Monday, September 14, 2009

The Academic Wall of Shame: Intellectual Cowards or Obsequious Sycophants?

It hasn't surprised me that some academics have clubbed together, denouncing Huntley's refugee claim. Their move is a clear effort to influence the Canadian authorities, since the outcome does not bode well for South Africa. Being academics of course, they presume they are smarter than the rest of us, and as a consequence thereof, somehow, they have deluded themselves into believing that they have a better grasp of reality - so, in their minds, it is okay to discredit a large portion of South Africans. All this from an ivory tower, nogal.

Now, I am sufficiently qualified to be an academic, and am au fait with the protocol. Usually you only express an opinion in a field that you can claim expertise. Apparently not when it comes to a white refugee claim; suddenly it is open season. The criteria, in this context, determining qualification, in my humble opinion, is that you be a white South African academic. How else can you comment on white persecution?

Not this bunch of charlatans; a cursory examination of the names suggests that at least a third of the signatories are non-white. Then, 13% are private signatories; 4% are foreign academics; and then there are a collection of individuals that perform nothing more than administrative or supportive roles. So, at least 45% of the original list are disqualified, which reduces the list to around 75 individuals - not quite the way the MSM presented it.

Then of the remainder, there are a few insignificant individuals, trying to make a name, but the overwhelming majority of intellectual cowards, or "gatkrypers", come from 4 institutions:

UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN (The overwhelming majority)

If you are an academic that has signed the petition against the granting of refugee status to Mr Huntely, you have done so for one of two reasons:

1. Either you have no clue as to the true state of the nation; in which case you shouldn't be teaching our children anything; or

2. You commit a deliberate fraud; in which case you also shouldn't be teaching our children anything.

Which is it? Are you a fraud or clueless? Either way you are a disgrace, and should resign immediately.

The Huntley saga is a harbinger of things to come; and for you to deny South Africans the right to publicly express their fear, real or perceived, and to suggest that, somehow, they are lying - that they have got it all wrong, is shameful and disingenuous. Why don't you tell that to Prof. Willem Botha, a geophysicist from University of Pretoria. He and his daughter, Razelle Botha (18), were shot during a home invasion. Razelle may never walk again. Let me quote her:

"... in South Africa if you are standing naked in front of three armed (black) men, it is your last day on earth," says Razelle.

"I thought I was about to be tortured," she recalls.

Both of them have relocated to Canada, where Razelle, who passed all her matric subjects with distinction, now studies medicine at the University of Calgary. What about Prof. Alan Paterson, a pathologist from University of the Witwatersrand, whose daughter, Jamie (17) was raped and his wife, Bronwyn, was stabbed during a home invasion. Better yet, look around your own faculties. The best and the brightest are gone, many of whom were victims of the most appalling crime; they have emigrated and your research output is suffering as a result. You know it; publications are a fraction of what they used to be. Stop contributing to the lowering of standards and the slow demise of our higher educational institutions. Take a stand, tell the truth and apply your minds rather. A good start would be to challenge the research we have done at ILSA; but you won't, because it is a career killer. Need I remind you, if you are white your career is dead already. Remember Prof. Frederick Fourie, a brilliant Harvard trained academic and ex-vice chancellor of the University of the Free State, whose career was cut short due to the "lack of transformation"? Case in point.

Intellectual cowards don't win Nobel prizes or the respect of peers; it all starts with a desire to uncover the truth. Here is the list of South Africa's intellectual cowards:


1. Melissa Steyn (UCT)
2. Max Price (Vice-Chancellor, UCT)
3. Crain Soudien (Acting Deputy Vice-Chancellor, UCT)
4. Judy Favish (UCT)
5. Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela (Dept of Psychology, University of Cape Town)
6. Salma Ismael (Academic Staff Development, UCT)
7. Donald Foster (Psychology, University of Cape Town)
8. Moonira Khan (Student Affairs, University of Cape Town)
9. Ingrid Tufvesson (Faculty of Commerce, University of Cape Town)
10. Gafsa Datay (Transformation Office, University of Cape Town)
11. Keith Benjamin (University of Cape Town)
12. Tracy Gutuza (Commercial Law, University of Cape Town)
13. Abu Adams (University of Cape Town)
14. Mary Hilton (University of Cape Town)
15. Vicki Heard (Office of the Registrar, University of Cape Town)
16. Charles J Nicholas (Mechanical Engineering, University of Cape Town)
17. Roshan Ebrahim (University of Cape Town)
18. Fahmza Jaffar (University of Cape Town)
19. Carmelita Raizenberg (University of Cape Town)
20. Edwina Goliath (Student Affairs, University of Cape Town)
21. Sonwabo Ngcelwane (Department of Institutional Planning, UCT)
22. Frans Mamabolo (University of Cape Town)
23. Waheeda Amien (Faculty of Law, University of Cape Town)
24. David Cooper (Sociology, University of Cape Town)
25. Edwina Goliath (Student Development, University of Cape Town)
26. Linda Vranas (University of Cape Town)
27. Judith Head (Department of Sociology, University of Cape Town)
28. SP Chowdhury (University of Cape Town)
29. Royston Pillay (Office of Vice-Chancellor, University of Cape Town)
30. Zimitri Erasmus (Sociology, University of Cape Town)
31. Mills Soko (Graduate School of Business, University of Cape Town)
32. Jacques De Wet (Department of Sociology, University of Cape Town)
33. Claire Kelly (Diversity Studies, University of Cape Town)
34. Sa'diyya Shaikh (Department of Religious Studies, University of Cape Town)
35. Danya Davis (University of Cape Town)
36. Shane Godfrey (Sociology, University of Cape Town)
37. Justine Burns (University of Cape Town)
38. Sean Sivertsen (Office of the Deputy Registrar, University of Cape Town)
39. Murray Steyn (Communication and Marketing Department, UCT)
40. Khairoonisa Foflonker (Diversity Studies, University of Cape Town)
41. Ashly Dorkin (Diversity Studies, University of Cape Town)
42. Emma Daitz (Diversity Studies, University of Cape Town)
43. Theresa Daniels (Diversity Studies, University of Cape Town)
44. Haley McEwen (Diversity Studies, University of Cape Town)
45. Terri Grant (Management Studies, University of Cape Town)
46. Ari Sitas (Sociology, University of Cape Town)
47. Francois Botha (Discrimination & Harassment Office, UCT)
48. Roshan Galvaan (Occupational Therapy, University of Cape Town)
49. Andries Odendaal (Cape Town)
50. Kurt April (School of Business, University of Cape Town)

50 out of 142 (35.21%)


51. Jerome-Alexander Van Wyk (Employment Equity and the Promotion of Diversity, SUN)
52. Arnold van Zyl (Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Stellenbosch)
53. Gerhard Lubbe (Faculty of Law, University of Stellenbosch)
54. Therese Fish (Stellenbosch University)
55. Brenda Leibowitz (Stellenbosch University)
56. Ronelle Carolissen (Psychology, University of Stellenbosch )
57. Faadiel Essop (Physiological Sciences, University of Stellenbosch)
58. Swartz, Leslie (University of Stellenboch)
59. Dirk C. Klopper (English, Stellenbosch University)
60. Meg Samuelson (English Department, Stellenbosch University)
61. Rob Gaylard (English Department, Stellenbosch University)
62. Ralph Goodman (Department of English, University of Stellenbosch)
63. Ronelle Carolissen (Psychology, University of Stellenbosch)
64. Daniel Roux (Department of English, University of Stellenbosch)
65. Doria Daniels (Educational Psychology, Stellenbosch University)
66. Julian Sonn (Business School, University of Stellenbosch)

