Gottfried and Equality

Gottfried and Equality

Thomas Allen

In “Flawed Reasoning on CRT,” Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, September 2021, page 9, Paul Gottfried discusses equality. This article is somewhat confusing —at least to me. At times, he writes as though he favors equality of opportunity while at other times he seems to believe that equality of opportunity is unachievable because of genetics. Thus, to seek to achieve equality of opportunity leads to a loss of liberty. (He is ambivalent about genetics. Most of the time he appears to hold that genetics are irrelevant — not so much in this article as in others.) Moreover, he seems obsessed with equality but writes that people should not be obsessed with it.

Gottfried writes, “In America we are committed to the proposition that ‘all men are created equal’ [Lincoln’s assertion].” He continues, “America stands for equality of opportunity [the neoconservative position], not equality of results [the progressive position]. . . .” Since he is not a fan of Lincoln and disagrees with many of the neoconservatives’ positions, that he would support their positions on equality seems strange. His opposition to equality of results is in keeping with his political philosophy.

Yet, he opposes the obsession with equality and making it the overriding goal of the country. He prefers “a government under the law providing its citizens with ordered liberty.”

According to him, until the country “achieves a more level playing field,” equality of results is a more correct answer than equality of opportunity. However, he fails or refuses to recognize the importance of genetics. Genetics prevents a level playing field.

Equality of opportunity is more of a chimera than equality of results or equity as it is now commonly called. Does a five-foot, fat, klutz have the same opportunity of becoming a professional basketball center as does a seven-foot, agile, athlete? Does a dimwit have the same opportunity of becoming a doctor or engineer with a Ph.D. as does a genius? The answer to both questions is “no” although proponents of equality of opportunity would have to argue otherwise. For the klutz, their solution is more training though training will not overcome his genetically caused height disadvantage. For the dimwit, their solution is more education although education will not overcome his genetically caused low IQ. 

However, the proponents of equality of results can give the illusion of equality by forcing a professional basketball team to use the klutz as its starting center. Also, they can force a company to hire the dimwit as an engineer or doctor instead of the genius. Moreover, they can force the company to use the work of the dimwit engineer or doctor.

Genetics guarantees that some will have an advantage over others at the starting gate. At conception, genetics predestine some people to be tall or geniuses and others to be short or dimwits; most fall in between. Environment decides how people will use their physical and mental abilities or to compensate for their lack of these abilities. Even then, genetics influence the how.

Only despotism can retard and suppress the more gifted and advance and raise the less gifted. But even here genetics will dominate. Genetics give some people the advantage of becoming a despot. Thus, genetics along with opportunity will be a major factor in deciding who will be the despot. 

Where a despot exists, equality cannot exist. Of necessity, despotism divides society into two classes: the ruler and the ruled. Only a few have the opportunity of being the despot; thus, equality of opportunity does not exist. Moreover, equality of results cannot exist in a despotism since the ruler has the power and the ruled are his slaves, which is a highly unequal result.

People should learn to live with the hand that Deity, fate, or nature dealt them and cease being obsessed with equality — be it equality of opportunity or equality of results. Their lives would be much happier.

An obsession with equality leads to envy, and envy leads to an obsession with equality. Envy is highly destructive and results in misery. Consequently, God commands people not to envy.

Copyright © 2021 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Location of Eden

Location of Eden

Thomas Allen

8 And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward, in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. . . . 10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became four heads. 11 The name of the first is Pishon: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; 12 and the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. 13 And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth in front of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates. (Genesis, Chapter 2)

Where is Eden located? Several locations have been suggested. They include Palestine, Syria, Armenia, Mongolia, Kashmir, Australia, Mesopotamia, and the North Pole.

Havilah is noted for its gold and gemstones. Because it is noted for its high-quality gold, Havilah is often associated with India or Arabia. If it is in India, the Pishon is the Indus. If Havilah is Arabia, then the Pishon is the sea around the Arabian peninsula.

Many locate Cush in either Ethiopia or Central Asia. Thus, the Gihon is either the Nile (the Ethiopian location) or the Oxus, the Amu Darya (the Central Asian location).

