If one tried hard enough, one could probably assemble an unsavory list of 100% truthful facts about most categories of people, be they Jews, blacks, Muslims, women, Christians, men, Italians, atheists, Southerners, etc.
At what point, though, does this cross over into bigotry? Does it depend on the speaker’s identity/intention? Without a doubt, if white supremacists began circulating a list of unsavory-but-truthful facts about black people, it would be considered a racist act (IIRC, that was actually a tiny plot device used in a Tom Clancy novel, but someone correct me if I’m wrong.) But if it were someone like Obama or Jesse Jackson saying the exact same things - but with completely different motives - is it then different?
Is it the addition of qualifiers like “some” or “not all” that makes it non-bigoted? (i.e. *some *Muslims are violent terrorists, *some *Mexicans are drug dealers, *some *Jews are bankers, *some *West Virginians are redneck hicks, etc.)
For clarification, just about nothing would apply to 100% of a given group, true. But you could produce truthful claims like: “Such-and-such a race accounts for a disproportionate amount of crimes in the US, or Muslims have committed such-and-such a percentage of hijackings,” etc.
But then you need to determine these disproportionate amounts are due to race or some other factor (like living in poverty disproportionately to other races).
And if they live in poverty disproportionately is that due to something innate to the race or societal discrimination where they live?
What facts are you talking about? Crime stats? Crime stats aren’t racist (and, in fact, crime stats don’t tell us anything except incidents reported and characterized by law enforcement). I’m not aware of any racist or bigoted facts. If you disagree, can you provide an example?
There is such an infinitesimally small set of actual real true facts about genetically distinct communities of human beings, most of them superficial (visual) or medical, and such a plethora of cultural assumptions and complicated belief systems both within and about them, that your search for “facts about races” is doomed. Indeed, your question is in itself fully charged with racial assumptions and the complacent fake naivete common to those of a privileged class.
I tend to think it’s the intent behind listing these things that’s the dividing line.
I mean, if someone makes the point that say… black people are more prone to diabetes due to a combination of biological and cultural practices, that’s perfectly fine in a medical/public health context. It IS significant and worth being aware of for those purposes.
But if someone lists those facts, with the intent of saying something negative about black people that’s not a clinical fact, then that strays into bigotry.
Saying violent crime is disproportionately perpetrated by blacks in the United States doesn’t seem like a bigoted statement to me. There are may be bigoted justifications for that, but stating the fact isn’t bigoted.
Stating that Asians do better than whites on standardized tests is stating a fact (is this a fact? My impression is that it is). Do you think that’s bigoted?
Maybe you can start with a few facts that are bigoted.
The point is - is it the speaker’s identity, intention, etc. that makes a statement bigoted?
If Barack Obama said, “African-Americans have a statistically high rate of pregnancy out of wedlock,” (assuming that’s true,) that would be regarded one way; if a Klansman said the exact same thing, that would probably be regarded very differently.
Could you provide just one example or a 100% truthful fact about any category of people, other than a tautology? (All tall people are taller than average.) And can you provide a meaningful definition of a “category” of people, so that 100% of the category exhibits 100% of the truthful fact trait?
If you make a large list of facts, and those facts all have in common that they’re derogatory to a specific group (without including any facts that are favorable to that group, or derogatory to other groups), and that’s all those facts have in common, then yes, it’s probably bigoted.
As with anything, the context matters a whole lot.
If you tell me about the time you got ripped off by a landlord and you mention that he is a Jew, Imma think you’re a bigot. Because even though it is true that he is a Jew, that is a fact that has no relevance to the story.
What’s my goal behind making this judgment? Am I trying to figure out whether I should help you [not the OP, the hypothetical “you” compiling a list of facts] disseminate this list, or am I trying to figure out whether you’re a bigot?
If it’s the latter, absolutely your intent matters. If it’s the former, I don’t care about your intent. I pay attention to the impact of the list. If the impact of the list will be that a group of people is treated unfairly by others who draw incorrect conclusions from the list, you may have the best of intentions, I don’t care. I shouldn’t help you disseminate it, and I should probably help provide the context that will lead to people not drawing incorrect conclusions.
Hypothetical Obama statement: African-Americans have a statistically high rate of pregnancy out of wedlock, so we should consider focusing some extra family planning federal funds to such areas.
Hypothetical Klansman statement: Blacks are irresponsible, sex-crazed savages. In fact, African-Americans have a statistically high rate of pregnancy out of wedlock.
Is this what you mean? I’d say the whole second statement is bigoted, even though it happens to include a verifiable fact (assuming it’s true).
Just to be clear, saying a given race suffers disproportionately from diabetes in your country has nothing to say about that race in general but rather the conditions most people of that race are subject to in your country.
If you say, “Race-X is inferior because they had a disposition to diabetes” is bigoted if we know that they are no different than any other race in this regard and suffer from poverty at a higher rate which their race does suffer from because of societal reasons.
Unless you can unlink the circumstances from the race and show a given race does share disposition to some effect (e.g. sickle cell anemia is endemic to African and Mediterranean countries).
A factual bigot is a tautology, that is to say someone who merely deals with the facts can’t be a bigot.
There are a few problems though, one, there’s no shortage of snidely weasels that try to play games, and two there’s also no shortage of people that will yell bigot at anyone whether its granted or not.
I think of bigots as people who criticize that which they doesn’t understand, so the two cases above are the dishonest bigot and the bigot in denial.
In any case I think those two types feed of each other, one gets their kicks out of trolling the later, and those in turn get their kicks out of finger pointing not just at the trolls, but also at unmasking “bigots” who believe the same facts (usually with a reference to canine signaling devices); to the detriment of everyone else not interested in their games.