
Einstein: The Negro Question (1946) - mgdo
http://www.onbeing.org/program/albert-einstein-the-negro-question-1946
======
shawndumas
While we are on the topic of Einstein's opinions:

"Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to
the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their
devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were
silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming
editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they,
like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. [...]

"Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for
suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but
now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had
the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom.
I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise
unreservedly."

~~~
adamnemecek
Wasn't the Catholic church in cahoot with Nazis though? Didn't they help top
Nazi officials flee Europe with Vatican passports after the war?

~~~
pfortuny
The simple answer is "no they weren't." The nuanced answer is "it's
complicated." But anyway, you are forgetting the countless Jews who were saved
by the Vatican.

And in Nazi Germany the Church was persecuted.

Edit: s/which/who s/jew/Jew

~~~
fredgrott
yes but was not Germany full protestant?

~~~
wmil
No. In 1933: 66% Protestant, 33% Catholic. Jews < 1%.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany)

------
sandisk5
America is a very different place now than in 1946.

I googled "most popular people in America" and Google shows me pictures and
out of the top ten, half are African-American including Barack Obama, Michael
Jackson, Muhammad Ali, MLK Jr, and Oprah Winfrey.

I looked at one page that had top ten most popular people in America in the
1940s and there were no African-Americans on the list.

> Your ancestors dragged these black people from their homes by force

Many slavers were African, particularly the ones dragging people out of their
homes, and in 1946 very few Americans would have had ancestors who were either
slave traders or slave owners.

~~~
coldtea
> _I googled "most popular people in America" and Google shows me pictures and
> out of the top ten, half are African-American including Barack Obama,
> Michael Jackson, Muhammad Ali, MLK Jr, and Oprah Winfrey._

Try googling "over-represented race in incarcerations", "over-represented race
in police shootings", "redlining", poverty stats, etc. too. Besides, of those
popular people, Michael Jackson tried to turn himself white, MLK Jr was
conveniently murdered, Muhammad Ali was persecuted by the state, and Barack
Obama is routinely called racist slurs despite being the president.

Plus, it's easy to make popular idols of talented black artists and still view
down on the majority of them. Louis Armstrong, boxers and other black
entertainers were quite popular when the country was openly racist too.

> _Many slavers were African_

But none of them operated in the USA or kept slaves there.

The buyers of the millions of blacks that came to the US, those who used and
abused them as slaves, and who made the trade profitable in the first place,
were white Americans.

> _Many slavers were African, and in 1946 very few Americans would have had
> ancestors who were either slave traders or slave owners._

No, but the majority of them had ancestors that were racist, enforcing double
standards, unfair laws (segregation, Jim Crow laws, etc.), and in some cases
violence (beatings, lynchings, etc.) to the black population. And most of them
were racism themselves too.

~~~
sandisk5
> Try googling "over-represented race in incarcerations", "over-represented
> race in police shootings"

Why did you leave off "over-represented race in violent crimes"?

> Michael Jackson tried to turn himself white

So that makes him not black? Are the people who idolize him confused and don't
realize he's black? People loved him before his transformation. One funny
anecdote is Michael Jackson, refusing that he "turned himself white", said
that his grandmother told him that the reason they called them colored people
is that they come in all different colors. :)

> MLK Jr was conveniently murdered

Conveniently? I'd say tragically. Abraham Lincoln was also assassinated. I
don't know how this changes that both are among the most admired people in
America today.

> Muhammad Ali was persecuted by the state

As were many white people who openly violated the draft or spoke out against
the war (I'm not saying avoiding the draft is a bad thing or that Ali wasn't a
legitimate conscientious objector).

> Barack Obama is routinely called racist slurs despite being the president.

