BellaOnline Forums News and Politics Civil Rights Whites are smarter than blacks

It's about time someone told the truth.

BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

I have several comments.
First, this comes from fox news. I take everything they report with a cup of salt. Their reporting is incredibly biased -- except for the people who lean the same way they do.

Second, Watson was not speaking based on some experiment he did or on anything scientific at all. He was giving his opinion. This is an elderly man who grew up in a time when his opinion was commonly accepted by many.

Third, Watson says even if his opinion is correct, it is not an excuse for discrimination.

What really makes me shudder is his mention of genetic manipulation to eliminate severely mentally retarded and even "ugly" people before birth. "Sorry, astrophysics, you will have to do without Stephen Hawking's contributions -- he has a genetic disorder and is 'unattractive'." I wonder how Hawking would respond to Watson?

Fox News just reported what the man said. They sited their sources. Just reporting someone's comments does not make the comments Fox's.

My guess is that these are the unfortunate ramblings of an aging scientist. As you read his comments, it's obvious Watson is pretty much "spouting off" without truly thinking things through (at best). Also, I wonder how much this man ever really got out in the world. If he had, he surely would have met a bunch of people who are exceptions to every preconceived notion to which he gives voice. I would take HIS comments with a "cup of salt." It's depressing to realize, but a person can be brilliant in one way and extra stupid in others.

Even though he said what he did about not using his comments to justify descrimination, I'm not sure his disclaimer will be noticed by anyone determined to descriminate. People bent on descrimination would probably love to quote this man anyway.

You are totally right about Stephen Hawking!

It unfortunate that News agencies don't edit themselves a little closer, just the idea that they thought this appropriate to report on speaks volumes about Fox News. They are responsible for their content.

Make no mistake, their choice to report this is directly related to how well Obama is doing in the polls, once again Fox is showing the disgusting underbelly of their low morals, encourage racial division and giving a rallying point for people who hate people just for the color of their skin.

I know plenty of stupid of every race, Mr. Watson just put himself on my list of REALLY stupid people!

Well I think if white are so smart then why are we just white or white non hispanic on the censes reports and jop apps while everyone else gets to be something American?


we could be
White Americans
Cocasin Americans
Ireish Americans
Scottish American
French American
German Americans
Polish Americans
English Americans
Mut mix American

at lested we would be AMERICAN!!! not a not something else or Just a color!

Oh yeah We Whites rele smarts there!

Who can up with this shinola anyways?

I just noticed that the blacks aint that smart either. on the censes report they are listed as Black non hispanic so.....

the report is still shinoloa!

I grew up part of my life near Boston in South Lancaster and Sterling, then when it was time for me to attend high school my parents moved us back to Texas which was THEIR home. I later returned for college near Boston so I am geographically confused. I don't know whether to be disarmingly friendly or rude and stand offish but one thing I have never been is a racist.

Well to say the least that was an adjustment...I had a guy try to convince me that black people had an actual difference in their DNA that made them MORE closely related to APES then white people. He was serious as death, he really believed what he was saying.

Sometimes the stupidity of my own race is alarming. There were many times when I lived in Texas that I was ashamed to be white.

amen!! I think we should all the color blind!

". . .just the idea that they [Fox] thought this appropriate to report on speaks volumes about Fox News"

Most of us, with the possible exception of "Jim," appear to agree on the horrors of racial stereotyping; but the concern over whether Fox (or any news outlet, really) should have covered this story is, by itself, an important issue. It goes to the heart of freedom of information. I'm personally glad we had this link to Dr. W's quotes.

Having a bit of a journalism background, I can say that whoever composed this article did it appropriately. It is a straight news item, not an editorial. As such, the facts are reported, and the reader is left to digest those facts. Editorializing and/or censorship are inappropriate in the context of straight news. For instance, the reporter would have been out of line to express an opinion on the absurdity of Dr. W's comments since it is not an article about the reporter's opinions. Dr. W's comments are exposed, though; and he is, obviously, accountable for his comments.

All editors have space/time considerations, but good journalism mandates coverage of a broad range of topics. Race related topics are no exception. I wouldn't be comfortable if my news sources thought their mission was to limit what I was exposed to--or to direct my thinking by editorializing in a straight news item. Editorializing is supposed to be strictly for the editorial page or editorial time slots. (This is one of the hardest things for journalists to adhere to.)

Our job as consumers of news is to seek out several sources for our news. A journalism instructor of mine shared this concept with her students. She said that to get a more accurate perspective on any story, a person should seek out multiple sources. This has proven to be SO true. One reporter may have a source that another doesn't have. Thank goodness we live in a country where we have SO many options--if we doubt one source, we can consult another. Or, if we just want more on a particular story, we can look at multiple sources. Anyway, looking for multiple sources is the best protection against being manipulated by any particular source.

In this case, "Jim" was my first "source." He made a short statement which he attempted to substantiate with the Fox article. Being curious, I looked at the Fox article. I'm glad I read it. For me, Dr. W. basically shot himself in the foot when he failed to censor his unscientific side! Now, if I happen to land in an auditorium where he is introduced as a speaker, (1) I'll know what they left off of his "credentials" in the introduction and (2) I'll know to be wary of his conclusions.

Just a few thoughts.