On topic, I would like to add that someone having a theory that there may be some sort of genetic predisposition to culture (or taste in music, or addiction, or homosexuality, or autism) is not racist. As long as the person who came up with the theory is willing to consider all evidence fairly, I see nothing wrong with the theories themselves.
Humans, for example, seem to have a predisposition towards music, whereas dogs do not. Could people’s taste in literature, music, religion, and art have something to do with their genetics? I do not find it outside of the realm of possibility. It is possible that genetics can effect cultural choices noticeably (even predictably), but I have not seen any evidence to support that such is or is not the case.
It’s also hard to even start an experiment that would tell us considering that there is a tremendous debate concerning the existance of any kind of quantifiable differences that seperate us into “races”. Tough issue, but I don’t see arguments for cultural predisposition as racist automatically. They could easily be used as such, but it is not neccesarily so.
Misspelled web addresses such as gogle, w-m, etc. are often snatched up by these unsavory ‘spam’ sites so that they may spread themselves in situations like what just happened now. Why did you repost them as a link, anyway?
Well, don’t worry about it; it’s out of my reach, anyway. I was also asking TVAA the same thing.
I don’t mean to hijack further…I’d like to see if TVAA has anything else to say other than citing a definition for a condition that doesn’t even exist here and a “cool” smiley.
I happen to like Scottish music. REALLY like it. Fiona Ritchie is my Og. I particularly like punk electronic Scottish music, which Lorenna McKennitt, Vanessa Mae, and Wolfstone have touched on in creating melodies. The music fills me with a sort of joy that cannot be totally explained by the nature of it (being jigs and such).
I ask myself why I have an interest in music that isn’t easily accessible to my culture and that I don’t hear every day.
I have some assumptions:
I’m your basic white-bred WASPy grrl of nebulous British Isles pedigree.
I live in the South and listen avidly to country music, which has a heavy Scottish influence (“If you’re going to play in Texas, you got to have a fiddle in the band”)
Do I have genetic/evolutionary markings that predispose me to the music of my ancestors? Can I use geneology to determine that? Is it something else? Perhaps I heard fiddle music in the womb? Environment or birth? These questions lead me to explore myself and my surroundings, to learn as much as possible.
This endevour makes me a good person. I have the desire to learn. So does Joe, from what I can make of his posts.
Racist = bad person.
Racism = going against the common good of mankind, particularly the tenets of equality and openness of other cultures.
TVAA’s pretentious semantic victory is overshadowed by his asshattedness. Fruitbat’s second accusation is very compelling.
I would take that line of reasoning even a little further. Joe K was making a statement about sense of identification rather than personal preferences. He didn’t say “I’ve always been good with money, so I wasn’t surprised to find I had Jewish heritage,” thus implicitly ascribing a stereotypical trait to all Jews. He said he had an “unconscious identification,” and a “fondness for things Jewish.” I can’t possibly see how the implicit assertion that Jews have an identification and fondness for things Jewish could be considered racist.
Seems to me he’s describing something more analagous to the sense of gender identity. If I recall correctly, they have tentitively identified some physiological justification for the unconscious identification always felt by those people who feel that they are an X trapped in a Y body.
In this case, it’s probably less to do with brain chemistry and more to do with happy coincidence and the human predilection to see connections in hindsight. But certainly a far cry from anything that could be called racism.
When one calls someone “racist”, especially on these boards, they are almost always doing it to insult/shame the person. In this particular case, you seem to delight in making people look stupid.
Tell me, TVAA, were your intentions pure? Perhaps I owe you an apology?
I don’t make people look stupid. No one can make someone else look stupid – only they can do that. I merely point it out.
Gender, in some sense, may be at least partially biologically “built-in”. But at the same time it’s widely acknowledged that a great deal of “gender identity” is culturally acquired – people may feel an innate sense of belonging to a specific category, and they then adopt behaviors and attitudes that their cultures use to reinforce those categories. Fine – no problems there.
But claiming that, for example, men have an innate preference for wearings pants instead of skirts goes far, far beyond the relatively modest claim that gender is partially inborn. Isn’t it obvious that men would prefer pants, and women would prefer skirts? Isn’t it self-evident that women should pierce their ears and put substances on their faces, lips, and fingernails? Isn’t it self-evident that men should like being emotionally “strong”, mechanical things, and short haircuts. Isn’t it profoundly natural? Isn’t it clear that the way we do things and the way we were taught reflects an underlying order and basic truth? Isn’t it easy?
I have to stop this post… thinking about this self-perpetuating, self-reinforcing rut in the human consciousness makes me dizzy.
“Racism” may indeed, at least theoretically, refer to a non-culpable misunderstanding of the relationship between genetics and predispositions.
But no-one in the real world uses it for that. Everyone understands that to be called a “racist” has quite negative connotations, and is intended to.
To use the word for the first meaning is insulting - and probably knowingly so. It is akin to calling a Black person a “nigger”, and then arguing that no racial insult was intended, as the word actually derives from the Norse “nidderling” (meaning a worthless person). The theory may be correct (or it may not - the word probably derives from “Niger”); but surely it is obvious that the word is considered insulting today.
Similarly, to accuse someone of “racism” because of an obviously innocent statement is insulting and pointlessly so.
“Racism” as a word/accusation should be saved for the second meaning.
Bolding mine. If by racism we mean either of the above definitions, then bigotry is necessarily implied. Once you add the superiority part a racist must also be a bigot. I would say that very few people think of the word racist without the assumptions of some bigotry.
That being the case, I cannot see racism in Joe K’s post. By the way, I hate the use of the word believe. So, if one has a suspicion, not a belief, that cultural choices could have a genetic basis do they still qualify as racist? If this were true then no scientist could ever conduct research into finding out if there is such a genetic basis without being deemed a racist. If they set out to find an answer, examine all of the available evidence fairly and without bias, and do so without the desire to harm or feel superior to anyone, I just don’t see the word racist working. It caries the implication of bigotry, which neither the scientist (or in this case Joe) has shown IMO.
Now, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if both the scientist and Joe ultimately proved to be wrong. Rip into the idea all you want. I’m guessing that there is little evidence or empiricle support for a claim such as "race affects (can affect) cultural/musical tastes ". Considering race is so non-specific (and perhaps non-existant), it would seem trying to prove a connection to race and anything will more likely than not fail. But asking the questions and/or researching the answers does not make one a bigot (which is an implication I cannot divorce from the word racism).