According to the information given in Genesis 2:10-14, one river came out of Eden and divided into four. Because the Euphrates is mentioned as one of these rivers, most people assume that Eden was in Mesopotamia. Under this theory, the Tigris is the Hiddekel. There is much dispute about the two rivers corresponding to Pishon and Gihon. 

Upper Mesopotamia is perhaps the most popular location of Eden. According to proponents of this location, the Euphrates is the Euphrates of Mesopotamia and the Hiddekel is the Tigris. The identity of the Pishon and Gihon are uncertain. Some identify these two rivers with canals between the Euphrates and Tigris. Also, the Karun and Karkheh rivers have been identified as the other two rivers. Others identify them with various small rivers. 

Another popular location for Eden is the Armenian highlands at the headwaters of the Euphrates and Tigris. According to this theory, the Pishon is either the Phasis (Rioni) of Georgia or the Kura, a large tributary of the Araxes (Aras). The Gihon is identified as the Araxes. (For problems with this location, see Davis.)

Calvin and others have suggested that Eden was in the area where the Euphrates and Tigris empty into the Persian Gulf. Here, the two rivers come together and then divide into several mouths. Thus, the Pallakopas canal becomes the Pishon, and the Gihon corresponds with the Kahana or Guhana canal near Babylon. A problem with this theory is that the rivers come together instead of dividing.

Closely related to Calvin’s proposed location is that Eden is located at the head of the Persian Gulf. According to this theory, the four rivers are the Euphrates, Tigris, Kerkha, and Karun. A problem with this theory is that the rivers flow toward Eden instead of away from it.

At least, the two theories that place Eden near the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris place Eden east of the writer of Genesis. However, they fail to satisfy the description of Havilah.

According to the Scriptures, the Adamic race originated in Eden. Most people erroneously place Eden in the Middle East. The location of Eden as described in Genesis 2:8, 10-14 places it in Central Asia. 

“And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put man [Adam] whom he had formed.” (Genesis 2:8) The garden in Eden was eastward or “in the east” (Moffatt’s translation) or “to the far east” (Ferrar Fenton’s translation). If Moses were the author of Genesis as the fundamentalists claim, then he, being a highly educated man, would have been knowledgeable of the Mesopotamian region. Would not he have said that Eden was in the land of Shinar or Mesopotamia if that is where it was? In Genesis 10:10, 11:2, 14:1, and 24:10, he calls this region Shinar or Mesopotamia. Moses identified Eden as being in the east because it was east of the area which he knew.

If various people who lived long after Moses wrote Genesis as many modernists and liberal theologians claim, then these authors certainly would have been familiar with the Mesopotamian region and would have referred to it by name rather than by a vague description of where Eden was located.

Also, Sargon's Chronicle identifies Eden as east of Mesopotamia. Thus, the inhabitants of Mesopotamia knew that they did not live where Eden was. Saint Ephraem’s Hymns to the True Paradise and Cosmas Indicopleusters’s Christian Topography placed Eden at the western edge of the world’s highest mountains. Hence, it was in the region of the Himalayan and adjacent mountains—although they may have thought of these mountains as near the North Pole. They certainly did not place it in Mesopotamia.

The geography of Mesopotamia does not fit the description of Eden given in Genesis. Only two major rivers are in Mesopotamia: the Euphrates and Tigris. They merge rather than divide. Eden must be found elsewhere.

“Euphrates” in Hebrew is perath and means “a river of the east” (Strongs O.T. #6578). For centuries the “Pishon” has been identified with the Indus or Ganges Rivers in India. In the ancient records, Havilah was equivalent to India. Because the Gihon was said to “compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia,” some Biblical scholars identify the Gihon with the Nile. The word “cush” originates in northern India. Here the Hindu Cush mountains still bear that name. The Hiddekel is often identified as the Tigris. If the Tigris were also called the Hiddekel, it, like the Euphrates, was named for the original river in Eden. Probably this is why Genesis 2:14 refers to it as the river that flows “toward the east of Assyria.” This modifier would prevent confusing it with the river of the same name that flows within Assyria. Except for the Indus River, the rivers commonly thought of as flowing out of Eden do not fit the Biblical description of these rivers.

