lol with the three tiered system honestly for many company's anywhere replace blacks with any race. Scott Adams in his show Dilbert and his comic strip satirises just how inefficient, lazy and stupid managers and executives are in many companies. this isn't a race problem no matter how much u want it to be.
Alright, so let me get this straight: the crux of your argument is basically "There are a lot of stupid and lazy managers out there (which nobody is denying), so therefore, on average, blacks selected by positive discrimination will tend not to be less competent than whites or anybody else who have not been selected by positive discrimination." What? While the creators and supporters of positive discrimination programs will claim otherwise, people who have been positively discriminated tend to, simply, be of much lower competency than their non-positively discriminated peers. This makes itself clearly manifest in managerial positions in South Africa, but if you think that all managers are incompetent anyway (or there is no such thing as degrees of incompetence), this phenomenon isn't just restricted to the world of management.
In the United States, for instance, nationwide enthusiasm for teacher competency examinations resulted in testing for teachers in nearly all states by the end of the 1980s. These tests really just involve a series of batteries evaluating basic knowledge, reading ability and mathematics. It is important to note that these tests have an extremely low cut-off rate; teachers who score in the 20th or even the
10th percentile pass. Even despite this extremely low cut-off rate, there is a sharp disparity between Black teachers and White teachers in overall pass rates. 83% of White teachers passed the test in the state of New York in 1987, in comparison to only 36% of Black teachers. In Georgia, between 1978 and 1986, 87% of all white teachers passed the basic competency examinations, while only 40% of Black teachers passed them. The standard deviation difference between the two groups in these tests usually eerily matches up with the standard deviation in general intelligence scores, usually hoevering around a 1.0 to 1.2 difference. In tradie fields like plumbing on the job competency rates are measured with standard deviation differences between the two groups on several measures around .6 to .9. All of these differences greatly indicate that it is not just a lack of opportunity that is disadvanting blacks, as those that are the recipient of affirmative action assistance are in no way disadvantaged or lack opportunity.
It is also indeed true that the recipients of affirmative action assistance tend not to be the most disadvantaged members of the black community at all. Very often they are middle to upper middle class blacks derived from highly educated and socioecomically privileged backgrounds. These graphs tend to say it all:
Black children with household incomes in excess of seventy thousand dollars a year do equally well on the SAT and in school as white children with household incomes of about fifteen thousand dollars a year. Black children, with parents who hold elaborate teritary educations and advanced degrees, do equally well on the SAT and in school as white children with parents who only hold high school diplomas. It is not as if these black parents do not 'value education'; they certainly do, and typically have high aspirations for their offspring. The reason
why this actually occurs is likely a result of two distinct factors; affirmative action allows much less intelligent people to attain diplomas and high incomes, and the second is a complicated statistical and biological phenomeon that I will not get into here. But it is the children of these highly educated and intelligent parents that very often receive positive discrimination leg-ups; and very often at the expense of disadvantaged whites.
And of course, in South Africa, compared to the United States, the situation is even more extreme in terms of positive discrimination. This is directly a result of Africans controlling political power in that country.
all this violence and rape etc is because south Africa is pretty much one giant ghetto of (and i can't stress this enough) uneducated people.
As time continues to go by, and as more and more blacks are enrolled in higher-education and primary and secondary educational instituions in South Africa, we will actually see just how much 'education' is really going to work for the Blacks in that country. Doing well in school and thus becoming 'better educated' is the result of factors
both biological and environmental. The percentages of how much each contribute depends upon the surroundings. I do not at all doubt that in a more suitable environment, say, that of the United States, blacks tend to do better than they do in Africa. This is in a way partially a result of the fact that the United States is sort of a gargantuan 'home environment' supervised by a white population that sort of serves as parents. This is the problem of the virtuous cycle; environmental improvement and thus enhancement of educational ability and achievement requires a sufficient starting level of population intelligence in the first place to even come about. As whites continue to pour out of South Africa en-masse, Blacks will be left to their own devices, and thus, the possibility of the virtuous cycle coming into effect will evaporate.
this isn't just a problem for black people, in America and even in Australia you will find white communities of people who are uneducated and have no incentive to learn or aren't encouraged to.
You do, and it is completely expected that this would occur. You hopelessly misunderstand (or don't understand at all) distribution and basic statistics. But as I already addressed with Muzk, differences in distribution of socioeconomic variables like poverty and high-school drop out rates only explain a fraction of the variance of criminality rates between the three major population groups. There is a three-way gradient in rates of criminal behavior between Orientals, Blacks and Whites that persist greatly even after controlling for socioeconomic variables. Biological suggestions for why this is have been well-discussed, but are still presently tentative.
your belief that all black people as a race are naturally dummer then whites is so stupid and based on nothing.
It is? My belief is based on the heriditarian positions put forward by the scholars that discuss it within the literature. They are extensive, serious arguments, buttressed by a plentiful amount of empirical evidence and posited by scholars that are highly respected within their fields. Your arguments seem to be based on misinterpretations, misunderstandings.. and Dilbert.
he never said he wasnt a racist,
I am a racist if it means that I believe that there are fundamental differences in the capacity of different human biological groups to maintain and create civilizations. I am a racist if it means I believe that there are fundamental biological differences between human groups that have powerful influences on a host of traits that human beings possess. And I do not at all care if I am to wear this label.
