# What is racism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334 "2013-11-07T15:15:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/261 "2013-11-24T18:40:29Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Certainly, it seems to have escaped the notice of most people who want to exalt genetics as the major driver for IQ tests. > > You are still pretending your own variation of egalitarianism. > > As I noted, there are many routes to success. Education is a good one, but not anywhere near the only one. If a number of people have achieved success without actually buying into the current educational system, they are unlikely to think of that system as being the only route to success. If they have achieved success in spite of roadblocks that they have encountered in the educational system, they are unlikely to put much faith in “education.” > > If you can provide some evidence that a significant number of wealthy black people believed that education was the single most important factor in achieving their success and that there is external evidence to support that belief, you will have established a basis for your beliefs. (Not proof, but certainly a basis.) Until then, you are simply inventing scenarios that support your beliefs. > > If you would like to wave around anecdotes, I will note that I have worked with a number of quite wealthy (white) people and I have only rarely found that education was a prime factor in their wealth. (Salesmanship and gamesmanship seemed to be much bigger factors.) But the question is why wealthy and educated blacks underscore poor and uneducated whites. The reply is “cultural factors.” Is it the case then, that you think wealthy blacks so undermine the value of an education that their children turn in crappier scores than poor and uneducated whites? And now (as is typical of the egalitarian crowd), I have to do a study to prove your default position is invalid? I submit that wealthy black children who have educated parents have no cultural excuse to perform more poorly than children from poor and uneducated white parents. Poorer scores than their wealthy white peers? Maybe. But so poorly that their scores barely are on par with the poor and uneducated white families? I am unconvinced. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/262 "2013-11-24T18:49:37Z")
Originally Posted by Chief Pedant:" \*"But if I, as a non-egalitarian (genetically speaking), agree there are no good biologically-defined “races” and I simply make the observation that gene pools for SIRE groups are different, nature evolves all genes, and therefore it’s more probable than not that observed differences are partly driven by genes, am I making a “racist” statement? Can I have a racist position even though I really don’t accept races?\*" > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > “More probable than not”? Yeah, probably racist. You pretend that you are open to “good science” and truth. But you have already decided that genetically-driven non-significant differences among SIRE groups is a “racist” concept. I submit that this is a very poor approach to science, poisoning any ability to come to the truth. You have a priori painted an outcome into a highly inflammatory societal construct. Many others think the same way, of course. But it’s no different that the Creationist who holds a paradigm so dear that they are simply unable to accept any challenge to it because such a challenge would be too inconvenient a truth. Indeed; not only inconvenient, but destructive to the foundation of their belief system. I don’t mind use of the term “racist” in a social setting. But because you have already decided that genetic differences driving non-significant outcomes between human groups is “racist,” you are unable to evaluate the plausibility of such a concept objectively. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/263 "2013-11-24T19:18:00Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > You pretend that you are open to “good science” and truth. But you have already decided that genetically-driven non-significant differences among SIRE groups is a “racist” concept. > > I submit that this is a very poor approach to science, poisoning any ability to come to the truth. You have a priori painted an outcome into a highly inflammatory societal construct. > > Many others think the same way, of course. But it’s no different that the Creationist who holds a paradigm so dear that they are simply unable to accept any challenge to it because such a challenge would be too inconvenient a truth. Indeed; not only inconvenient, but destructive to the foundation of their belief system. > > I don’t mind use of the term “racist” in a social setting. But because you have already decided that genetic differences driving non-significant outcomes between human groups is “racist,” you are unable to evaluate the plausibility of such a concept objectively. You don’t have a problem with me, you have a problem with the dictionary. And you’ve said it yourself before- you believe that _nature may be racist_. I don’t believe there’s nearly good enough reason to claim this is so, but you’ve clearly admitted that you do, using the same word. Crying foul is just whining. If there were actually very strong evidence, in the form of the genes for intelligence and their prevalence among different populations, then I think we English-speakers might think about changing the use of the word “racist”. But there’s not- we have none of that. So, for now, saying that “blacks are inherently dumber”, using whatever pretty turn of phrase you like, is a racist statement. And poor you, feeling sorry for yourself and the rest of the “blacks are dumber” crowd for being called out. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/264 "2013-11-24T21:55:21Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > And now (as is typical of the egalitarian crowd), I have to do a study to prove your default position is invalid? You are the one who made the odd implication that people of similar wealth have similar views of education so that you could dismiss culture as a factor in scores. > [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I submit that wealthy black children who have educated parents have no cultural excuse to perform more poorly than children from poor and uneducated white parents. Poorer scores than their wealthy white peers? Maybe. But so poorly that their scores barely are on par with the poor and uneducated white families? I am unconvinced. I submit that since you do not appear to have any accurate information on the subject, you are simply expressing your own socio-economic egalitarianism. (For that matter, if these kids are less intelligent than the white kids against whom you are comparing them, why do we not have information of the IQ scores of their parents compared to the white and Asian parents of the same socio-economic strata? Perhaps those parents had equally “low” IQs and were successful anyway. You are claiming that the black parents have been “smart” enough and sufficiently educated to achieve a certain level of wealth, but without any indication that IQ had anything to do with it. To me that suggests that “IQ” as a predictor of success has probably been examined improperly, which raises all sorts of questions as to why we are bothering to play with such an poorly supported number.) ---