16 out of 142 (11.27%)


67. Tammy Shefer (Women's Studies, University of Western Cape)
68. Beverley Thaver (Higher Education Studies Programme, UWC)

2 out of 142 (1.41%)


69. Samuel Henkeman (Cape Peninsula University of Technology)

1 out of 142 (0.70%)


70. Nazeema Mohamed (Transformation and Employment Equity, WITS)
71. Norman Duncan (School of Human and Community Development, WITS)
72. Thandi Buso (University of Witwatersrand)
73. Deborah Posel (Sociology, University of Witwatersrand)
74. Garth Stevens (Psychology, University of Witwatersrand)
75. Gillian Finchilescu (Psychology Department, University of the Witwatersrand)
76. Kirsten Meyer (Wits School of Arts)
77. Warren Nebe (Wits School of Arts)
78. Pumla Dineo Gqola (School of Literature and Language Studies, WITS)
79. Gerard Bester (Wits School of Arts)
80. Eric Worby (School of Social Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand)
81. Zena Richards (University of Witswatersrand)
82. Kezia Lewins (University of Witwatersrand)
83. Hazel Barnes (Wits School of Arts)
84. Noor Nieftagodien (History Department, University of the Witwatersrand)
85. Peter Barron (Wits University)
86. Hugo Canham (University of the Witwatersrand)

17 out of 142 (11.97%)


87. Thandi Sidzumo-Mazibuko (Acting Vice Principal:UNISA)
88. Kopana Ratele (University of South Africa)

2 out of 142 (1.41%)


89. Mokubung.Nkomo (University of Pretoria)
90. Neil Roos (University of Pretoria)

2 out of 142 (1.41%)


91. Adam Habib (Deputy Vice-Chancellor, U of J)

1 out of 142 (0.70%)


92. Gordon N. Zide (Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Governance and Operations, VUT)

1 out of 142 (0.70%)


93. Cheryl Potgieter (University of KwaZulu Natal)
94. Siyanda Ndlovu (Psychology, University of KwaZulu-Natal)
95. Danai Mupotsa (University of KwaZulu Natal)
96. Kathryn Pillay (University of KwaZulu Natal)
97. Jill Bradbury (School of Psychology, University of KwaZulu-Natal)
98. Imraan Valodia (School of Development Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal)
99. Thokozani Xaba (Social Work and Community Development, UKZN)
100. Francie Lund (Development Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal)
101. Grahame Hayes (Psychology, University of KwaZulu-Natal)
102. Jude Clark (Psychology, University of KwaZulu-Natal)
103. Jonathan Gunthorp (HEARD, University of KwaZulu Natal)
104. Kerry Frizelle (Psychology, University of KwaZulu-Natal)
105. Kira Erwin (University of KwaZulu Natal)
106. Julian May (Development Studies, University of KwaZulu Natal)
107. Merle Favis

15 out of 142 (10.56%)


108. Jonathan Jansen (Vice-Chancellor, UFS)
109. Kiepie Jaftha (Chief Director: Community Service, UFS)
110. Dr. J. Francois Strydom (Student Development and Success, UFS)
111. James Mclaren

4 out of 142 (2.82%)


112. Ruby-Ann Levendal (Organizational Transformation and Equity, NMMU)
113. Jacqueline Barnett (Innovation Support and Technology Transfer, NMMU)
114. Cecil Arnolds (Business School, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University)
115. Michael Barry (Arts & Culture, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University)

4 out of 142 (2.82%)


116. Gladman James (University of Fort Hare)

1 out of 142 (0.70%)


117. Luthando Phillip Jack (Director: Institutional Research and Planning, WSU)

1 out of 142 (0.70%)


118. Martin Hall (University of Salford)
119. David Theo Goldberg (University of California Irvine, USA)
120. Philomena Essed (Antioch University, USA)
121. Melanie Steyn (National University of Suncheon, South Korea)
122. Molly Andrews (University of East London, UK)
123. Samantha Yeowart (Strathavon)

6 out of 142 (4.23%)


124. Dorrian Aiken (Procorp)
125. Thandi Lewin
126. Christi van der Westhuizen (Independent Journalist)
127. Wendy Orr (Resolve Workplace Solutions)
128. Mikki van Zyl (Independent Scholar)
129. Vasu Reddy (HSRC of SA in my private capacity)
130. Reg September (Private Capacity)
131. Relebohile Moletsane (HSRC)
132. Rejane Williams (Private Consultant, embrace)
133. Dr Keith Ferguson (CSIR, Meraka Institute)
134. Dominic Wilhelm (threadmediagroup)
135. Pauline Stanford (Communication Research Evaluation Advocacy Training)
136. Dr Richard Steele (Homeopath and Educator, Durban)
137. Mthokozisi Mandondo (Laureus)
138. Sean Abrahams (Edufilms)
139. Janet Love (National Director, Legal Resources Centre)
140. Willem Ellis (International institute for Development and Ethics, Bloemfontein)
141. Penny Foley (Shisaka)
142. Catherine Collingwood (Social Development Consultant)

19 out of 142 (13.38%)

Hat Tip: Anonymous Commentator

69 Opinion(s):


This denialists see their negating of reality as a carriere move. Have to suck up to big bro..
To think that white youngsters are entrusted into this hands is frightening.

Treacle Bender said...

liberal, rotten brained scum of the earth and traitors of the worst kind...

your time will come..

Quark said...

Well, no big surprises there - mostly from the humanities; some from business schools. Only a single engineer - Charles J Nicholas; wonder what possessed him! But the foreigners stun me - either they are expats SA's (hypocrits?!) or non-SAns (thus unqualified for the petition?).

Viking said...

hats off to VI for doing the research on the percentages etc.
This is important information. Academics tend to believe they have more authority than they do.

Doberman said...

For these cretins to gang up on one individual who is alone and likely afraid shows what a bunch of fu*king cowards they are. Damn them all.

FishEagle said...

Damn them all!!!

("Academics tend to believe they have more authority than they do." LOL!! True)

Vanilla Ice said...

There is an old saying, “The struggle between academics is so bitter because the stakes are so low.” – C.P. Snow

I suggest we all email off a link to our Alma Maters. Let them know their names are out there.

Anonymous said...

Most of these idiot liberal scum are from the Psychology dept - seems like they organised a signing up tea-party. Bunch of sheep - can't think for themselves. Their time will come.

Anonymous said...

Thanks guys! As an ex-Academic from SA, I was disgusted by these people's response to Huntley's attempt at Refugee Status, something which can only better the lives of all white Africans.
Only too happy to have brought their names to your attention. They think they are heroes in their little multi-culti dream-world lives, BUT we know them as persecutors of our Nation!

Common Sense

Dachshund said...

Notice how none of these "academics" are in the hard sciences. They need to brown nose the ANC, otherwise they would be out of a job. Certainly nobody in the private sector would want to employ them as there are more than enough blacks with degrees in HR doing the rounds.

Doberman said...

@ Dach, yep, the "unemployables". There is no life for these people outside campuses. They HAVE to kiss arse or look for another job. How many of these were coerced into "signing or else"?

SteveD said...

Well, I am an academic... They do wield the power to give or take declaration of skills to/from people.
Any other authority is assumed.

Most academics do believe in creating peace by down-playing real issues. Look at how Zim was handled.

Never deal with the problem, only them who bring it to light. It is a lot easier that way - promote ignorance to keep the peace.

Anonymous said...