One place does resemble the description of Eden given in the Bible. That place is the Pamir Plateau in Central Asia between the Hindu Cush on the south and the Tien Shan mountains on the north. Four great rivers flow from this plateau. These are the Indus, Jaxartes (Syr Darya), Oxus (Amu Darya, also called  Gihon), and Tarim. Corresponding to the Pishon is the Kumar (or Chitral) branch of the Indus. The Jaxartes is the original Euphrates. The Tarim (that is its northern branch, the Kashgar river) flows to the east and is probably the Hiddekel. Most likely, the country of Havilah corresponds to the country of Darada toward Chachmises, which is noted for its riches. Thus, the Pishon is the Kumar-Indus; the Gihon is the Oxus;  the Hiddekel is the Kashgar-Tarim; the Euphrates is the Jaraxrtes.

The Pamir Plateau is different from what it was ten thousand years ago. A catastrophe has altered it. Then the plateau was lower and the climate much milder. Today the Pamir Plateau is uninhabited. It covers an area of about 180 by 180 miles and rises 15,000 feet above sea level. Too inhospitable to be inhabited, it is a blank and mysterious place. It is now the “roof of the world.”

The Pamir Plateau matches the geographical description of Eden given in Genesis. It is the land in the east, and it has four great rivers flowing out of it.

However, if the people who claim that the Noachian Flood was global and nearly all, if not all, of the fossil-bearing sedimentary rock formations resulted from the Flood, then trying to locate a place from before the Flood with today’s geography is futile. Today’s geography would have no resemblance to pre-Flood geography. Consequently, the above discussion about the location of Eden is meaningless. 

References

Allen, Thomas Coley. Adam to Abraham: The Early History of Man. Franklinton, North Carolina: TC Allen Company, 1998.

Davis, John D. The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible. Revised by Henry Snyder Gehman. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: 1944.

Douglas, J.D. et al., editors. The New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids: Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962. 

Haberman, Frederick. Tracing Our White Ancestors (White Roots). Second edition.  Phoenix, Arizona: America's Promise Lord's Covenant Church, 1962, reprinted 1979.

Jacobus, Melanchthon W., Edward E. Norse, and Andrew C. Zenos, editors. A New Standard Bible Dictionary. New York, New York: Funk & Wagnalls Co., 1926.

Weisman, Charles A. The Origin of Race and Civilization as Studied and Verified from Science, History, and the Holy Scriptures. Third edition. Burnsville, Minnesota: Weisman Publications, 1990.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More religious articles.

More Political Thoughts

More Political Thoughts

Thomas Allen

Discussed below are official papers, socialism and democracy, the wrong question, and a credibility test.

Official Papers

Our ancestors who fought the National Socialists (Nazis) and the Fascists in World War II would be proud of what has happened to the United States. They fought the National Socialists and Fascists to rid the world of their despotism and tyranny. Thus, they would be overwhelmed with the joy of knowing that people need officially governmentally issued papers called Read ID to travel within the United States — as the National Socialists and Fascists required official papers to travel. So, why did our ancestors fight the National Socialists and Fascists?

In other words, propagandists inculcate us with the notion that their ancestors fought the National Socialists and Fascists to keep us free. They did such a great job of keeping us free that we are now free to be required to have governmentally issued papers, Real Id, to travel — just as the people in National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy needed official papers to travel. So much for freedom.

President Bush said that the terrorists attacked the United States because they hated our freedom. Then, he proceeded to suppress the few remaining freedoms that Americans had. President Obama extended Bush’s police state of suppressing freedom, and President Trump did nothing to end and reverse this police state. Since Americans have lost their freedoms, the terrorists have won. So, why are the United States still fighting a war that has been lost? Why not admit defeat and bring the troops home and repeal all the police state and antiterrorist laws?

Socialism and Democracy

Socialism is economic democracy. Democracy is political socialism. Under democracy, each person, in theory, has an equal say in society’s political affairs.  Under socialism, each person, in theory, has an equal say in society’s economic affairs. In both socialism and democracy, each person has an equal say.

