Really? I thought Derbyshire's prime obsession was with being a racist. I'll have to ask more math-oriented friends if the book is any good. Not my forte by a long shot.

Diva, Diva, Diva- Again with the totally gratuitous and unfounded personal attacks. Simply labeling anyone who disagrees with your liberal pieties a "racist" does not make them wrong- nor a bigot.

I got a lotta love for you, my spirited sister, but you really should try to play nicer.

Not gratuitous at all, Barger. Derbyshire is a white supremacist. I suggest you do some research.

Addendum. I believe Kevin is talking about the same Derbyshire who is active in the blogosphere. Hopefully, he will clarify that. If it is a different person, I am in error. If not, the guy is one of those 'blacks are genetically inferior' folks. If that isn't racism, nothing is.

The Derbyshire in question is best known as a writer for National Review. I've never known him to express opinions anything like that 'blacks are genetically inferior' nor that any other race was genetically inferior.

In any case, I'd consider your earlier remarks gratuitous in that a book about math history has nothing at all to do with race.

In any case, mathematics supersedes all human attachments to race, religion, gender, and economic class. From a set of axioms, a logical construct follows. People may invent the axioms, but the subsequent logic is immune to personal attitudes and attributes.

For what it's worth, if I'm not mistaken, Derbyshire's wife is Chinese.

Derbyshire is one of those 'Asians are okay as long as they don't challenge white people' racists. (You know, they'd better stay in their place.) Blacks, on the other hand, are not even human according to people who think like he does. Note they're declaring white supremacy over Asians, too, just in a somewhat different way -- much like colonialism applied to Africa and Asia. Sure looks like racism to me.

It is possible Derbyshire understands higher mathematics and wrote a good book about it. I'm not saying he didn't. However, that would not negate the fact he is a racist. Ever heard of William Shockley, fellows?

Al, a cursory search of NR or a Googling will give you food for thought. Terms? Try 'blacks,' 'race' or 'discrimination' along with his name.

Barger, you can start here, with an article that describes Derbyshire maligning blacks, Asians and gays, all on the same page.

Mac Diva- you make race baiting an art form.

Look on the face of evil, and, if you don't turn to stone, remember it well. Because this is what we're up against, in America: an evil that is almost demonic in its pure malevolence, a dark destructive spirit that feeds on pain and is animated by the will to crush its enemies underfoot. This is the face of an enemy that must be defeated.

– Justin Raimondo

Diva, this link you sent me to seems pretty weak at making any case for accusing Derbyshire of any racism.

For starters, it's not a link to a column of Derbyshire's, but to some jackass pinko badmouthing him. I'm not interested in all the spin. He quotes a few brief chunks of Derbyshire's writing out of context.

Even those don't seem to communicate any racism, though. The first one is Derb's response to the Chinese downing of our plane back before 9/11. He suggested that we should go in and destroy it rather than let them have it. This may be questionable public policy, but doesn't have anything to do with them being Asian.

The other stuff involves some observations about the typical physical attributes and talents of various Asian and African subgroups. Do you deny that there are physical and cultural differences between nations and races, or is it just that it's "racist" to notice them? Do you deny that Asians are typically shorter than Africans, for example? Do you deny that Asian-American immigrants are especially dedicated to pursuing education, and often excel in math?

Nothing in Derb's writing as quoted on the anti-war page indicates any intention to denigrate or bad mouth any ethnic group. If that's the worst you've got on him, I'm voting NOT GUILTY.

For more information you might wants to see my original interview with Mr. Derbyshire and a follow up specifically dealing with the issues of racism and homophobia.

Barger, there are pages and pages of such links. So many one could spend weeks reading them. Take your pick.

The people at whose knees Derbyshire has studied racism at are not anonymous, fellows. They are some of the biggest names in the contemporary white supremacist movement. And, not only has Derbyshire echoed them in comments at blogs, he has written for their publications.

I did not expect to have what I said about Derbyshire being a white supremacist be controversial. I was somewhat familiar with him before I came to the blogosphere. But, other bloggers informed me about how deep his obsession is. They've also blogged about him time and again. My guess is most mainstream bloggers who are not isolated already know about this.

Kevin, I don't know why you offered that as evidence. It just confirms the guy is a racist. Can't you find someone to promote who is worthy of people's respect?

I posted the links to get accurate information out there from the person not those out to get him.

I don't belive that Derbyshire is a racist but rather a man willing to admit his prejudices and his cultural background. In the follow up to the first interview I think he makes this clear. The reference to White Supremacists is just stupid. If he was into that group why would he be married to a non-white? His views on race are not a subject for polite company in our PC dominated world but they are not in any way related to White Supremacy or the KKK, etc. People who read and discussed the Bell Curve may be racists in your book but you ought to be smart enough to distinguish them from skinheads and clan members.

I also think it is clear that Derbyshire's prejudices are extrmely mild. He is clearly not out to hurt people or to impose his beliefs on others. The authoritarian diversity groups, however, are basically thought police. If you even think something that is out of line they seek to remove you from aceptable society and brand you with any epiteth at hand.

Kevin, the links were totally appropriate.

And yes he is a racist. He asserts that there are differences in intelligence that are statistically related to race. He acknowledges that some believe those differences to be based on culture, but from my reading he doesn't subscribe to that theory. In other words, he seems to believe that there are inherent differences in average intelligence between races. That makes him a racist, in the same way that a person who believes in the steady-state theory of cosmology would be a "steady-stater".

Yes, that's a far cry from being a member of the Klan. He thinks he should have a right to his beliefs, and I would agree. But not everyone has his degree of prejudice; some people are genuinely blind to the race of the people with whom they interact. And many people, including geneticists, anthropologists, psychologists, socialogist, etc. genuinely believe that differences in average IQ scores are adequately explained by differences in cultural background. Those are the people who are not racist. Derbyshire is not one of those people, nor is he a murderer or thief or otherwise "evil".

JR,
You are correct. The problem is that racism is so amphorous that it is hard to nail it down. If you define racism as the belief that there "are differences in intelligence that are statistically related to race" then yes, Derbyshire is in that category. If you define racism as "hating and opposing balck people" then I don't think he fits. Mac Diva seemed intent on lumping Derb in with White Suprmacists, etc. and it was that categorization that I was trying to deny.

See who says you can't have intelligent discussions in the Blogosphere?

I wish I had gotten back to this sooner.

Believing groups are genetically inferior or superior based on 'race' is the essence of racism. John Derbyshire believes exactly that. There is no evading the fact he is a racist, in the worst way, JR and Kevin.

Diva, where does Derbyshire say that some "groups are genetically inferior or superior based on 'race'"? There are some differences between racial groups, perhaps some slightly different talents here and there.

Again, are you going to pretend that Asian Americans do not show exceptional proclivities for math, or that African Americans are not generally taller than Asians?

Or do you simply expect us to turn off our brains and pretend not to notice obvious differences? Making up differences that don't exist so as to help you oppress another group, that's racism. Noticing actually existing differences between people is simply being awake.

GOD is the racist. It's not John Derbyshire that made Africans taller than Asians.

Perhaps you can conjure up some of your valid legal theories, and drag him into court.

As for John Derbyshire, however, I see absolutely no intent of racial animosity or grasping for advantage, or anything negative, hateful or dishonest.