Not routinely by any major national publications or widely popular figures.
Also, being the current president doesn't mean people don't call you mean
things, if anything it means you're called more mean things. People said
plenty of mean things about Bush or Clinton while they were president.

~~~
coldtea
> _Why did you leave off "over-represented race in violent crimes"?_

Because those crimes are (for anything above the baseline for people in
general at the same poverty levels) are results of centuries of being abused,
held down and denied opportunities.

Even if all white people (and people in power) in some city X stopped being
racist, it wouldn't automatically mean that the blacks there living in the
wrong side of the tracks, in an underfunded school district, and working shit
jobs, will suddenly have the same opportunities as the average white person.
For one, as parents they will still be the same poor folks that didn't have a
good education and can't afford (or know) to raise their kids properly and
send them off to some good school. This things take generations to overcome,
slowly trickling upwards (and in an era when the middle class is squeezed down
and the working class is fucked, that's even less likely to happen).

If you believe in blacks being inherently more violent etc as a race outside
of systemic causes (poverty, bad school districts, lack of opportunities, etc,
caused by centuries of slavery, double standards and racism) then you might as
well believe that they have inferior DNA.

> _So that makes him not black?_

No, that makes him an example of the kind of forces of American society
towards blacks, where even idols can't be satisfied in their black skin.

> _Conveniently? I 'd say tragically. Abraham Lincoln was also assassinated. I
> don't know how this changes that both are among the most admired people in
> America today._

It's easy to admire a non-threatening murdered person, especially if you make
him into a convenient sugary version of what he stood for. Unlike Lincoln he
wasn't much admired by white American society in his day, and a black rights
advocate in his vein wouldn't be that admired today.

> _Also, being the current president doesn 't mean people don't call you mean
> things, if anything it means you're called more mean things. People said
> plenty of mean things about Bush or Clinton while they were president._

About their race? Were they drawn as monkeys? Asked about being muslim?

~~~
powertower
> Because those crimes are (for anything above the baseline for people in
> general at the same poverty levels) are results of centuries of being
> abused, held down and denied opportunities.

Yet no matter where you look on this planet, no matter what the history of
that location is, no matter how far back in history you go, the pattern (of
violence such as murder and rape) stays the same - and even more so when those
places are absent of the other races/groups.

~~~
coldtea
> _Yet no matter where you look on this planet, no matter what the history of
> that location is, no matter how far back in history you go, the pattern (of
> violence such as murder and rape) stays the same - and even more so when
> those places are absent of the other races /groups._

I'm not sure I follow. What you mean by "the pattern (of violence such as
murder and rape) stays the same"? The pattern of violence that black people
do?

If so, that's absolutely wrong that it stays the same "no matter where you
look on this planet, no matter what the history of that location is, no matter
how far back in history you go".

In fact the amount of violence perpetuated by "white people", from the
Crusades to the Holocaust, colonial wars, Cold War proxy wars, etc, and
onwards, is so much higher, it's not even funny. And not even at their own
house -- they pissed all over the world.

~~~
powertower
What I was referring to can be summed up here -
[http://www.colorofcrime.com/2016/03/the-color-of-
crime-2016-...](http://www.colorofcrime.com/2016/03/the-color-of-
crime-2016-revised-edition/)

As far as medieval history and the other things you've mentioned go, every
type of tribe on this planet has engaged in conquest and warfare. Some won.
Some lost.

~~~
coldtea
> _What I was referring to can be summed up here_

Well, checking for the crime rate between different races and attributing it
to "race", instead of looking for the underlying causes, is the epitome of
racism.

No different from 18th-19th century scholars, who concluded that blacks had
inferior intelligence and reasoning skills etc, which they might indeed have
as individual examples under study -- but those scholars also forgot to
account for the fact that blacks didn't have the schooling and freedom to
develop their personality, or that their original culture was stolen from them
and they were abducted and had to operate in a hostile and foreign
environment.

> _As far as medieval history and the other things you 've mentioned go, every
> type of tribe on this planet has engaged in conquest and warfare. Some won.
> Some lost._

And some caused endless bloodshed and massacre all over the world for profit
and control, and those tended to be whites, from them, to the modern world and
wars for oil and strategic interests...

~~~
powertower
Condemning the entire white population of this world into collective guilt and
perpetual servitude for the actions of others is the epitome of racism.

> Well, checking for the crime rate between different races and attributing it
> to "race", instead of looking for the underlying causes, is the epitome of
> racism.

Unless that underlining cause _is_ race. And there are quite a few studies
backing this up, that did take into account all the typical factors (such as
socioeconomic class).

