This is a continuation of a discussion I’ve been having with magellan01, among other places, in an ATMB thread.
I’ll quote the last two bits of our discussion here:
So what do you think?
As magellan01 said in the other thread you aren’t racist if, when preaching the genetic mental inferiority of “the blacks,” you add a positive (eg they can run pretty fast). It’s like how saying “I have a black friend” blocks all questions on your character/actions. Think of it as…a shield, something that enables you to preach all sorts of pernicious, scientifically unfounded, socially scorned, ethically questionable, racially determined, behavourial traits as genetic and onto anyone/everyone you want (including other posters and their families).
Also remember, your dedication to preaching this “racial realism” will often get you persecuted by some “denialists” demanding that you bring some semblance of genetic evidence for your genetically outrageous claims. This is an unacceptable burden that your online persona is made to bare. Do not let this happen without push-back.
I’m not sure what the import of this is about and whether it’s anything more than semantics, but FWIW I’m not getting your distinction.
I can think of two possibilities, both of them dubious IMO.
-
intelligence and criminality are worse because these notions have a bigger impact on the lives of ethnic groups thought to be less intelligent or more violent.
-
intelligence and criminality are worse because people who believe in racial divides WRT these things are more likely to be motivated by antipathy to other ethnic groups than people who believe in differences WRT other matters.
That’s all I can think of. But the thing is that you’ve not actually said either of these things. So maybe you mean something else, though what that might be is hard to imagine.
My distinction takes into account the history of racism. Racism is notable because of the incredible suffering it’s caused in human history (e.g. slavery, the Holocaust). The sorts of beliefs about races that resulted in this great suffering were judgments about superiority and inferiority of mostly those two human characteristics – intelligence and moral behavior. Slavery was justified because supporters argued that black people were both not intelligent enough and not moral enough to live in society without being controlled by white people. The Holocaust (and other genocides) were justified because supporters argued that the targeted race, due to some intrinsic flaw, was evil and secretly working against the perpetrators.
Suffering due to racism was not because of beliefs about foot speed, or hair texture, or height- it was due to claims about intelligence and moral behavior (and related things like aggression, criminality, etc).
Does that make it clear?
Okay. We agree so far.
Why? Even if their is evidence for the claim? Mind you, I’m not saying I believe this or that whatever evidence may exist is weighty, but IF it were based on something measurable, whether right or wrong, is that raise. If so, why? Why is it different than the other things you mention. And naturally, a good part of the evidence assumes that IQ scores are a reasonably good measure of intelligence.
But the test scores are being used as an indication of intelligence. Now, that claim can be attacked on its own, but one making that claim is hardly necessarily racist. Yes, iintelligence is a different characteristic. So what? It as a characteristic and if it can be measured there is then a factual claim to be made. One of three: blacks are more intelligent than Race X; blacks are less intelligent than race X; there is no difference between the intelligence of blacks and those from Race X. Assuming that C is off the table, that would mean that either A or B are statements of fact. And as such, how in the world is relaying a fact of nature “racist”?
The bar is higher, that is all. If for instance, there was strong evidence that blacks were more intelligent, yet someone held top the belief, sans evidence, that blacks were less intelligent, I’d say that that would be a racist remark.
I disagree. They may very well be any one of those things (which I doubt, by the way).
An insistence on ones personal belief, sans evidence, that flies in the face of strong counter evidence. Again, the bar is just higher than you’re setting it. Using that higher bar simply means your less apt to call someone a racist that actually isn’t a racist. That’s a good thing. Especially since the word/label is so toxic. Why in the world would you want to increase the likelihood of labeling someone with such a word unfairly. AGAIN, what is the upside to doing so? I don’t see any? If one wants to debate fairly, anyway.
I’d ask you to read the post in the other thread by Irishman. I’d like to see what you think of it.
It’s still basically an appeal to emotion.