**Author:** ![Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/aca169/32.png) [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inbred_Mm_domesticus)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2013, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/265 "2013-11-24T23:56:43Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I am well acquainted with Steele’s work–along with criticisms of it. I don’t think it holds water. Which studies that emphasize “nurture” for differences in test scores between African-Americans and other groups do you find compelling? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/266 "2013-11-25T00:12:30Z")
Assuming success on SAT scores is correlated most closely due to wealth is extremely foolish. My mother was the chair of the English department at a boarding school and in her experience there were other factors vastly more significant. For example, teachers, as she well knew, made little money but the children of teachers, artists(another group not exactly rolling in dough), along with Rabbis and Episcopal Ministers(again, not rolling in dough) often did far better on the SATs than the children from wealthier families which didn’t necessarily encourage their children to read. In fact, she found that whether kids grew up in houses with books and/or where reading was encouraged was vastly more important. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/267 "2013-11-25T00:17:20Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You are the one who made the odd implication that people of similar wealth have similar views of education so that you could dismiss culture as a factor in scores. > > I submit that since you do not appear to have any accurate information on the subject, you are simply expressing your own socio-economic egalitarianism. > > (For that matter, if these kids are less intelligent than the white kids against whom you are comparing them, why do we not have information of the IQ scores of their parents compared to the white and Asian parents of the same socio-economic strata? Perhaps those parents had equally “low” IQs and were successful anyway. You are claiming that the black parents have been “smart” enough and sufficiently educated to achieve a certain level of wealth, but without any indication that IQ had anything to do with it. To me that suggests that “IQ” as a predictor of success has probably been examined improperly, which raises all sorts of questions as to why we are bothering to play with such an poorly supported number.) It’s also worth noting that many of the white kids taking the SATs don’t really come from poor families. According to Andrew Hacker his research indicated that many of the “poor” white kids from supposedly “working class” families with high SATs were simply temporarily living with recently divorced mothers rather than coming from what we would think of as traditionally poor families. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/268 "2013-11-25T05:18:13Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > How are the citations I posted not an assertion that genetics is _ **“THE”** _ driver for intelligence? > > I have no idea what you are trying to say, unless you are misreading “major” for “exclusive,” which I certainly did not say. You’re missing my point. Your original statement claimed that people (race realists) believe that genetics are THE major driver of intelligence. Your later statement backs that up to A major driver. I don’t know of anyone on these boards that holds the first position. That was my point. I agree that what you said is not as bad as “the exclusive driver”, but it still went too far. I think that most people have been arguing (well, I have anyway) that it looks like genetics is simply a factor in intelligence. If **Chief Pendant** believes otherwise he can correct me. As I said, I simply believe that it may very well be a factor. There is some _evidence_ to support that. Though not of the “proof” variety that **iiandyiiii** and I think others demand, which is completely unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/269 "2013-11-25T06:35:29Z")
Requiring some sort of proof for scientific statements is _unreasonable_, now? You’re right, that’d be as crazy as…I don’t know…asking someone to back up the scientific “correlations” they allege exist between race and phenotypic expressions :rolleyes: Science: you fail at it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/270 "2013-11-25T14:11:47Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] How are the citations I posted not an assertion that genetics is “THE” driver for intelligence? [/QUOTE] Because neither of them say that genetics is THE major driver for intelligence, which is what you claimed. Since you are now denying that you meant what you said, I guess we can consider the point refuted. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/271 "2013-11-25T15:10:24Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Assuming success on SAT scores is correlated most closely due to wealth is extremely foolish. > > My mother was the chair of the English department at a boarding school and in her experience there were other factors vastly more significant. > > For example, teachers, as she well knew, made little money but the children of teachers, artists(another group not exactly rolling in dough), along with Rabbis and Episcopal Ministers(again, not rolling in dough) often did far better on the SATs than the children from wealthier families which didn’t necessarily encourage their children to read. > > In fact, she found that whether kids grew up in houses with books and/or where reading was encouraged was vastly more important. Great point. Income just isn’t a reliable proxy for environment. A big share of the black and Latino families in the bracket identified as upper income actually earn that money from blue collar jobs like truck driving, bus driving, the construction trades, oil field work, etc. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/272 "2013-11-25T15:19:37Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Requiring some sort of proof for scientific statements is _unreasonable_, now? > > You’re right, that’d be as crazy as…I don’t know…asking someone to back up the scientific “correlations” they allege exist between race and phenotypic expressions :rolleyes: > > Science: you fail at it. Ignoring any evidence that doesn’t rise to the level of “proof” is unreasonable. For scientists and laymen alike. So you may dismount off your little pony. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/273 "2013-11-25T15:28:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Ignoring any evidence that doesn’t rise to the level of “proof” is unreasonable. For scientists and laymen alike. What constitutes “proof” in your head, that it is so “unreasonable” to ask for it as a standard of acceptance of arguments? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/274 "2013-11-25T15:33:41Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > What constitutes “proof” in your head, that it is so “unreasonable” to ask for it as a standard of acceptance of arguments? Look at what **iiandyiiii** has demanded. Have you not been reading the thread. But let’s make this easier. What is a minimum amount of evidence that you would feel would qualify as such? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/275 "2013-11-25T15:51:03Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Look at what **iiandyiiii** has demanded. Have you not been reading the thread. But let’s make this easier. What is a minimum amount of evidence that you would feel would qualify as such? [sarcasm]Yes, it’s _so unreasonable_ to ask for genetic evidence, such as the prevalence of the genes for high intelligence among various groups, before making a claim about that group’s genes for high intelligence…[/sarcasm] ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/276 "2013-11-25T16:00:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Look at what **iiandyiiii** has demanded. Have you not been reading the thread. :rolleyes: He’s asked for genetic evidence for a statement _about genetics._ There’s nothing “unreasonable” about that. And the minimum \* I’d \*require is that people who make statements about, oh, I don’t know, “correlation”, actually back that up with any scientific evidence at all… ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/277 "2013-11-25T17:01:07Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > I find the notion that educated and wealthy black parents are simply too ignorant(?) to press for their children to achieve academically to be pretty lame. Were I an educated black parent, successful precisely because of my education, I think I’d be insulted at the suggestion I am that stupid. > > What’s the cultural tradition educated blacks are promoting for their children that supercedes a good education? Ignorance? Basketball? Rapper culture? > > Most of the highly educated blacks I know live lives and walk in circles pretty much like the other highly educated blacks I know…I’m not terribly convinced their lives or paradigms are much different at all, in terms of goals, values and an understanding of the value of an education to drive success. What you’re missing here is that parents are not the sole determinants of their children’s futures (much to the chagrin of many parents). IMO there are two important factors at work here. 1. Black culture. Fact is that a lot of people group themselves by race and gravitate to others of the same race as themselves. Which means that a lot children of middle and upper class black parents hang out with and identify with other blacks, most of whom are lower class and who as a group frequently take a very negative view of education. This has an influence on a lot of black kids growing up in middle class backgrounds or better. [My brother had as tenants a black family. He knew and liked the father - a good and decent man. Lower middle class guy with a steady job - the type of guy you see working in the DMV or the like. But the guy sent his kids to the local school and his son hung out with the other black kids, and ended up joining a street gang and being shot dead. Very sad story. But the point here is that this kid was not anything like his parents, and it had a lot to do with his being black. Had he been white with the same parents, he would probably not have identified with street gang kids, not signed up himself, and come to a better end. Maybe even gone to college and outshone his parents.] 1. Anti-racist propaganda. IMO, one unintended side effect of the constant harping about racism and alleged racism in this country is that it sends a message to blacks and black kids that they will have a very tough time “playing by the rules”, that whites who are successful working with the system have a much easier time than they would and they will have to work twice as hard to make it. It’s tough enough for kids to defer instant gratification in favor of studying boring schoolwork, but if you additionally think this is not likely to lead to success anyway you might be even more inclined to just chuck it all and focus on having a good time and being cool and tell yourself you’ll eventually make it big as a rapper like that other guy. Bottom line is that you can’t ignore the impact of race even if income specifically has been eliminated as a factor. On another note, if I can repeat something from post #166 which you might have missed, > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > **Chief Pedant** , > > Do you care to address two arguments from evidence against your position? > > 1. The claim that among recent immigrants there is no difference in intelligence between these different groups. > > 2. That among people whose ancestry is a mixture of different groups, there is no correlation between the percentage of ancestry from one or another group and intelligence. Any comment? > [@MrDibble](#): > > Requiring some sort of proof for scientific statements is _unreasonable_, now? Depends on the claim. If the claim is that such-and-such might be true, or even seems to be true, or is probably true, then requiring proof is unreasonable. If the claim is is definitely true, then it’s not unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/278 "2013-11-25T19:02:19Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Depends on the claim. > > If the claim is that such-and-such might be true, or even seems to be true, or is probably true, then requiring proof is unreasonable. If the claim is is definitely true, then it’s not unreasonable. That is precisely what I’ve been saying. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/279 "2013-11-25T19:03:23Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > :rolleyes: He’s asked for genetic evidence for a statement _about genetics._ There’s nothing “unreasonable” about that. > > And the minimum \* I’d \*require is that people who make statements about, oh, I don’t know, “correlation”, actually back that up with any scientific evidence at all… :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2013, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/280 "2013-11-25T19:43:43Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > :rolleyes: As even Fotheringay-Phipps mentions, it is not unreasonable to demand genetic evidence that is an important cause of the difference of intelligence among races when one side claims that that is the case. After so many years of claiming that it is there, it is not unreasonable to demand it, but as per the previous link I looked at (that was brought by an skeptic) it actually gave us more evidence that the suspected intelligence genes in that study are present in \*\*all \*\*“races”. That study also pointed to even more studies that mentioned that environmental factors like nutrition are important for those genes to be more active. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334.md?page=15)