I don't think we are ever going to agree, but I am curious of what you think a
middle ground solution would be?...

I would gladly trade some type of payment (reparation) for absolute freedom of
association (in all aspects of work and life).

> And some caused endless bloodshed and massacre all over the world for profit
> and control, and those tended to be whites, from them, to the modern world
> and wars for oil and strategic interests...

That is because white societies had the technological and strategic platform
to do so... If you where to give that same platform to any African-country
president/leader/warlord/etc, you would find the end result 10x worse.

------
ec109685
Previous discussion here: [http://www.onbeing.org/program/albert-einstein-the-
negro-que...](http://www.onbeing.org/program/albert-einstein-the-negro-
question-1946)

~~~
sctb
Here's the HN thread:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8745540](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8745540)

------
neilk
Before people ask why this is relevant to Hacker News: he's a great example of
how academics, scientists, and even technologists can have effects outside
their field of inquiry. For a mix of reasons, hackers are both securely
employable and cultural heroes right now. We may not be Einstein, but there
are things we can do.

[http://www.livescience.com/50051-albert-einstein-civil-
right...](http://www.livescience.com/50051-albert-einstein-civil-rights.html)

~~~
empath75
I think not only can we do things, but we are obligated to. Cheering on from
the sidelines or even worse offering platitudes like "I support your goals but
not your methods" while offering no help or alternatives isn't really helping.
If you support change, the do something about it. Call your local officials or
congressmen. Donate money to political action committees. If you make peaceful
change impossible, then violent change becomes inevitable. We might feel safe
today while we're sipping lattes in our gentrified neighborhoods and tisk tisk
on Reddit and hacker news, but that safety might be illusory.

The wave is coming. You can either help guide it safely to shore or get
drowned by it.

~~~
towlejunior
I will offer that platitude over and over again, Einstein's wonderful
definition of insanity be damned. If I could end bigotry tomorrow, I would,
but what I won't do under any circumstances is ally myself with people who cry
racism at the drop of a hat. They do more harm than good.

Call your congressman? Talk about a platitude.

------
nilved
Not knowing anything about Einstein's opinions here, I was really worried this
was going to go the opposite direction.

~~~
whatever_dude
I believe a lot of people we now see as noble were just the right person in
the right place at the right time, and the more we dig in today, in hindsight,
the easier to see their personal flaws.

A few others, like Einstein, where just the right person, period. To see such
a sound point of view coming from a person writing at a time where everything
was pointing on the other direction... pretty amazing.

~~~
torkins
Another interpretation of finding that people we perceive as noble turn out to
have flaws might be that noble people are people, and people have flaws. If
anything, being flawless would actually take away from their success since
they wouldn't be dealing with the same crap as the rest of us.

Einstein appears to have been a big-time philanderer, for example. Doesn't
detract from his contributions to our society in my view.

~~~
motardo
People who think philandering is a flaw are not as enlightened as Einstein
was.

~~~
freyir
Yeah, like his wives. Stupid wives.

------
transfire
Given the numerous police shootings, typically of blacks, but not always,
which are obviously excessive uses of force, why is absolutely nothing being
done about it? The cops get off, people protest, and the cycle continues. Do
we not have leaders? Has the system become so inept that no one has any
responsibility? Does that mean the cops are literally "out-of-control"?

And no, you can't sit there and argue that the cops aren't doing anything
wrong. A young man is in police custody and ends up dead from a fractured neck
and no one is responsible? A woman is in police custody, a camera is turned
off, and ends up needing facial reconstruction? The list goes on and on. The
police have to be a notch above the average person in conduct, not a notch
below.

So I ask again, why is nothing being done about it?

~~~
Humjob
What I find interesting is how the media presents little to no statistics to
back up their claims of blacks being subject to de facto police genocide.