I try to avoid labeling people. But I have no compunction about labeling beliefs or claims. These beliefs very easily meet the definition of racist beliefs. It doesn’t matter why one believes that- I don’t see how the same belief can be racist in one individual and not racist in another, depending on how they arrived at it.
That’s the thing- everyone who has an actual racist belief thinks it is a fact. They think “well that guy might be a racist, but I’m not… I have good reasons for thinking black people are less intelligent!”. But it’s a racist belief, no matter how they come to it. As to whether they’re a racist for having that belief is a different question. But the belief itself is a racist belief.
I read it, and as far as I can tell, it doesn’t contradict anything I’m saying.
I don’t see how this is so at all. I’m talking about beliefs and claims, not people, and using a pretty basic definition of the word “racist”.
Yes, it sounds like you meant option 1.
That said, I’m still unsure as to whether there’s anything more than semantics involved in this type of discussion, IOW whether there’s anything meaningful in whether something is or is not racism.
I don’t think so, but maybe I don’t understand your option 1. I’m not talking about “which is worse”, I’m talking about what fits the definition of “racist”.
Since we’re talking about the meaning of a word, of course it’s semantics!
Yeah, but you seem to be saying that the very reason it fits the definition of racist is because it’s harmful, in contrast to the other issues.
That said …
In that case, I have to bow out. 
Racism is being discriminatory, generally unpleasant to members of one or more races. It is also treating people differently based on their race.
This actually raises another interesting question: IF your aunt had balls, what would she be?
I mean, if we’re going to be dealing in hypotheticals that have no bearing to reality, then our discussion can range widely afield indeed.
That said, I didn’t see the “whether right or wrong” first time I read this quote. That phrase makes your distinction bizarre. It seems to come down to the idea that if a racist has yet another idiot theory to back up their racism, as long as it’s a measurable claim, it doesn’t matter how idiotically wrong it is, we shouldn’t call it racist.
So, no: having a stupid but measurable wrong idea to support your (impersonal your) racism doesn’t shield you from the accuracy of the “racist” adjective.
And if we’re gonna talk about having a measurable and correct idea that supports racism, we’re back to my question about your aunt.
My observation is that most people use the term “racist” as a term directed against a general concept that includes the following:
- There is a rigidly bounded biologically-based mechanism to divide humans into categories called “races”
- It is appropriate to differentially treat individuals based on which category of race they fall into
Since both of these are not only scientifically ignorant, but typically malicious in intent, the word “racist” is almost always a pejorative within any sort of socially altruistic paradigm.
Careless use of the word has diluted it to become a lazily-applied adjective, often used for every uncomfortable proposition whether or not that proposition has scientifically sound underpinnings. In a scientific discussion the term itself is of no value at all. In a social discussion, the term needs to be carefully defined precisely because it is so widely and carelessly tossed about.
I have the sense that you are suggesting the following:
- Differential treatment based on race has damaged people
- We should therefore not hold racist beliefs
I am curious if you think any belief which might fall under your definition of racism is scientifically incorrect, or if it’s just inappropriate to advance such a belief.
Let me use “sexism” as a parallel. A belief that there are fundamental differences between men and women has damaged women. I believe there are average differences between males and females. Because of this, I believe we should create a special protection for women’s sports and let them compete separately because they, as a group average, are differently enabled. Labeling this belief of mine “sexist” does not carry any weight about whether or not there are differences between men and women.
IOW, there is no relationship between “racism” as an adjective and the underlying (scientific) validity of a proposition. One can argue (and, as you know–I have) that Mother Nature is extremely racist and species-ist and a lot of other cruel things.
I guess I’m trying to figure out if you think it’s inappropriate to hold any “racist” belief, or if you simply think there are no biological differences among races.