Dachshund and Doberman,
I thought exactly the same when I read through them yesterday!
Apart from the fact tht VI and FI pointed out that many were NOT even "white", I noticed that most were from the Social Sciences...
need I say more?

Common Sense

Thanks again for taking the time to post all these idiots names WITH the percentage "contribution" of each campus!

Vanilla Ice said...

Indeed I did notice that the large majority are associated with the social sciences. For example, it seems the whole "Diversity Studies" department at UCT, signed the petition. What a shameful display of pedantry.

FishEagle said...

SteveD, I'm a wannabe academic. Wish there were more academics like you around. The bunch I'm dealing with are not exactly inspirational. They are just so deluded in general.

And I can really relate to the humour of VI's quote (I just have to say it again): "The struggle between academics is so bitter because the stakes are so low.” – C.P. Snow

Anonymous said...

I am guessing that the author and commentators have no clue what it feels like to be part of an oppressed majority. Crime is not a colour issue, rather a socio-economic outcome. The picture I'm getting here is of a line of ostriches one ostrich with his head in the sand while the others have their heads stuck firmly in the nether regions of the ostrich in front of them. Try to live without your comforts for two months and see how you cope. It is absoutely amazing how clueless white South Africa is about crime or how the dispossessed live. Survey evidence (yes, that's what real researchers work with), such as the National Crime Victimisation Survey, shows clearly how criminals are much more likely to attack black, indian and coloured people more than whites. Whites are able to protect themselves more effectively than other races can, because of the way apartheid neatly segregated South Africa into income groups so conveniently proxied by race. Don't lambast academics or even foreigners who have the bravery to wipe the bird-poo from their eyes and admit we live in an explosive environment which resulted from apartheid. Please try to introduce some objective, scientific reasoning before you pass your half-cooked, stand-around-the-braai opinions off as fact.

Anonymous said...

blogowner - hope the facts don't hurt too much to be published

Anonymous said...

oh and i don't like my government that much either...

Anonymous said...

Anybody actually read all the other stuff about Huntley? I wouldn't have an opportunistic charlatan like this as a poster boy for crime victims.

Vanilla Ice said...

@Anon 10:04, 10:05, 10:07 and 10:08. I imagine these are all the same person. You use, as your argument's foundation, the desire to expose the truth. This is a typical liberal diversion, and it is a misrepresentation, as all you are really interested in is social engineering; which means control.

The facts insofar as Huntley is concerned; we have already produced reams of facts to support his claim. We have also asserted that this is about more than Brandon Huntley. If Huntley is found to have perjured himself, well then he would be deserving of a revision of his refugee status. The core issue is whether white persecution exists, and whether a claim made in accordance therewith is justified. Don't obfuscate the issues.

Moreover, how it feels to be an oppressed majority, or to live without my comforts is completely irrelevant to the argument. But I can see your covert suggestion. You are implying that the masses have been oppressed and denied for so long, and to such an extent, that it is unrealistic, perhaps even absurd, for a white man to suggest he feels the same way; and therefore could not possibly justify a refugee claim. In other words, as you state, he must be a charlatan.


There is no reason to believe that a white settler populace would not have achieved similar levels of affluence, education or development relative to other white nations. Whereas there is more than enough reason to believe that the black indigenous population would not have progressed. To halt the advancement of a white population, by creating and enforcing a plethora of race based legislation, in order to "redress" stagnation is persecution, and will not achieve the desired effect within a culture not known for advancement.

As regards real researchers working with surveys. Mmmm, interesting, and crap. Social "scientists" work with surveys. The flaws are always in the design of the survey. Hard scientists work with hard data. You should look at the real numbers; perhaps even read the research we have done; the results are horrific and in contrast to your "surveys".

Yes, whites are better able to protect themselves, as are Asians. Yet whites and Asians are the most persecuted groups, when it comes to murder. The numbers are well in excess of what could be expected, based on population proportionality. Can you imagine how awful the statistics would be if these groups could not protect themselves?

Finally, I find it typical of your ilk to believe that we are a bunch of poorly educated, ill-informed right wing activists. How dare you suggest we need the "bird poo" wiped from our eyes, or that we need to be objective when you do nothing of the sort. Many of the commentators and contributors to this blog are post-graduates. You would be stunned at the levels of wealth, educational and career achievements amassed by many of our contributors and commentators.

You suggest that the ills are as a result of Apartheid and socio-economics. A lazy thinker, I see. A correlation does not equate to causality. You make these claims, and yet provide no evidence. Axiomatic, like Jesus Christ perhaps?

So do us all a favour, come here with hard facts otherwise fuck off back to your insipid, weak academic mates.

Viking said...

Well stated, VI.

Mad Kiwi said...

@anon - "Don't lambast academics or even foreigners who have the bravery to wipe the bird-poo from their eyes"

Hmm, not much chance of them to get bird poo in their eyes while their heads are up their arses. That is of course only if they aren't chicken, which in that case it is very likely some yellow stuff.

Doberman said...

@ VI, very good, well put. As you say "Social "scientists" work with surveys. The flaws are always in the design of the survey. Hard scientists work with hard data." So true.

Anonymous said...

Research, facts that you've collected? From which data source? Please post a link so that we can see the facts and hard data you speak about, VI. Please also include details of your data generation and how you came to refute survey evidence.

Just a little history lesson -migration happens for a reason. Migrants from Europe in the 18th and 19th Century were not the cream of the crop, rather just the opposite. To have a romantic idea of your forefathers being swashbuckling heroes is ludicrous, and to suggest that South African whites would succeed equally as well in any part of the world is just as insane (hard test data from PIRLS, SACMEQ, etc). As with anything, you would have outliers,but I'm not really sure you're one of those.
Your broad statements are typical of someone who hasn't ventured outside of their comfort zone.
I'm guessing you're a natural scientist or at least this is what you claim to be, with strong beliefs in the immutable laws of physics or the natural sciences.
But this is exactly the problem - we don't have any natural experiments which involve societal interaction. And although you could produce 'hard results' (actually just reported figures), you are no closer to what generated these hard figures or how to fix them, except the really naive suggestion that if South Africa was run by whites, things would be better. As you rightly point out, there is evidence that African countries run by Africans don't do as well as before, but there are many other factors which contribute to bad performance.
If one race / society used subjugation and violence to plunder resources and succeed, why is it any different for another race to do the same (even though the instruments differ)? It's convenient for you to say this is unfair, because you benefit from the previous status quo. This is a human trait, not a colour-based one. And let me correct you on the white persecution thing - do you see poor whites being persecuted? This is not a colour thing - this is a wealth thing. Have a look at 'hard figures' from around the world across time - is it rich-poor subjugation which then leads to poor-rich retaliation in some form or is it a colour thing?

VI, how about sharing your postgraduate qualification with us? Resorting to cusswords and catch-phrases like 'your ilk' to argue (oops, I almost said prove!)just shows how intellectually lazy or inept you are. Oh, and with regard to causality between crime and socio-economic conditions - please disprove this. There are many studies out there support uni-directional causality. I would love to see you refute this with acceptable scientific tools.
VI and others here - I understand your frustration, but what would be your real-world solution?

Anonymous said...

One more thing. Sorry to use your heritage as an example,Viking, but I need to make a point. You should know better claiming to be an Ulsterman. How are Northern Ireland's crime stats? And how many black people stay there?
What would you say is the cause of crime there - white persecution? Would you mind terribly to post some of your opinions or facts on this? I can't wait to be 'enlightened'.

Anonymous said...