Wrong Question

Paul Harvey said, “They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?” This is a good question, but it is the wrong question.

The question should be: Why are not progressives, liberals, and socialists moving to Cuba? Cuba is already offering what they want: gun control, universal healthcare, and much more. Certainly, Cuba would welcome them with open arms — especially if they bring their wealth with them.

The reason that progressives, liberals, and socialists do not move to Cuba is that they are Puritans. They have seen the light and are compelled to force their utopia on everyone — especially on those who know that their utopia is really a dystopia.

Credibility Test

A three-step test can be given to find out if a person has credibility. (1) Does he believe or claim to believe the official governmental conspiracy theory of 9-11? (2) Does he believe or claim to believe that the Democrats and their supporters, promoters, and owners did not steal the 2020-presidential election? (3) Does he believe or claim to believe the official explanation of the Kennedy assassination? If he answers one or more of these questions “yes,” then he has no credibility.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More political articles.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Integration

Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Integration

Thomas Allen

The desegregation-integration of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system is a good example of the greed of the New South Southerner and the hypocrisy of the Northerner. Their attitude toward integration well illustrates this greed and hypocrisy. (For those who do not know the geography of North Carolina, Charlotte is the largest city in North Carolina and the county seat of Mecklenburg County. Mecklenburg County had one school system that included the city of Charlotte.)

In the 1960s, Charlotte-Mecklenburg had desegregated schools yet by 1968 only 28 percent of Blacks attended majority-White schools, which was more race-mixing than most other large cities had achieved. Nevertheless, the integrationists were not satisfied.

In 1971, three years after the Supreme Court legalized forced busing to achieve substantial integration, Judge James McMillan imposed forced busing on Charlotte-Mecklenburg to achieve the equal distribution of Black and White students. His ruling, which the Supreme Court supported, initially received some protests. Parents who lived in the suburbs objected to busing. They accepted desegregation, which required assigning students to schools without considering race. However, they opposed integration, which required assigning students to schools based on race. Although he did nothing to alleviate forced busing to achieve racial balance, President Nixon endorsed their opposition. Even the Supreme Court seemed to agree with the protesters in a 1974 ruling and especially after 1990.

Nevertheless, community leaders decided not to oppose integration because they feared opposition would stifle Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s economy. Consequently, they supported integration. Thus, they placed wealth above everything else. If they placated the integrationists, especially the Northern integrationists, most of whom wanted integration in the South but not in the North, the result would be an economic boom. Therefore, they not only promoted the mild climate, low taxes, and low cost of living in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, they also promoted its progressive racial policies.

Although Whites preferred neighborhood schools, they surrendered to force busing to achieve racially balanced schools. Naively, the liberal leaders sought to prove that racially balanced integrated schools could achieve a high-quality education, which they never have. (Integrated schools lead to lower educational standards.) For the liberal leaders of Charlotte, integration was a source of great pride.

When President Reagan opposed taking children out of neighborhood schools and using them as pawns in a social experiment, the Charlotte Observer objected. It declared that the integration of Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools was Charlotte’s greatest achievement. Integration of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools led to a strong, growing economy.

Whether cause or coincidence, growth did accompany school integration. Between 1970 and 1997, Charlotte’s population grew more than 70 percent, the second greatest rate among American cities with a population greater than 500,000. Moreover, Charlotte became a major banking city.

A major cause of the integrationists’ praise for Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s integrated school system was that the school system was countrywide. Consequently, Whites could not avoid integration by fleeing to the suburbs as they did in the North. Thus, Charlotte-Mecklenburg was an excellent example of the success of court-ordered forced busing — from the integrationist perspective.

With the economic growth came the Northern migrant. These Northern Whites settled in predominantly White communities. (Northerners and White leaders may preach integration, but most prefer not to live in integrated communities.) As a result of Whites living in predominantly White communities, Blacks became disproportionally concentrated in Charlotte.

