Let's define "racism"

Great Debates
21

Wow, you guys are really beating around the bush on this issue.

So… racist or not???

National Association for Advancement of Colored People, (colored meaning black, not brown, yellow or pink, or white[crayola considers it a color])?

National Association for advancement of White people?

United Negro College Fund?

United Cracker College Fund?

La Raza? (brown only?)

From what I’ve gathered lately, it seems that “racist” is criticizing anything to do with brown/black people, policies, lifestyle, culture or anything that could be related to the policies or lifestyle or culture of brown/black people.

Yellow people still seem to be fair for the picking. When I say “math geek” or “straight A student” or even turn all my L’s to R’s, nobody tells me to stop picking on the asians.

If I say “welfare queen”, or “un-wed mother of 10, with 9 different baby-daddy’s”, I’m probably going to get a tongue lashing for being “racist” or
“intolerant”, even though skin color/race wasn’t even brought up.

“redneck” and “trailer trash”, nobody will bat an eye, not even the red necks and trailer trash.

So… Definistions:

Not tolerated racism: Saying or doing anything bad to brown or black people.

Tolerated racism: 1) Portraying a position of inferiority based on skin color to advance yourself or race: 2) Anything directed at white people, and most yellow people.

22

I would say that none of these definitions of racism truly fit. Race, as a concept, is purely a social construction. There is no empirical way to define race. I submit that belief in race as a method of differentiation of homo sapiens into groups is a better definition of ‘racism’ than any other.

To put it another way: as long as there are the false divisions that are race, there will be racism.

23

But if the reality is that significant differences due to nature rather than nurture exist, is it then racist to accept reality?

The terms “racist” and “racism” are merely epithets. These terms merely attach a moral stigma to certain ideas without regard for the facticity of those ideas and are used to skew any discussion of race towards the direction of egalitarianism.

24

The only good indian is a dead indian.
Whites are lying oppressors.
Blacks are all lazy and shiftless, although they have a lot of rhythym.

I’d be curious as to the factual basis of these assertions or the evidence that they are not racist.

25

I disagree. The unconscious mind is a weird place. Two examples: (i) there was a survey recently where x% of people thought it was OK for “gays” to serve in the military but x-y% of people thought it was OK for “homosexuals” to serve in the military; and (ii) I just listened to a podcast about touch (Definitely Not the Opera), and several studies supported the idea that customers that touch products are more likely to buy them and will pay more for them, and a diner is more likely to tip a waiter more if the waiter touches the diner (even if the touch is so quick and light that the diner does not consciously perceive it).

If we can agree that being a racist is a bad thing, then we need to confine the definition of racism to those things that we agree are bad for people to believe. I don’t think it’s bad for someone’s unconscious mind to work in ways they don’t understand and can’t anticipate.

Those definitions fail because they don’t allow for actual observable differences between people of different races (i.e, the Bell Curve argument–see more below).

I have no knowledge outside this post of what Chief Pedant believes, but it seems from your post that he buys the Bell Curve argument (i.e., that different races have a measurable IQ difference). I think that buying the Bell Curve argument is a completely different thing from being a racist as I have defined it (and that is part of the reason I structured my definition as I did).

A person that buys the Bell Curve argument does not believe that (e.g.) black people are inherently and irredeemably inferior from (e.g.) white people–he believes only that there are measurable IQ differences among people of different races. And you are completely wrong that the implications of buying the Bell Curve argument are the same as the implications of being a KKK member. One person is just looking at the data of scientific studies while the other holds his belief no matter what scientific studies say. And, as many responses to the Bell Curve like to point out, IQ is not the end-all and be-all of the measure of a human.

26

It is if you apply group-generalizations, well-founded or not, to individuals automatically. Probably it is true that the crime rate of the African-American population is higher than that of the white American population; but it’s still racist, and stupid, to assume any given black you see on the street is a criminal.

27

Just what I thought; desperately trying to pull some Orwellian re-definition bullshit to prevent anyone from calling out racist statements (and those who make them) as friggin racist. pfff… Go play your games.

This reminds me of the stupid stuff that people came up with in the How Should We Combat Modern Racism? thread. I don’t want to spoil it for you but apparently the answer (as Freudian Slit so brilliantly lampooned) was for “niggers to stop acting like niggers.”

Good friggin luck with your re-definition.

28

Despite the above evidence to the contrary, I will assume you are capable of actual rational thought for the purposes of the following question:

Why do you think that it is a bad thing to say that people of different races have measurable differences in IQ if that is supported by the evidence?

29

Claims that a poster is not capable of rational thought would qualify as an insult in this forum, so you will refrain from doing that, again.

orcenio, tone it down so that Rand Rovcer is not tempted to violatre the rules in response to you.

[ /Moderating ]

30

Personal attacks are not welcome in this forum. Debate the ideas being presented without attacking the person posting them.

31

As I said, intent matters less when dealing with racism because intent is so hard to define due to unconscious psychological factors. What goes on in someone’s mind is no matter until that thought is behind a tangible action. And if the actions taken by bell curve adherents and conscious racists are indistinguishable, what does that say? How am I completely wrong? Say a hiring manager of a company does not hire a Hispanic because he believes Hispanics were unlucky in the genetic lottery and would prefer someone more intelligent for the position. This does not have to be a conscious decision; it can merely be a gut preference for the Asian over the Hispanic when making a final decision. Compare that with a completely racist manager who flat out refuses to hire Hispanics. In both cases the person was denied the job because of his race.

And my position is that often times, it is not so simple as this person “just looking at data”. There are myriad unconscious factors at play, and combined with confirmation bias, “just looking at the data” can become proxy for some really ugly racial resentment. The Southern Strategy of racial resentment rebranding is a great use of this. This obviously does not apply to everyone who looks at the data. I am merely saying it is a real phenomenon.

32

Although the question was directed at another poster, I’d like to offer an answer: It’s a bad thing because–thanks to the rules of pop culture–it is very easy to use the language of the Bell Curve argument (intentionally or not) to justify or promote racist policy. Your very question shows this: The data (if one accepts it) actually shows a difference in average IQ scores between racial groups. IMO it was an innocent slip to say people of different races have measurable differences, but I think you see how such a slip could be exploited to make a more racist argument.

In general, the Bell Curve argument has to be couched in so many caveats/clarifications and requires such a level of statistical sophistication that it can’t be accurately presented or fairly argued given the strictures of our media culture. Unfortunately, in a democratic society, the popular media is the only forum available for such an argument; academics can perhaps bat it back and forth and draw some conclusions, but it will make no difference if it has no effect on social policy, and you need democratic support to do that. The problem is similar, I think, to one that faces proponents of global warming: They think the data speaks for itself, but they underestimate the ability of their opponents to exploit the subtleties in the data to undermine the argument before the public.

33

The scenario you present does not show a problem with believing the Bell Curve argument–it shows a problem with someone being an idiot job interviewer. Where a person falls along a bell curve set up based on different characteristics that person has doesn’t matter at all in a job interview setting–what matters is the characteristics of this person.

I think your argument boils down to “The Bell Curve argument can be misused.” But that’s not a reason for it not to exist or to think it is automatically wrong.

I think you are confusing the issue of a research looking at data with a lay person looking at the results of research.

I don’t see the difference with what I said and what you said.

Again, just because the results of research can be misused does not mean that the research shouldn’t be performed or the results should not be believed.

34

Most people harbor attitudes described in the OP according to the harvard implicit association test. About 80% of whites and 50% of blacks associate blacks with more negative traits (scary, criminal, etc) than they do with whites.
The definition in the OP sounds more like chauvinism, like patriotism. The assumption that the nation you were born in is the best on earth since you were born into it and all other nations are inferior. But I don’t know if that is the same thing. I think you can be a black person or asian who considers their race superior, and still not really be a destructive person or influence.

To me it becomes destructive when you try to deny other races equal treatment or opportunities because you consider them dirty, impure or dangerous. If you consider yourself superior, but do not attempt to hold others back, I really don’t see that as a big deal.

In the US we have chauvinistic nationalistic attitudes about ourselves (many feel we are the greatest country on earth, etc). That gives us a false sense of superiority (I don’t agree with that assumption about the US being no. 1 anyway). However we do not try to deny other nations the same benefits we ourselves feel we get (free elections, a reasonably free press). There is a difference between considering your race, ethnicity or nation no. 1, and trying to deny other races, ethnicity or nations the same opportunities, dignity and freedoms that you enjoy. To me that is the definition of racism. A chinese person who considers Asians the best and most superior race, who doesn’t do anything about it isn’t a big deal. One who tries to deny everyone but Chinese Asians the right to vote, to hold a good job, to contribute to science, etc. is a threat though.

Also if you oppose raising Rand Rovers taxes to fund health care reform you are engaged in racialism.

35

There is no reason why the research should not be performed.

There is reason why, (in the case of The Bell Curve, with its fudged numbers, false assumptions, apples to oranges comparisons, and poor statistical reasoning), it should not be believed.

36

Hey, I’m totally fine with people that want to argue the research honestly. I just don’t understand the need for some people to dismiss it out of hand (or argue against it dishonestly, which is the same thing really).

37

That was true in 1994. It might have been true as late as 1997. Today, anyone holding forth on its good qualities has ignored the damning refutations.

The blind adherents and blind opponents might be equally blind, but the opponents have the good fortune to be right, even if by accident.

38

I’m not familiar with these IQ studies, but let’s assume for a moment they were true. What weight would be given to the fact that blacks are disproportionately living at or below the federal poverty line, and that we have evidence to show that the brains of children living in poverty do not fully develop, therefore limiting their ability to learn? It stands to reason then that the (alleged) IQ differences between blacks and other races can be attributed to the environmental condition of living in poverty. Let’s assume for a moment we ARE living in a meritocracy-- that means that people who were impoverished as children, having not reached their full intellectual potential, would likely be limited in terms of social mobility. In other words, they started out in an unfair position and this resulted in an unfair outcome.

To me, when a disproportionate percentage of any given race starts out with such a wide range of disadvantages, from health to intellectual capacity, that’s the very definition of racism, which is why I strongly disagree with your assertion that racism must be conscious. I would argue that the greatest threat to true equality in our society is the belief that racism is a conscious thing, or even an individual thing. When you have large scale demographic trends of this nature, something is going on with the system. The refusal to acknowledge that or do anything to change it, is racism. Even if nobody ever realized what was going on, it would still be racism. Nobody gets off the hook for the unfair society we have created, not you, not me, not Obama, not even the people in those communities. Nobody.

39

Olive, I fuess you haven’t read the Bell Curve. The research controls for a number of factors, including socio-economic status, and still finds differences in IQ along racial lines.

On the second part of your post, are you saying that government policies should be designed to insure equality of outcomes across racial lines?

40

The multiple regression they use has tiny, likely non-material parameters in a model that explains hardly any of the variance in the dependent variable. I can believe that you read the book, but you definitely didn’t read the appendices. This is old stuff, man. Let it go.