Lest I be mistaken for an academic, I'll try to make this short. VI - have a look at the following reports (google NIMMS). Crime data does not get more reliable than the number of people dead from violent crime. Every other data source is going to suffer from bias.
It's understandable that one (even postgraduates such as yourself) would unite under an easily identifiable characteristic (whiteness which is not only a misnomer, but a gross exaggeration of homogeneity). But where does that leave you, besides being disgruntled?
And how long have you been oppressed? And by who? Does your family own substantially less than it did under apartheid? Do you even know about the Afrikaner vs English struggle?
I understand that the markets might be getting you down in particular, and I understand that you probably have more idle time than most right now. If this is the case, do yourself a favour. Ask Viking if he can recommend some history or economics literature for you. That way you can contextualise your data in a more objective manner.
The only hard thing about you is your skull.

Anonymous said...

Again, my apologies. VI, check that google I sent earlier for the murder figures by race yet?
I missed the social engineering part of your rant. How old are you? No wonder we have the crisis! I can just imagine millions of people like you running regressions with nothing to contextualise them. Getting spurious, highly biased correlations (such as your White and Asian persecution 'fact') and passing it off to your client as the best investment option.
Makes we wonder about everybody else here who supports you. Be honest now - who really has postgrads here (above SA honours level?)

Viking said...

o dear...

You cannot speak of causality in the social sciences, only correlation.
Cubans are shit-poor and have little crime in their society, there is just no direct cause. Peope are not robots, even economic laws depend on human decisions.
Poverty does not CAUSE crime. Crime is a conscious decision made for a variety of reasons. I don't need research to back that up - poverty no more causes crime than bad hygiene causes rats!

Anonymous said...

Viking - ever heard about inequality? This is one socio-economic condition of many. And although there is a lot of research to back this up, I'm sure you don't need it either to realise we have the most consistently unequal society in the world. There are statistical tests for causality, Viking, which I'm sure your interest in economics would have exposed you to. Or are your interests cited in your profile a little bit more superficial than you're letting on?
It's really unnerving that you're suggesting that I'm referring to correlation rather than causality. When I said socio-economic conditions, how did you smell poverty? See what I mean about where your head is?
If you're saying what I think you're saying - no, wait what are you people saying? Has anybody here used statistical testing at all? If you have, let's up the ante a bit. Dazzle me with your methodology. We are talking science and hard facts now, aren't we? And don't give me the surface race thing - come up with something that explains why race is such a strong proxy for the South African condition.
As far as I can tell, you've said nothing particularly revealing and you get your data from reporters schooled in the soft sciences (if at all).
I'm actually feeling quite giddy with excitement!

Anonymous said...

I forgot - Viking is vaguely right about poverty not exclusively causing crime. But this is not what I'm suggesting. There are many other factors which cause crime which we can throw into regressions and use instrumentation to determine cleaner relationships.
It's not that I'm disagreeing that crime in South Africa is bad, just that one can never assume perfect information nor perfect insight, things I am sure investment finance people and those in favour of enlightenment are familiar with.
I am as concerned about crime as you are, but to introduce segregation into arguments (whites vs blacks, engineers vs social scientists, Blue Bulls vs Stormers ) is counter-productive. It just polarises our society even more than it is and does nothing to foster the good that's left. Crime and bad government affects everybody and all I'm saying is that there are other people affected by these things much more than you, but their voices are often dismissed because they have no 'scientific' merit.
My apologies for causing offence, VI. May I suggest that we talk about the facts (hard data that you have access to) and move from there?

Anonymous said...

Viking, the Cuba comment? I'm sure you don't need research to guess that a very authoritarian regime does cause less crime? And that because of Communism there is less inequality, which allays criminal tendencies? Have a look at crime in developed countries as well where inequality is low - Sweden, Norway for instance? Are you picking up what I'm putting down here?

Vanilla Ice said...

@Anon 9:58. Indeed, facts that I collected. It seems you do not grasp research protocol. It isn't for me to hold your hand, and guide you through the process. It is for you to get off you lazy arse, read the articles, research the sources and replicate the studies. Only that way do you make a contribution. I will give you a hint; start with the Medical Research Council data, the Correctional Services incarceration data, population data, SAPS statistics and even National Prosecuting Authority data. And you are correct, it is just reported data. I imagine the situation to be far worse than the data suggests; as highlighted by the many surveys.

You did raise an interesting point. Perhaps the original settlers were not of the best stock. Nonesense of course, but I wasn't sure whether to laugh or cry at that preposterous suggestion though. It is well known that the original settlers had to endure significant hardships in order to survive; many didn't. It is reasonable to think that the strongest/smartest prospered, and this is evidenced in the advanced societies built in the new world. There is still no reason to suggest that the SA white population would not have achieved same. The same argument has been used for slavery by the way, which helps explain part of the higher IQ enjoyed by US blacks.

As for being an outlier; I already know that I am. In fact, intellectually speaking all white South Africans are outliers relative to the overall population mean; somewhere in the order of 2 standard deviations.

But if you are an academic I would be astonished. You have a penchant for making sweeping, unsubstantiated statements. An example, "...if South Africa was run by whites, things would be better." I imagine this was a typical effort at trying to taint us.

We have never advocated a return to white minority rule. We, however, unapologetically point out that things were better under white rule. It is incumbent on the ruling ANC regime to prove otherwise. Need I remind you that 70% of the whites voted for a change in power; hardly a racist society. Only a non-racial white conciliatory population would allow this.

As for your literacy and education quality data; no doubt our education has deteriorated, which is more a function of trying to accommodate the masses. Again, read my research on this. Moreover, I will add that 1 million skilled South Africans have left. What effect does that have on the remaining gene pool of talent? It declines, although mean reversion would correct that in time. Since you have a love for surveys, perhaps you should read the results of surveys conducted on expats. South Africans enjoy significantly above average success in any host nation, relative to the host nation population and other expats. Hardly the sign of a bunch of poorly educated illiterates, with inferior genes.

Poor whites being persecuted? Are you serious? They are excluded from the job market on the basis of race, which has lead to 1 million living in poverty. Smells like persecution to me.

You suggest that most of the conflict centres around the rich-poor divide. I would bet that your r squared wouldn't be very strong, as opposed to conducting the same experiment around IQ. Again, read the research. Does IQ and the wealth of nations ring any bells?

Anyway, I have expended enough time on most of your garbage. This has become tedious. Grow up, wipe the "bird poo" from your eyes and do some real research; then you can come back and play with the adults.

Viking said...

some of your comments are disturbing, and the last few hadn't been posted before my last comment. I'm not going to be baited, so there's no point trying.

First of all, N.Ireland's crime stats have nothing to do with SAs, and NI has its own distinctive patterns because of paramilitary activity etc. So I don't understand the reasons for your question. Are you suggestion that there is crime there but no blacks to cause it?? The causes of crime are certainly NOT poverty.

Secondly, quite a few of us have postgrad degrees, including myself.

Thirdly, South Africa is no more "unequal" than, say, Brazil or India. "Inequality" is a classic piece of misdirection, too. Why should how rich some people are effect how poor others are? There are better ways to measure how a country is doing.

It seems to me that the effect of what your saying is that socio-economic conditions cause crime, and following on from that can we conclude that the reason there is more crime in South Africa than there is in Tanzania is because there are more rich people here to rob? So if there were more rich people in Tanzania there'd be more crime? That doesn't reflect well on black Africans.

More "equal" countries like Norway, Sweden and maybe Finland have their own problems - most notably domestic violence, alcoholism, white collar crime, child abuse, etc.

I hear what you're saying about inequality - but are you really willing to suggest that when a poor person sees me in a nice car for example, they just can't resist the urge to steal it?

There are two types of criminals (well, for the sake of argument), opportunistic criminals and career criminals. The former are very common in South Africa, and you could locate this in "socio-economic" factors: there are a lot of poor people in close proximity to those who have more, and they often help themselves.

The second type is that which concerns us. They steal because they want, they kill and rape because they can. This is the most worrying type of crime in SA.

Vanilla Ice said...

@Anon. Clearly you aren't using the NIMSS data you so proudly declare, but you are close. As you rightly indicated, nothing speaks as loudly as bodies, but you need to speak proportionality, not absolutes.

FishEagle said...

Anon, we have found a common humanity amongst ourselves. We are only "disgruntled" at YOUR ILK, assuming you are dutifully working at proving a point that you are willing to help other people. Just not whites and just not me.

"VI and others here - I understand your frustration, but what would be your real-world solution?"

Your concern sounds pretty glib for someone that has not bothered to read the many possible solutions that have been posted on this blog. And for someone that is so obsessed with the qualifications of the contributors to this blog, don't you think your comment is a bit rich that "....but their voices are often dismissed because they have no 'scientific' merit"?

Anonymous said...

Hi, VI and Viking.
Let me state at the outset that I do not condone violent crime.
Crime levels are sickening.My point is that even proportionally whites are not as affected by crime (especially violent crime) as other groups.
VI, I see your clue and raise you.. actual research. I didn't want to force you to consider the length of my research salami, but here goes:

Lazy arse? Don't grasp research protocol? Methinks not!
Three things I understand quite well are migration, education and crime.
CRIME: The reason I mentioned the NIMMS data is that I studied the reports and compared these aggregate murder figures to SAPS reported murder (excluding homicide) figures for the same period. The aggregate trends are largely the same across provinces, but as I'm sure you know that the SAPS figures are hard to work with (given that they only come in pdf format and only in aggregate form by crime category,police station or province by half-year). Nevertheless I compiled provincial aggregate figures from their data (by financial year) and checked it against their website figures. Initial results indicate that these are consistent even when I take the half-year results and apply seasonal trends from the NIMMS/ MRC data to get a full year. The results are largely consistent which was unexpected, but at the same time consider that it is kinda hard to fudge murder stats.
I have applied for access to the NIMMS data from 2002 to 2007. The variables I'm interested include cause of death, race, gender, locational variables, socio-economic indicators or reasonable proxies which will be tested rigorously before I report them.
SAPS is less forthcoming with their cross-sectional/ panel data and I doubt this situation is going to change anytime soon.
The same is true of Correctional Services, but I have found a way to circumvent this to some extent in a way not used before.
ISS data include the National Crime Victimisation Survey which includes a representative sample of 4500 households. I have this data from 1998, 2003 and 2007. VI, what is your specific issue with this survey design? I can then have a look at the data (using any statistical means you prefer) and report whether your specific gripe holds any merit. You obviously have access to the questionnaire like I do and are qualified to comment on survey design.
You mention under-reporting of crime which is more likely to occur when the costs of doing so exceed the benefit (i.e small thing stolen of R200 versus excess of R500 to replace), where the victim has acclimatised to a certain level of crime or where the victims are discouraged from reporting by police.

Anonymous said...

MIGRATION: You are aware of the selectivity bias introduced when you speak of expats. In the 19th century, mass migration occurred because of reduced economic opportunity in the sending region for the not-so-well-heeled. The migration was to those countries where land was relatively cheap, unchartered or unclaimed in a conventional property rights sense, which obviously made the investment decision much easier to make. I'm not going to go on about the role of expected mortality and types of institutions set up (extractive or not) to explain why South Africa is different from other countries because from your extensive research experience you probably know this.
Today, migration is much more selective given that competition for employment is a lot more intense in host countries. So, as you say, the fittest in career terms from the host region are more likely and able to move. The story is largely the same for intra-regional movement.
EDUCATION: For TIMMS and PIRLS for all schools (incl white) we score 2 standard deviations below the mean. In Maths and Science white schools score consistently lower than their European counterparts.
REQUEST: May I please get a link to your research or data? It is clear from what you write that you think that I may have missed something which is easily accessible.
Bottom line - don't assume you're the most well-informed individual in terms of crime or anything else for that matter. I don't claim to be either, but I'm willing to bet that I'm a bit more well-versed in research than you are.
I am also extremely concerned about crime and am actively doing research to find solutions. We already know crime is bad in SA - the next research question to be answered is how to fix it. This is the reason I'm investigating this phenomenon and how I got to this page.
Lazy arse, indeed! How many other researchers do you know who visit web pages filled with anecdotal 'evidence' to get a better picture?

Anonymous said...

INEQUALITY AND CAUSAL LINKS TO CRIME: Just a note on the inequality thing - what happens is the following - inequality creates breeding ground for crime, opportunistic or other. Informal institutions arise to encourage the more profitable source of income. Reduced labour market opportunities and no access to other forms of income make the choice to commit crime easier.
This site is a prime example - perceived or real inequality in opportunity leads to underground rhetoric or resistance helped by this informal institution. Brazil, also extremely unequal - don't tell me you haven't heard of the crime in favelas, drug business and kidnappings of ... rich or poor people? India, again context is important, Viking. How heterogenous is Indian society compared to South Africa?
MORAL DECISION TO COMMIT CRIME: Viking, according to your theory the rational man would make the choice to starve along with his family. I agree that all crime is definitely not Les Miserables non-violent stuff and I wholeheartedly agree that violent crime should be stopped by any means necessary.
YOUR VIEW ON MINORITY RULE: You just argued for it in your last post, VI.
POOR WHITES: Viking, on the poor white issue - please help your man out with some history. He thinks poor whites are a post-1994 phenomenon.
This is off the top of my head,but for those interested in actual research that is out there:
Crime and inequality - Merton, Hoogeven and Ozler.
Crime and labour markets - Becker, Erlich.
Migration - Kok et al, Massey et al.
Education - there's so much out there.
Poor whites - I think le Roux, but I stand corrected.

I would love to meet with either or both of you over a beer so that we can work on a well-researched solution to the problem. We have a beautiful country and it's a crying shame that brains are being applied to whining and in-fighting rather than solutions (I am guilty of this to some extent too).
P.S. VI, I really would like to see your seminal research you keep alluding to or at least some highlights of your methodology (link would be fine). I've told you what I've done, so show me yours... now! Kidding,I'll wait till Friday. Have a good one, folks!

Anonymous said...

FishEagle,my apologies. No, I have not read the rest of the posts on the forum. Do I assume then that these recent postings are not typical of the rest of the blog? I will read the rest tonight.

I am trying to help everybody, but it really does take social cohesion across race, class, discipline and geography. I wouldn't be posting here if I didn't. I'm not going to profile you, but I'm guessing you do what you do (your job and posting here) because you care or because you experienced something you don't want others to experience. So do I and that's got nothing to do with race, gender or creed. I understand your frustration with management, but c'mon - are all black people dense?

I'm not obsessed with qualifications,rather I was addressing VI's frustrations with academics while proudly proclaiming his and other's qualifications. I also take offence when someone tries to pass off playing around with figures as research and brings a knife to a gun-fight (excuse the terminology).
I don't care what education you have, as long as you make your point as objectively as possible. The difference is that you and I have voices; the poor don't and it bothers me that post-graduates so easily welcome fundamentally flawed reasoning.
I can tell that many people here feel hurt and betrayed, but really: what were South Africans thinking? That Chevy, sunny skies and braais would be continuing indefinitely? I understand everybody fears violence and other atrocities, but why do you insist that this is white persecution?