As White moved out of Charlotte, students, both Black and White, spent more time on buses so that racial balance could be achieved. Nevertheless, school authorities refused to build new schools in predominantly White communities. Busing to achieve integration led to a growth in private schools. By 1997, about 25 percent of White students in Charlotte-Mecklenburg attended private schools, which was 10 times the number in 1970, just before forced busing began, and which was more than 10 times the national average. 

Not only was busing causing Whites to flee public schools, so was the decline in the quality of education in public schools. The poor behavior of Blacks was another cause for leaving public schools.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg’s progressive policies had brought many new businesses and people to the county. Many of these newcomers were from the North. Most Northerners had avoided integrated schools by moving to suburbs that had their own school systems. This was not an option in Charlotte-Mecklenburg because the county had one school system that covered the whole county including Charlotte. When Northerners came to Charlotte-Mecklenburg, they demanded schools like the ones that they had left behind. They wanted to send their children to predominately White schools. They did not want to sacrifice quality education on the altar of integration. Although Yankees did not mind and generally favored forced busing Southerners to Black neighborhoods to achieve racial balance, they were not going to allow their children to be bussed to Black neighborhoods.

By 1990, Charlotte-Mecklenburg began to realize that forced integration was making Charlotte-Mecklenburg less attractive to new businesses. That is, forced integration was hurting the recruitment of new businesses.  Consequently, business leaders, whose god is wealth, abandoned force busing, which previously they had promoted.

Bowing to these business leaders, the school board sharply reduced forced busing in 1992. To achieve integration, the school board instituted magnet programs. However, because many magnet schools were in Black neighborhoods, many Blacks were bused elsewhere to make space for White students. To maintain integration, the school board resorted to a quota system to ensure an adequate number of Black students in the magnet schools. Still, many Blacks did not want to attend magnate schools. Consequently, spaces reserved for Blacks remained empty while Whites remained on waiting lists.

Apparently, the school board thought magnate schools, many of which were in Black neighborhoods, would make Black neighborhoods palatable to Whites. Moreover, the school board seemed to believe that White parents would voluntarily send their children halfway across the county to attend a magnet school. Nevertheless, the magnet programs did succeed in placating many Whites.

The quota system led to a lawsuit in 1997. A White plaintiff claimed that the quota system amounted to racial discrimination. Being dominated by integrationists,  the school board objected. It declared that desegregation of its schools had not been achieved. After 30 years of trying, it had failed to desegregate its schools. One of its chief arguments that desegregation had not been overcome was the racial gap in academic achievement between Blacks and Whites.

Judge Robert Potter ruled against the school board in favor of the plaintiff. He declared that Charlotte-Mecklenburg had eliminated the last vestige of past discrimination and that it had complied in good faith with the federal court desegregation orders. Thus, he prohibited the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school board from assigning students to schools based on race and from allocating educational opportunities through race-based lotteries, preferences, and set-asides.

After this court ruling, most Whites abandoned schools in predominately Black neighborhoods, and White enrollment in the suburbs soared. By 2007, more than half the Charlotte-Mecklenburg elementary schools were either predominantly (90 percent) White or predominately Black. Being relieved of having to achieve racial balances, the school board could now focus on improving the quality of education for both Whites and Blacks. The shift of resources from busing to achieve a racial balance to improving the quality of education improved the overall academics of Blacks.

When the federal court ordered Charlotte-Mecklenburg to implement integration using forced busing, the leaders of Charlotte-Mecklenburg adopted forced busing with fervent enthusiasm. Forced busing became their pride about which they boasted. They believed that integration would lead to economic growth, which did occur. Along with economic growth came the Northern transplant. These Northerners cared little about integration for themselves. Integration was solely for Southerners. These Northerners ardently opposed forced busing to achieve integration when it involved their children. Eventually, Northerners pressured the Charlotte-Mecklenburg leaders to kill their pride, forced busing. Thus, ended forced busing to achieve racial integration in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.

Reference

Wolters, Raymond. Race and Education, 1954-2007. Columbia, Missouri: University of Missouri Press, 2008.

Copyright © 2022 by Thomas Coley Allen.

More social issues articles.