Not exactly (though I don’t disagree with either point). I’m suggesting that beliefs and claims that one race is superior or inferior in intelligence and/or moral behavior (which I’m calling the most fundamental of human qualities) fit the definition of “racist” pretty perfectly. I’m suggesting that it’s these beliefs- superiority and inferiority in the inherent (read “genetic”) intelligence and moral behavior of race/ethnic/etc groups- that are responsible for virtually all the racism-based human suffering in history, as opposed to beliefs about hair texture, skin color, foot speed, or other such “superficial” traits which have nothing to do with our fundamental human character.
I’m also suggesting that it doesn’t matter how one arrives at these beliefs or claims- the belief/claim is racist, even if you think you have good reason to believe it is true. This is because everyone with racist beliefs thinks they have good reason!
I have seen no good data or any other reason to believe that any racist claims are true. Obviously, I also think it’s inappropriate to advance such views.
Beliefs that there are differences between men and women is not sexist (and have not damaged women) unless those beliefs include qualities like intelligence, moral behavior, and other similarly fundamental human qualities (leadership, trustworthiness, integrity, etc.).
One could argue that, but there’s no good data for it. And people should be awfully skeptical, and demand extremely high standards, for any data that “just so happens” to reinforce the teachings of a profoundly and brutally oppressive world history.
I think it’s inappropriate to hold racist beliefs, and I think there’s no good data to suggest biological differences among the races in those fundamentally human qualities I have suggested.
I take it, then, that something is “racist” if the quality involved in the discussion is anything other than a characteristic such as a physical difference in appearance; perhaps a lab chemistry or two; perhaps a disease prevalence difference.
Since you feel “racism” by that definition is inappropriate, it’s OK to advance a proposition that mother nature has created different average outcomes for appearance, but one needs to hold that she has left off creating different average outcomes for any non-trivial differences. IOW, evolution has acted on genes that create significant (measurable) differences for something like height or hair color, but not for something like the way the brain works.
Racist propositions like the idea that nature also affects neurophysiologic genes in such a way as to create average differences the way nature affects hair genes in such a way as to create average differences should not be advanced.
I would say that’s sort of a typical approach (naive, in my view, but typical).
I suggest the problem with this approach is that your “fundamental” and my “fundamental” are entirely arbitrary definitions. It seems to me it would get sticky very fast to decide if power sprinting is a “fundamental” human trait or not. For example, using the sexism analogy, it seems there are fundamental differences between men and women for the quality “leadership,” and absent an artificially-applied external agreement voluntarily accepted by men, most societies default to male “leadership” due to a variety of factors ultimately reflecting “fundamental” differences driven by nature (not the least of which is an average strength and aggressiveness superiority allowing men to physically coerce women into submission).
Wrong- I thought I was pretty clear. “Fundamental human characteristics”, remember? Intelligence, moral behavior, and the like.
There is no good data that suggests inherent genetic differences in intelligence or moral behavior for different races/ethnicities/etc. That claim is a racist claim, regardless of why one believes it.
Weak… most societies are patriarchal for reasons of power and culture, not biology. That’s not what I’m talking about it, and I think you know it. Whatever your definition of the qualities/characteristics that are most fundamental to our humanity, I think you’re smart enough to understand what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the historical claims that certain races were more inclined to deviousness/dishonesty/manipulation, and that other groups were not inherently intelligent and “civilized” enough to behave in normal society, and related things. Not sprinting, not hair texture, not susceptibility to certain diseases- intelligence and moral behavior. This is not hard to see when looking at the history of racism and oppression.
Your view is naive because it puts special value on outcomes now, and pretends that the cultural and societal influences of the past (that gave other disparate outcomes) are no longer present. Your view also puts a rather low evidentiary bar on a claim that is historically tied to such barbarity – it would seem wise to demand a very high standard. My view simply demands a high standard of evidence, and does not pretend that disparate outcomes now tell us anything more about genetics than disparate outcomes from 100 or 500 years ago did.
I’m confused. Are these positions unacceptable (and racist) because they’re false? Or are they unacceptable *and * false?