The defect in this assertion is that making it clear you hold such a belief encourages others in not only holding a similar belief, but acting on it as well.
Anyone believing members of another ethnic group are less than human, who is not rapidly convinced of the errors of his ways by a simple dose of evidence, is a hopeless case, for whom a serious social penalty is entirely appropriate.
A little more like saying, “The Earth is a turd.” There is no moral quality or lack of it to a cube, but calling something a turd is pretty inescapably demeaning.
While individual words may not have a moral quality, the particular choice of words in the context of the audience, conversation/discussion, etc does.
To use a well known (and well worn) trope: “Steophan is a wife beater.” Any poster putting that into a discussion and suggesting there’s no moral component implied is either stupid or a liar.
The statement cannot be objectively true because subhuman is a judgement call, not a measurement based on facts. Therefore, saying it is racist, or idiotic, or crazy.
It is totally NOT analogous to “The earth is a cube” because a cube is an objective object with well-defined dimensions while subhuman is not.
I think it is racist. Part of the reason is that the term “subhuman” is a qualitative one clearly implying “less than” I can’t see how that could not be racist.
I think the point attempted by the OP is that point to points of fact cannot be racist in and of themselves. If one were to attempt to claim that blacks are not human (not as bad as “subhuman”, IMO), I think it will most likely be a racist statement in context. But it is not, in and of itself, racist. It’s a claim that is either right or wrong. But if one were to espouse that view as his own, I would say that the statement is then clearly racist, as is the speaker.
Hardly. They are a wide variety of skin tones, mostly in the brown range, but none of them are even close to being black. Otherwise it’s just a tautology meaning “the people that I classify as black are the people I classify as black”.
Whether or not this is true (not that I make it a habit of calling people racist), so what? Why can’t a conversation and education start with a “challenge to the person’s entire character”?
If a stranger makes a “challenge to my entire character”, I either brush it off (who cares what a stranger thinks!) or try to engage in a reasoned discussion. I’m certainly not going to react defensively (or at least I’m going to try not to).
And if someone I care about does it, I’ll certainly try and engage in a reasoned discussion.
Okay – so now I think you might understand how I feel about the assertion “blacks are inherently less intelligent, on average, due to genetics” – in my view, “inherently less intelligent” clearly implies “less than”, and I can’t see how that could not be racist.
You probably won’t agree, but I think (and hope) that at least you will now see how I view that statement (and maybe other things too).
Defining something as subhuman can’t be a statement of objective fact. When you define something in terms of being below something else (and that’s what sub means) and you’re not literally describing their location then you’re making a moral judgement.
If you say that lions and tigers are different animals then you’re making an objective statement of fact. But if you say that lions are subtigers then you’re stating your subjective opinion on their relative worth.
Not to go off on a tangent, but that’s ridiculous.
I’m an engineer determining the carrying capacity of an elevator. I treat its passengers as objects that weigh an average of two hundred pounds. Am I being evil?
We’re obviously not going to agree on this. Is it racist to say that blacks, on average, have less height? More melanin in their skin? More melanin in their skin? I say no, regardless of the correctness of the statement.
I understand that “intelligence” is different, in that it is something that we greatly value. But that really doesn’t matter as far as the claims that I’ve seen being made. I see it couched as a hypothesis…and that “based on A, B, and C, it appears that blacks may be, on average, less intelligent”. That doesn’t mean it’s true. I means that their is some evidence that points to the difference in performance, writ large, being caused by genetics.
I do think you knee-jerkingly bristle at such statements. It surprises me that, you an obviously intelligent, level headed guy(?) would not be able to see past your own assumptions to see that it is one explanation. Also, even if it is true (which, as I’ve said, my money would be against), it makes no statement about any individual black person. Asians my me shorter in stature generally, but no one would claim that has any bearing on Yao Ming.
Anyway, just wanted to answer your initial question and follow up. Neither of us have time rehash the same debate AGAIN.
And I see it quite differently – I see these claims, regardless of the intention, as assertions about the intrinsic human character and human qualities of a huge group. Again, like you view “subhuman”. Even if someone doesn’t think they’re making such an assertion, that’s what I think it is. It doesn’t mean that the person is racist, but I’m going to call the claim racist.
Right, but “on average, blacks are ‘less human’ or ‘more subhuman’” makes “no statement about any individual black person”… but it’s still racist (and I think you’ll agree).
That’s fine. We’ve identified the core of our difference here, I think – I see claims about the inherent intelligence of a group the same way you see claims that they are “subhuman”.