That’s pretty different that the common usage and definition that I understand. Definitions and usage of words change over time, sometimes significantly, so that may explain it.
I’m not surprised that the kind denizens of the SDMB (hey, that’s me too!) would hijack a thread on racism to make it one about gender.
Anyway, these threads go nowhere. The mods will never budge on calling a duck a duck, but I appreciate the efforts of the users that push for some sense. Oh well. I’ll just take my inferior intelligence and play basketball I guess.
What’s your definition then? While racism and racist are modern words, the concept is ancient. It’s discussed in Baldson’s Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome, where it’s hard to tell if he is mocking or agreeing at times, and of course Dauge’s incredibly long but interesting musings on how Romans viewed the savages at the gates (Le Barbare. Recherches sur la conception romaine de la barbarie et de la civilisation , starting page 57).
The most recent definitions of course include the original definition, from 1915 or so.
If racist isn’t describing somebody who believes in racism, then what is it descriptive of? Bigotry, xenophobia and prejudice are not the same as racism.
Racism is the recent term, which began as scientific racism, it’s related to modern ideas about evolution and genetics. While some people will deny there was any racism before this, describing the same behaviors as prejudices, and using ethnic or cultural characteristics as the basis of the behavior, they are not the same. That argument is not over of course.
But the term racist by it’s nature means somebody believes in the modern racism idea. Not that they simply have racial bigotry, are prejudiced and judge others by appearances, culture, language or such.
Trying to make racism mean other things defiles the language.
Well I hijacked it right back, so there.
I even had to crack a book or two to do it.
I think “racist” fairly describes “someone who believes in racism”, and the definitions in the post above fit much more closely to my understanding then the post I responded to earlier.
By those definitions, I can’t see that CP would quality as a racist. There’s a difference between saying genetics is the primary (or eve one of the main) determinants of an individual’s characteristics and saying that race is.
no the concept of the in-group and the out-group, the Us and the Barbarian is ancient.
the idea of race and racism in this modern sense is not ancient at all, it is recent and not older than the 19e century.
I’m not sure he is either (though I don’t think those are the only definitions that fit), so I haven’t called him a racist. But I do think his assertions that black people are inherently inferior in intelligence on average, due to genetics, are racist assertions, so I have no problem with calling certain assertions and claims racist.
This is a joke I hope, since CP spends all of his time in discussions genetic making argument that race is a valid and primary basis of the genetic analysis, although sometime when in a corner he waves around poorly used statistical terms as a masque, he is clearly one with *a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority… * - it is a strange hobby to advance the argument for no reason at all…
And what a horror to use the simple english noun for the phrase definitional… we can feel so much better that the elevated, delicate and refined discourse of the GD in all its deep learning for the very smartest and very best internet place is protected from the shock and the learned exploration of the reasons of the essential average genetical inferiority of intelligence of the africans can be discussed in the calm fashion as in the safety of the salons of la comtesse de Gercy and other insights into the barbarismes of the unrefined peoples.
Emphasis added. That assertion doesn’t fit the definition, either.
The only trouble with this statement is that it is false. Chief Pedant has never stated that race is the primary determinant of human traits.
If you have a cite to the contrary, where he has stated that it is the primary determinant, bring it out, but you don’t.
It is rather like your mistake in the Pit thread - “some” is a different word from “all” and means something different, and “a factor” is different from “the primary factor”.
Regards,
Shodan
Why on earth not?
I think it does (a belief “that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”), but there are other definitions too – “racial prejudice”, for example, which I believe this also fits into. This is why I single out claims about intelligence (as well as things like aggression), rather than claims about athletics – claims about intelligence have historically been about inherent superiority and inferiority. I think they still are, when it comes to race. I don’t think claims about athletics historically have been about inherent superiority and inferiority.
It’s all bigotry.
The most recent posters I’ve seen cast doubt upon the application of the term racist in this context are John Mace and Shodan, so maybe you could answer these questions:
What does CP argue on the topic of race and differential performance on standardized tests?
What is the best term for somebody who spends so much time arguing his position?