P.S. You guys (and gal) really need to stop using 'your ilk'. Not cool for everybody to use the same phrase!
P.P.S. We should speak environment some time (cost-benefit stuff and shadow pricing in the absence of currency knowledge).

Anonymous said...

sorry. earlier post abt SAPS data. I said excluded homicide - I meant only included homicide.

Viking said...


just a couple of quick points -

"according to your theory the rational man would make the choice to starve along with his family."
absolutely not. In fact I believe that most, if not all, people believe that stealing essential goods when ALL else has failed is moral, or at least acceptable.

Nobody is starving in SA. Yet!

Secondly, my comment in relation to Brazil and India was that they are both extremely 'unequal' societies, not that they have less crime. (although I think they do).

Anyway, many of the brains on here have been thoroughly applied to solving the problems or otherwise trying to live with them, and this blog is in some ways the fruits of the resulting frustration.

I am of the belief that the answers to the crime problem are to crack down on it hard, making it less attractive and profitable, and secondly to foster a culture of social responsibility.

Do you believe that government is setting a good example in this regard?

And do you believe that our politicians are role models for poor South Africans to aspire to?

Vanilla Ice said...

@Anon 6:46. I need to break this down into bite size chunks now.

If your purpose is to analyse the data and produce a journal article then the efforts I/we have made are vindicated; especially given that it is unusual for a "right wing" website full of misfits, to actually think right? It doesn't matter whose research is right or wrong. What matters is that the subject receive attention, as you rightly pointed out. That the data gets analysed; broken down, swirled around etc. What remains to be seen is if you can tell the truth. South Africa has no notable social scientists of which I am aware, of which I imagine you are one, who have the courage to report findings that do not reinforce current popular dogma. So I expect you have a bias, as we probably all do, and that you will be looking to reinforce your view.

More to the point; NIMMS only covers approximately 50% of reported deaths, which are largely urban. If you included the rural deaths it could be argued that you disproportionately favour the blacks given their higher numbers. What needs to be done, is to break the data down by region, and compare it to regional population distributions. I haven't done this with the SAPS data, but it would be enlightening. I am not sure such population data is available, especially in the detail that is required.

I only have access to the publicly available NIMMS data. As it stands, if you compare the 2007 data to the 1999 data, the only two instances where a brief race breakdown was provided, you will notice that in 2007 Asians and whites were disproportionately victims of murder when compared to population data (At a national level).

If you are about to enlighten us further, great, then we will have access to your data and methodology.

SAPS data has many pitfalls, some of which you have mentioned. You would think attempted murder would be highly correlated with murder, for example. Surprisingly it isn't if you analyse the period 1994 - 2008.

Yet if we do a multivariate regression on various violent crimes, you get a high r squared. So if the figures are being fudged, it is clearly by somebody that is keeping cross-correlations consistent.

Correctional services data is also lacking in detail, but occasionally they provide a race breakdown.

Your research salami? My the arrogance is astonishing. Are you a published academic? I am, albeit not in education, migration or crime. But it doesn't take a genius to apply a little effort, in order to see what is going on.

As you remarked about my investing abilities, I imagine you want to engage in a similar type of Ponzi scheme hey. Manipulate the data, give it a scholarly spin and try to hoodwink the whites that they have got it all wrong. Good luck on that one.

Vanilla Ice said...

@Anon 6:47. Yes, we do score low on the maths and science competitions. But we don't on standardised IQ tests, which is a good indicator of potential. So the argument becomes circular. I point to poor teaching/low standards and you point to poor genes.

I don't presume to be the most informed on crime. I have, however, made an effort to look at the data which I hope, in turn, motivates other people to delve deeper rather than simply repeating popular rhetoric; which by the way, was the purpose of the posting. How could the 142 academics place their signatures on a document that they could not verify as being accurate?

My research is informal, and can be found on this website. I am not about to compile material for peer review. What I do expect, though, is that others consider the arguments I raise and refute them, through high quality research.

In the same breath, don't presume to be more adept at research than I.

Vanilla Ice said...

Anon 6:48. Your argument regarding inequality/crime, is just stupid, and you probably know it. It does nothing to explain the extent of the crime we experience. Moreover, as mentioned by somebody previously, your glib handling of the issue makes a mockery of those that have suffered deeply. You have come to this site, under the pretext of conducting research, to engage in intellectual masturbation. Our aims are clear; we provide a place for white South Africans to come and express their fears, concerns and prejudices in an environment that is not judgemental or demeaning. You, on the other hand, have an agenda; one which isn't apparent but I suspect it has nothing to do with uncovering the root causes of crime or the seeking of solutions.

I find you comments laced with contempt and cynicism. We won't be meeting ...ever. But I will be looking out for your research, and perhaps even an international publication. I suspect I may be looking for awhile.

Anonymous said...

VI, I do tell the truth as well as I know it which is the same constraint all of us face. It doesn't take a genius to analyse data. Or one to realise that multivariate analysis outside of the natural sciences or a highly aggregated, corrected time series is unlikely to give you a high r-squared. What we're interested in is magnitudes and signs of co-efficients and whether we have unbiased results and whether we have correctly specified our model.
As I've mentioned before, I have only compared the NIMMS data at provincial level because of data constraints. And I happen to know which mortuaries were included in each year and could compare to the most likely police station to report (imperfect, but second best solution) and compare simple up or down trends (can't do more than this). And until I get the NIMMS data (they are a tad bit slow) that's all I or you can objectively say about crime in SA.
Published researcher, hey? In which journal? Link, please? Engineering, chemistry, any hard sciences (no,investment is not a hard science, as the crisis has so clearly illustrated;-))?
Viking, nobody is starving in SA? Where have you been living, man!? Why bring up unequal countries in a crime discussion if you just wanted to say they're unequal?

This would go better if we met. I think the lag between posting and actually being posted and the loss of nuance because of text is frustrating and leads to misunderstanding.

In summary:
* I am as frustrated as you about government performance in many areas,most notably the protection of its citizens, but I don't believe it's mostly a persecution thing -rather an incapability and inefficiency thing.
* I want to get to the bottom of this thing and yes, I am using cheap shots at some people so that I can get more detailed accounts of what bugs them. Especially you, VI - your passion is infectious!
I really would like to correspond off-forum with you (VI) if you don't mind. I'll create a gmail account if you are open to the idea.

Anonymous said...

Not masturbation, VI. And you were rough and naive, but great...
My agenda was curiosity and it has now been sated.

Vanilla Ice said...

I have just reread this thread, and missed a few things. Importantly I notice, Anon, that you have a clear departure point. You repeatedly refer to context, and insultingly suggest that I lack it. Your context, is that blacks were oppressed (which they were), and therefore any social ills will be rooted in the "legacy of Apartheid" (which is nonesense). Quaint, unoriginal, unsupported and increasingly rejected.

You conveniently sidestep issues such as IQ; yes that political hot potato that is increasingly correlated with geopolitical flare ups, and which is being shown to be largely inherited. I doubt you even cover this area in your research. Why is that? Too scary for you? Do you stubbornly hold on to the view that we are all equally endowed, that race is a social construct? It doesn't matter whether it is morally unpalatable, you still need to take a position. So, I suspect you are dishonest.

As for my arguments supporting the notion that white rule was superior; so what? If the evidence supports such a notion, should it be rejected? I thought the heady stuff of truth is what you dealt in. But it does expose your weakness. You will never entertain any research findings that go contrary to your moral beliefs.

Finally; interesting how you attempt to position yourself at the centre of this debate and somehow, think we need to rally around you; convince you of the merits of alternative arguments. Perhaps in your little world you might be a somebody. Out here you are nothing. Empty rhetoric, a combative attitude and no claim to fame isn't going to win you any support. I wish you luck with your endeavours to make a difference; I doubt you will. And I suspect time will prove us right and you discredited.

FishEagle said...

Are all black people dense? Are you kidding me? Do you really want an answer?? I have more than a life time's experience working with, and working for, blacks. I am told that there are exceptions and I believe this to be true, although I've never come across an intelligent black (in comparison to the average white person). For someone who's quality of life and income is directly dependent on the competence of blacks, I suspect I'd be more accepting of an intelligent black than you.

You had an incorrect impression about VI's claims about our qualifications and yet you still sank to the low level of your perceived impression and attacked the person and not the ideas. Again, pretty rich for someone demanding objectivity.

I happen to like the phrase "your ilk." You are not going to come here on this blog and tell us what we can and can not think, or which words we can use or not use. Who do you think you are?? And this may come as news to you but this blog was not created for your convenience only. We cover a range of topics, although almost all are related to bad governance in SA, which includes posts on crime. Happy reading. It might take you a while, since we already have 2700 posts for 2009 alone.

You need to stop presuming that you know us. For somebody that has a chip on his/her shoulder about prejudice, you have shown a lot of prejudice yourself. Before you make assumptions, ask us why we feel persecuted as whites. And I do this (blogging) because I fear for my safety and the safety of my loved ones. It's not because I am concerned about other's welfare. This blog helps us to survive in the politically correct, stigmatized social environment that we find in SA. Social engineering has taken place in our politics that will ultimately become detrimental to the environment, which is also why my personal interest was tweaked.

I don't' see the point of you visiting this blog if you are concerned about the voices of the poor. What are you doing here? We are not poor (at least not the 'poorest of the poor') and neither do our experiences tell us that VI's reasoning may be flawed.

If people do not conform to your idea of race, class, etc. then you won't help them. The time has come for you to come to terms with your own limitations, as all of us have done.

@VI - "manipulate the data, give it a scholarly spin and try to hoodwink the whites that they have it all wrong." LOL!!! Thanks for that.

Viking said...


So far your cheap shots and insults have been largely tolerated. You do not come across as someone who wants to solve problems, but rather someone who wants to create them.
I myself have stumbled into many online conversations with bluster and clumsiness but have had the decency to reposition and adopt a more respectful stance. It seems like you are willing to do that.

You ridicule my suggestion than no-one is starving in South Africa - if you know different, SAY SO. That is not how a conversation and/or research is conducted.

Anonymous said...

Here's an idea attack, Fisheagle:
*Your stats guy takes two data points years apart, calls it a trend and writes a really emotive title and piece based on 2 data points. Good science? I think not!
*You're 33. More than a lifetime of experience? Well, just yesterday you came into contact with a black person (who also happens to like social science) who I'd say can more than give your smartest a run for their money in any of their chosen fields, including yours.
*Personal attacks? I think I've addressed VI's 'facts' more than adequately.
*Please re-read my posts. I think it's pretty evident that I don't regard safety as a right exclusive to the poor.

VI, IQ tests are standardised? For whom? I'll leave you to read actual research to find out. Where did you get this IQ data? I'm really curious. No, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that you don't have this data. One-eyed ostrich, head in the sand leading the others who have their heads stuck up his...? Rubbish, leveraged so many times and sold as gold...

Happy blogging, people! And relax, this is the last time I visit this site!

Anonymous said...

Viking - try any Community Survey or GHS. I'm not sure if you have access to raw data or the tools to analyse it (I'm not trying to insult you here - I'm really not sure), and that's why I suggest we meet.
Man, take off the blinkers and go to another neighbourhood to see how other people live!
Have a look at anthropometric measurements by income or race or area type, or reported hunger or calorie intake and more importantly calorie quality adjusted for weight, height and age.
Have a look at hunger in classrooms. Have a look at any number of health indicators, objective (as reported by a doctor) or self-reported. Do you know even visibly 'fat' people could be starving?

My request is simple - if you don't have access to conclusive evidence, don't write articles. Also please check what your soap-box is made of before you step on it.

Islandshark said...

@ Anon 5:21pm: Your story has touched my heart. Never before have I heard of somebody with as many problems as you have.

Now kindly pee off and leave the debates to the adults.

Your kind will bring about the downfall of South Africa, as opposed to the savages murdering, raping and plundering. Because you will still shout "Apartheid" 100 years from now along with "oppressed majority" and still be of the delusional opinion that whites are less affected by crime and not marginalised or victimised at all.

And whilst you sputter your last vile insult you will notice the last white South African have left or had their head bashed in by some savage.

Doberman said...

Anon said "Happy blogging, people! And relax, this is the last time I visit this site!" Oh thank goodness, I was wondering what it would take for you to troll elsewhere.

FishEagle said...

Well I was still waiting in anticipation for the idea "attack" but since that was not forthcoming, my responses:

I'm glad to see that you think so highly of this blog but it is not a scientific journal. We use it to throw ideas around. If VI's effort had the impact of getting social scientists to work on some tough questions about race then his time and effort was very well spent.

Yes I'm 33 and trust me, it's been more than a life time's experience!

If I came into contact with an intelligent black yesterday then I am very curious about the person. I don't quite trust the truthfulness of your comment though because the person sounds too good to be true. From my experience, that is usually how whites portray their black aquantances when they don't have a good understanding of the people.

You've addressed some of VI's points and vice versa. It was a very interesting debate to follow. You could have done without the personal attacks. Your feigned indigation on this point just illustrates your real insincerety.

Can you read? You believe that it is the wealthier section of the population that are able to voice their opinions:

"The difference is that you and I have voices; the poor don't and it bothers me that post-graduates so easily welcome fundamentally flawed reasoning."

We are concerned about our safety and you are concerned about the message from the poor that is not being heard. Can you make a distinction? Get it? Then you understand my puzzlement at your participation here on this blog.

Our sop box turns out to be pretty sturdy. Check yours.

Vanilla Ice said...

@Anon 5:21 and others. And therein lies your agenda; you are black. No wonder your attack was incoherent; you were trying to make a futile attempt at discrediting us. It had nothing to do with research or looking to pursue a collaborative effort. Mind you, you could have got us to do all the work. Isn't that what your sort does? I am sure your 67 IQ mates will be impressed though, as will your sociology dean.

Why can't you be honest? You are a racist, with a major superiority complex (which is a common trait for your ilk/kind/clan/type). You have openly asserted that you are superior to us.

Admittedly you may be the first black swan I have met. I guess out of 40 million, there has to be a handful.

Intelligent? Perhaps. But you just can't get over yourself or your colour. That is your Achilles heel; but I suspect AA will ensure that you have a glorious career. Pity the eminent researchers of the world will never take you seriously.

As for addressing my facts; hardly. All you did was blur the issues and twist the debate. An example; you suggest that the original settlers were of poor genetic stock. When I countered, you provided evidence of poor maths and science scores, when I pointed to IQ scores, you ignored this and later implied these tests were flawed. When I indicated expat surveys, you screamed selectivity bias. You are pathetic; to ignore such a huge body of evidence exposes you as a fraud. To be taken seriously on an international platform requires you to address these issues. You can't.

As for crime, you initially suggested that we gather our data from the media, that we stand around braais and dispense urban legends. You, naively and arrogantly, pointed us in the direction of the NIMMS data. It must have shocked you to discover that we were already looking at that data, and more. That threw a spanner in the works didn't it?

So instead you worked yourself up into a frenzy because my two data points revealed an inconvenient truth. FE was correct, this is not a scholary publication. I have no obligation to publish for an academic audience. What I did do, however, is use publicly available information to open Pandoras box. I revealed enough to suggest that whites and Asians may be persecuted, and you didn't like that because it made the noble savage look more like a violent, marauding animal.

But you tried to suggest that we didn't know how to conduct statistical tests. Ha ha ha, really? You then went on to explain that you look for trends and co-efficient signs. Yawn, that is stating the obvious.

As for your omniscience; you are probably a legend in your own mind, but hardly smart enough to challenge all of us in our respective fields.

I doubt you are even smart enough to be taken seriously in your own field. But, of course, exclusion from the hallowed halls of academic fame will be because you are black right? I mean let's not forget context.

As for IQ. You stepped into that one nicely by disputing the validity of the tests. Are you for real? Only a denialist or a moron would reject the overwhelming evidence by eminent researchers. I suppose you also have an excuse for the results that are emerging from brain scans and genome mapping.

Is age also an issue that disqualifies commentary? What is an acceptable age? It seems you have defined it as such, just like you define the context, which amounts to disqualifiers.

But most importantly, it is your blackness that explains your lack of empathy and your deliberate efforts to taint, slander and misrepresent. You can't help yourself, it's what your culture does. Look at the Semenya and Huntley debacles et al.

It is now my turn to request you to dazzle me with your research. Go on, Mr. rude and crude big black salami researcher, with the deep seated hatred for whites, show us what you're made of. Do some impressive scholarly research. Prove that your brethren aren't a bunch of savage troglodytic animals. I dare you.

FishEagle said...

VI, interesting presumption. It does make sense that Anon may be black. I'd love to know.

FishEagle said...

Jees, if Anon was black it would be the first time I'd be vindicated from racism in an honest discussion with a black. A pleasant change. Makes one dream about what South Africa could have been like for whites :)

Anonymous said...

Black Swan! Nice, VI! Economics or Investment postgrad, huh?
Feel like I stepped on an ant's nest of expats here.
Nobody likes a smartalec, so I'm going to try diplomacy instead.
Don't you wonder how impartial you are if not one of you has said to VI or FishEagle - you know, maybe he has one point there?
I am black, FE, and the reason I'm upset is that not one of you have admitted that you or VI could be slightly wrong or off.
I'm not going to attack your methodology anymore, VI. How you adjusted for illegal black immigration is between you and God, but I'm not so sure you weren't data-mining.
I got emotional as you did and got personal. But surely you must understand that your data and methodology is not perfect. I'm not suggesting you publish your results because it is the same issue our team is grappling with - we have to exercise prudence because if we overstate 'results', we could mislead so many. And no(I can feel VI's retort coming!), the results are not what you think.
So my strategy has been to look for more reliable data I can use.
If healing or venting is what you're after, I understand.
But understand that you're not the only South Africans and that your experience of South Africa or its people is not the only one there is, nor do you have access to the data we do and that is why I suggested we meet.
No, I don't have a political affiliation and no, I don't think you're right-wing either.
You're human as am I and we're all fallible. Troglodytic could apply to anybody, VI,as could savage and marauding. Just because our battle is electronic doesn't make it sophisticated.
I hope I've been diplomatic. My apologies for my part in this.

Anonymous said...

VI, have a look at some literature on IQ tests and why they're not really that standardised for all.
Selectivity bias is exactly that - the fittest migrate so to expect a distribution of expats to be the same as locals on key performance variables just cannot be right. At least consider these points.
Ok this was my last post here - for real!

Vanilla Ice said...

@Anon. I knew you would be back. That large salami ego couldn't resist. Anyway, this is probably my last on this topic.

You are upset because "not one of you have admitted that you or VI could be slightly wrong or off."

Interesting; I didn't notice you admit that blacks may be persecuting whites, or may have special rapacious and barbaric behaviour in store for whites, or that many of these atrocities cannot be explained by Apartheid, or that IQs are lower. Need I go on?

But I am sure you will define where we are wrong and how we are off, as you will revise history.

A bit of housekeeping.

Didn't you get the memo? I am God. No, seriously, you know that if I remove an adjustment for illegals it just makes the numbers look worse. At least they carry some of the burden. I adjusted for 5 million, which is a heuristic and hardly impactual given the greater SA black numbers. (Test for significance).

But come on, do your own sums. Don't look to me to discover how I measured things. But seriously, I look forward to reviewing your research; as long as it is honest.

As for overstating results, correct. You should watch a video by Prof. Harry Frankfurt (Princeton), On Bullshit.

As for IQ results. You know I have the data, the references and the studies. The cheap shots are good for a laugh, but I think you know better by now. If you admit that you are clueless in this regard, I will steer you in the direction of a literature review of leading thinkers; not the usual fringe nuts.

Selectivity bias; again, you state the obvious. But context my dear fellow. You suggested that the original settlers were not cream of the crop. Yet the top brains were still able to build a first world, functioning state. These same top brains perform remarkably well on a global stage.

I will agree, though, that collectively South Africans are intellectually weak. But, hey, an average IQ of 67 doesn't help, nor does the loss of 1 million bright souls. You can slice and dice it any which way you like; IQ is increasingly becoming the crucial factor and it is a non-replenishable resource once the progenitors are lost (Unless you hold on to the myth that if we just make everbody feel good about themselves and give them 3 meals a day, who knows ... voila ... the African Rennaisance)

You should stop being the ostrich; consider the implications for sub-Saharan Africa. I know, it might sting ... a lot.

FishEagle said...

Anon, apology accepted. Maybe next time we meet (who knows?) it may be on a better footing.

FishEagle said...

I am still mad as hell after some reflection about this discussion. You have been more efficient at proving your intelligence than finding any common ground with whites. You stepped into the discussion by insulting our forefathers. And no, you have not succeeded in your diplomacy. Dare I say it? You are not the first black that has come across that clumsily but hey, enjoy your gift of intelligence.

FishEagle said...

And this is exactly why I don't put much value to ubuntu. Ubuntu only ever applies to blacks. Whites being excluded. Isn't that the joke of the century?

joseph gaylard said...

mmm, i'm sorry but you guys have lost the plot completely. i'm sure that you can recreate the lives that you think are owed to you somewhere in perth.

FishEagle said...

Thanks Joseph, I'm sure we will.

joseph gaylard said...

mmm, i'm sorry but you guys have lost the plot completely. i'm sure that you can recreate the lives that you think are owed to you somewhere in perth.

Viking said...

Didn't you already say that, gaylord?

joseph gaylard said...

i thought this blog was an elaborate parody of some sort... dismayed to discover otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Good article. I appreciate the CP Snow quote, actually studied a CP Snow book in a SA university, so it brought it all back.

But I disagree with one thing: THE STAKES ARE NOT LOW IN SOUTH AFRICAN UNIVERSITIES. The universities represent the future of the country as a technological and moral civilization, and unless smart students and staff feel secure, they will not stay in the country.

This is a message that needs to go out loud and clear: THE VIOLENCE MUST BE STOPPED; and it will only stop with a massive and aggressive effort from all the decent people with a stake in the country. This includes armed self-defense SUPPORTED BY THE GOVT AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, including the re-introduction of the death penalty.

If the universities are not prepared to acknowledge the truth, we are headed towards a Haiti-like future. From the list, you can already see the departments where Voodoo is alive and well.