I drafted this nine months ago, and never published it for some reason (fisking seems so outdated?), but although it’s from the journal of the American Enterprise Institute instead of the American Spectator, I am currently fired up with hatred for the faux intellectual approach of the would-be conservative intelligentsia, and so am posting it now.

For a wonderfully designed and written indictment of this tendency that is not completely outdated, please see The Economist on Dinesh D’Souza on Obama.

A wee blog post from Charles Murray, of The Bell Curve fame. This is the entire post, from 23 December 2009. I am obliged to rant.

I’ve been marooned in Paris the last three days, waiting for a plane home after the snowstorm mess (“Poor Charles,” you’re all saying). Last night, having been struck by how polyglot Paris has become, I collected data as I walked along, counting people who looked like native French (which probably added in a few Brits and other Europeans) versus everyone else. I can’t vouch for the representativeness of the sample, but at about eight o’clock last night in the St. Denis area of Paris, it worked out to about 50-50, with the non-native French half consisting, in order of proportion, of African blacks, Middle-Eastern types, and East Asians. And on December 22, I don’t think a lot of them were tourists.

Mark Steyn and Christopher Caldwell have already explained this to the rest of the world—Europe as we have known it is about to disappear—but it was still a shock to see how rapid the change has been in just the last half-dozen years.

Okay.

Europe is changing, becoming polygot, multicultural. Fine. Nothing racist about recognizing that. It’s not even necessarily racist to lament it, or think it’s a bad thing. Even if you think it’s a bad thing because you hate non-white people, sure whatever, that’s your privilege. And if you want to focus on place of birth rather than on passport to define French, well, that’s a legitimate approach even if I disagree.

But this—what Charles Murray actually wrote, as opposed to what he might hypothetically mean—has no legitimacy. None at all.

I collected data

You walked down the street looking at people. Trying to dress up bad research methods as scientific. Not okay.

counting people who looked like native French (which probably added in a few Brits and other Europeans)

Hmm. If you pay some bit of attention to dress or facial movements, I’m pretty sure it’s not that hard to winnow out most of the British people in a crowd of Parisians. So, I strongly suspect you were counting people with white skin and defining that as native French? Not okay.

about 50-50, with the non-native French half consisting, in order of proportion, of African blacks, Middle-Eastern types, and East Asians.

And where did you categorize the inhabitants of the Caribbean islands Martinique and Guadeloupe, which are PART OF FRANCE, making them native French people who are also black. You don’t seem to know such a category even exists. Ignorance of relevant facts is not okay.

Nor do you appear to be aware the word “native” refers to place of birth, not ancestry, nor that immigration has happened for a very long time, nor that immigrants often have children. Not okay.

It’s the intellectual dishonesty I can’t stand.

Advertisements