Here are some statistics:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3ADqQNf...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3ADqQNfjf4zKAJ%3Awww.forcescience.org%2Fforcepresentation.ppt+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari)

A couple key points: \- More people in the US are struck each year by
lightning than are killed by police. (373)

\- Of the 1,491 persons that died from police use of force from 2009-2012: 915
(61.4%) were white males 481 (32.2%) were black males 48 (3.2%) were males of
other races 28 (1.9%) were white females 15 (1.1%) were black females 4 (0.2%)
were females of other races

\- Of the 56,259 homicides from 2009-2012, 19,000 (33.8%) were killings of
black males. Comparisons by types of homicides of black males: 481 (2.5%) were
the result of police use of force 152 (0.8%) were the result of a negligent
accident homicides (i.e., child playing with a gun) 648 (3.4%) were the result
of a justifiable homicides by private citizens acting in self-defense 17,719
(93.3%) were criminal homicides (murders)

More blacks are killed in justifiable self-defense scenarios than are killed
by police. And overwhelmingly more are killed in homicides, mainly by other
blacks.

Also note: According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for
52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and "Other"
2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and
the victim rate 6 times higher. Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of
white victims killed by whites, and 93% of black victims killed by blacks.
(Whites are being lumped in with Hispanics here.)

It's fairly clear that there isn't an epidemic of wide scale police violence
against blacks. Instead, a few incidents have been blasted onto social media,
and uncritical leftists have picked them up and ran with them. I see Black
Lives Matter more as an expression of intergroup competition and aggression
against traditionally white power structures. Other leftist groups take the
same approach, e.g. with feminist fabrications about mass rapes on college
campuses - college campuses are in fact among the safest places in the world,
but feminists treat them as though they're some Mad Max-esque raping dystopia
by claiming nonsense like 1 in 4 college girls get raped. They're mysteriously
silent about places where real mass raping occurs, such as Africa and the
Middle East.

I could go on, but suffice to say, I believe we're in a period of mass
hallucination and hysteria, with entire movements justifying their existence
on statistically nonsensical claims. This has happened many times throughout
history, and it's leaned to both the right and left axes of the political
spectrum. This time the wind just happens to be blowing to the left.

~~~
jMyles
These comparisons are senseless. We are talking about state violence and fear
of the state.

I care far more about an armed agent of the state murdering someone than I do
about some random guy murdering someone. Have you been to an inner city
lately? Even New York, which is incredibly peaceful, has areas where there are
palpable, reasonable fear of police violence from black people. The constant
searches and seizures, the attitude of superiority and yes, the physical
violence - these are preventable and they're plagues to having a peaceful
world.

~~~
DominikR
The problem is that police officers have good reason to be much more defensive
when dealing with blacks than with whites.

Just look at these statistics and then consider how a police officer would
feel when dealing with a black person that shows any kind of aggression,
considering that most homicides are committed by blacks. (even though they are
a minority)

The police officer wants to survive too.

Of course there are cases of excessive and criminal use of force by the
police, but their general perception and caution when dealing with blacks will
never change as long as this minority continues to commit most crimes.

~~~
tptacek
Your comment is facile and, though you probably don't intend it that way,
mean-spirited. But there's something to it anyways.

Set aside the reciprocal nature of racism and criminality and acknowledge the
raw demographic reality of police encounters in major cities. It seems clear
to me that yes, police officers are under far too much cognitive strain to
accurately judge threats. Basic human cognitive limitations ensure that police
will continue to prejudge risk through race.

To me, that, coupled with the fact that police encounters with strangers are
_far, far less dangerous than police training and culture mythologizes them to
be_ , suggests a straightforward solution: disarm most police officers.

I wrote more about that here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12057079](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12057079)

(If you feel the need to object, please read that before assuming you know
what my recommendation is from its brief summary here).

~~~
DominikR
What you are proposing could help reducing aggression between police and
civilians, though I do not know how well this would play out in the US.

It generally works in EU countries, but a lot is different there.

What I reject though is you suggesting my comment is mean spirited. The
statements you feel are offensive are just facts as far as we can tell today.
You would attack my statements instead of me personally if what I wrote was
obviously wrong.

Regarding the linked comment:

> Most (not all) suspects who shoot at cops aren't doing it out of spite, but
> instead of out self-preservation.

How do you know this? Your comment is based on this being true, because if it
were otherwise there would be no way your proposal could work. In that case
disarmed police officers would continue to get shot but now without being able
to defend themselves.