I am having such a hard time understanding your positions on the matter because you keep saying what you think his behavior is not. So what is it?
I don’t understand the need to label anybody, so I’m going to skip that part. If you must have a label, then call him “the poster who spends a lot of time arguing that different racial/ethnic groups have different levels of intelligence”.
But, as I said above, I think that in order for someone to be a racist they have to harbor some emotional disdain for a given race. CP is, AFAICT, just following what he sees the data to be. If the data said that blacks scored higher on IQ tests, I think he’d be fine with that.
You know if it was just one of several odd theories he promulgated, I’d just think he was wrong. But he’s such a one trick pony, I am suspicious. 
I think other posts have revealed CP’s true feelings on the subject, whatever he admits… but those posts aren’t why I label some of his assertions as racist. In my mind, it doesn’t matter why someone says that the intelligence of black people is inherently inferior – a neo-Nazi (which I wouldn’t call CP) might truly believe that he is “just following what he sees the data to be”. Most white supremacists (which I also wouldn’t call CP) are genuine, I believe – they genuinely think the evidence indicates black people are inferior.
I don’t think motive matters, in such cases – I only can judge the assertions, and I find that such assertions, so far at least, have always been racist. I don’t see a problem in labeling them as such.
To be honest, I have not read all of CP’s posts. I don’t even know if I’ve most of them. You guys may be more expert in that area than I am. I’m just going by what I’ve read, and the tendency of people here to exaggerate or mischaracterize his posts. For example, the idea that he literally compared blacks to cockroaches is so absurd that I’m shocked anyone would actually make it.
I argued with him early on, but as I think I said in the Pit thread, got tired of banging my head against a wall.
This is exactly your problem. You’re bringing emotion into the discussion. It’s there directly and indirectly, with terms like inferior, superior. You think that nature cares about historical abuses of one race by another, for whatever reason. It doesn’t. Your argument goes to, “You know, it might be better to not even look at these things, due to the real-world ramifications the findings may have.” That is a valid position. But it is not one that foes to the science of it. Races differ. Some of those differences we can see and measure fairly easily. Hell, they’re basically indisputable. Others are harder to see. And how genes correlate with levels of intelligence might be the hardest thing of all to parse out, for a variety of reasons.
But you want to use you well-intioned emotional argument to quash scientific theory and inquiry. No, don’t deny it. That is exactly what you want to do and have virtually admitted it but not wanting to give people who you perceive as making racist statements the smallest benefit of the doubt. You insist on using a term that you know has a negative and insulting connotation. Hell, that’s packed into its primary definition. But you try to weasel around it by arguing that the word has a more benign meaning, and you don’t mean it as an insult. When another word is offered that communicates the benign part, you reject using it. Why? Because you don’t want to give these people who make statements you wish they weren’t making any quarter whatsoever.
Your position mandates that a statement like, “Blacks have higher levels of melanin in their skin” is racist. Racial isn’t good enough for you. I think that’s because you know that if you agree to its usage there you’ll have to agree to its usage in a statement like, “The lower IQ scores of Blacks may be due to genetic factors.” You don’t want thoughts like that floating around, so you seek to make the discussion taboo by insisting that you use racist to describe the statement.
As others have pointed out, there are several problems with this. One major one is that you strip the word of its power. When you call a scientist racist for hypothesizing about racial differences and use the same word to describe the actions, beliefs or statements of a vile white supremacist skinhead, you ruin the language and are making the word less valuable, both in terms of clarity and the power it has to be the insult that everyone knows it is. But you take the short-term view: as long as I can exploit/misuse the power of the word to quash merely racial stamens I personally don’t like, it’s worth it. And if you, in the process, unfairly label a non-racist as such (indirectly, through labeling his statements as racist) then, well, that’ll teach him to make those statements again.
But at least people can see what your game is now. Will it stop you? I doubt it. After all, there’s a potential injustice that can be advanced from these oh-so-vile thoughts, and you are, after all. The Mighty Injustice Fighter.
:rolleyes: