, of course, WELFARE. There are minority girls who INTENTIONALLY get pregnant and have babies in order to get out from under the figurative thumbs of their mothers or even BOTH parents where there’s a father present. They are taught that the government will take care of them, provide them with food, housing, day care, medical care and even cash support if they find themselves single parents so for many of them there’s no down side to getting pregnant and having as many babies as they can to increase their “share of the dole.”
That’s actually what Christians are called to do, if I have read the new testament correctly