UBM defends Michael Hart from racism charge

(Or does he? See James S.’s comment below.)

Steve R. writes:

I’m curious if you read Undercover Black Man’s comment in the SPLC thread and if his seeming support for race-based differences in intelligence fits with your encounters with him.

Undercover Black Man said,
on March 22nd, 2009 at 8:13 am

Janet Smith: If genomic research determines that there are actual “differences in intelligence between various ethnic and racial groups,” will Michael Hart’s book cease to be “racist”?

We are only at the beginning of our understanding human beings at the genomic level. Only in the past couple of years have the first African genome and the first Chinese genome been mapped.

And only in recent months have scientists claimed to located specific regions on the human genome that account for variations in intelligence.

Just sayin’

LA replies:

Interesting. I don’t know of course, but my first thought/hunch is that this is not Undercover Black Man, but someone using his name.

Steve R. replies:

It seems that it must be the same UBM. Here’s why: When you click on his link it takes you to the blog of “Undercover Black Man”. It has all sorts of stuff you would normally associate with a hip afro-centric blog but also, within, it contains:

official fan club

American Renaissance

Ian Jobling

Lawrence Auster

Steve Sailer

I’m trying to imagine what it would be for a black person (who would seem to be the typical reader of this blog) to start reading the fan club blogs. They would have to be at least as confused as I now am.

LA replies:

Ok, it’s UBM then. Of course he’s being ironic when he calls those sites his fan club.

But (and this is hardly the first time this has been said) he’s one mixed up person. He’s now essentially taking the position for which he got me expelled from FrontPage Magazine, namely that there are significant race differences in intelligence.

It’s always been evident that he is interested in the idea of race differences in intelligence. That was part of the reason he used to hang out at the American Renaissance discussion board. But then he draws a line at which he feels that interest in the subject makes one a racist crackpot. Where he thinks that line is (assuming he has any coherent position at all) is not easy to determine.

Bill from Maryland writes:

Responding to the content of UBM’s post in “UBM defends Michael Hart from racism charge”:

Charles Murray (co-author with Herrnstein of “The Bell Curve”) has argued that, for practical purposes, the question of the origin of the black/white difference in cognitive ability is moot, because, whatever the answer, no-one knows how to raise black ability to parity with whites. If the cause of the disparity were discovered, by the sort of genetic analysis UBM describes, to be entirely environmental (the egalitarian dream, and very unlikely given IQ correlation between twins and siblings etc) this would not in any way help educators raise black standardized test scores or, for that matter, keep blacks from dropping out. If, as is more likely, it were shown to be partly genetic, that still leaves some environmental wiggle room to justify Head Start, No Child Left Behind, and the next fad, and the one after that. The egalitarians have had fifty years to prove that the black/white gap can be closed, and have failed over and over, but they never give up. I’m reminded of Eliot’s line from one of the Four Quartets: “We are only undefeated because we have gone on trying.”

Of course, all of the above applies equally to making stable, prosperous democracies of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa.

James S. writes:

I interpret Wannabe Black Man’s comment in the opposite way from you and Steve R. My intepretation is that he is saying that Michael Hart is racist, now, because he is making conclusive statements about race and intelligence at a time when the understanding of the subject is not complete. Read his comment again and you’ll see it’s possible he thinks genomic research will actually show the opposite of what “racists” claim. Either way he’s not answering her question, which is what annoys me about him and his blog which I’ve visited two or three times. He doesn’t really say things; he’s too hip to.

LA replies:

“He doesn’t really say things; he’s too hip to.”

I like that. Could it be that in postwar America the attack on the belief in truth took the popular form of “Hip” and “cool”?

Steve R. writes:

Likely UBM’s list of “fan club” blogs is meant ironically, but it seems a little odd that he includes Diana West in his list of blog friends, since she fairly often cites Steve Sailer. But it is in keeping with your analysis that he has some inderminate line on these matters.

In reply to James S.”s comment, if one thought Michael Hart was a racist hater, wouldn’t it be Hart’s worldview that would deserve the question?—something like: What if genomic research disproves Hart’s theories? Will he then admit that he was likely a racist?

But instead, UBM directed his question to Janet Smith; it is SPLC’s glib designation of racialists as haters that he calls into question. He calls upon her to commit publicly now to a future apology if she is proven wrong. I think he knows that she won’t “put her money where her mouth is”; so his comment cleverly destroys her credibility.

Also, UBM does not say that Michael Hart should wait for the result of the new research. A reasonable interpretation is that UBM feels that Hart’s own research is good enough to exculpate him from the charge of hating but that the new research should finally settle the issue.

Re James’s second comment, while UBM might typically exploit hip “noncommitalness,” in this case it seems he really doesn’t know what the result of the research will be, and it’s reasonable for him not to state an opinion either way.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 24, 2009 09:06 AM | Send