# 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:** 4
**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 14, 2013, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/61 "2013-11-14T19:31:11Z")
That’s how it seems to me, to a large degree. The conversion would be like this: A: “X is true” B: “You don’t really mean X is true, you really mean Y is true but are afraid to admit it. And Y is evil and bogus and therefore you are evil and no one should listen to anything you say.” But in the context of this thread this is not necessary. As noted in post #57, the OP of this thread doesn’t seem to require this logic. He seems to be saying pretty clearly without any regard to the basis for the claim that “That’s pretty much the purest example of a racist belief – the belief that one race is inherently less intelligent, or less moral, on average, than another race”. (Having seen a number of threads on the subject, I can tell you that quite a lot of people share that view.) I assume you would disagree with that? ---
**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 14, 2013, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/62 "2013-11-14T20:14:51Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Been around the mulberry bush with you on this before, and I’m aware of your visceral antipathy to the notion of race-based genetic differences in IQ. It only is deserving of rejection and antipathy because it’s a “theory” that fails where it starts. “Race-based” is an imprecise term derived from cultural classification and not from any genetic data. It’s new-improved-version “population” is again the same exact behavior, just a new package. These facts have been discussed repeatedly in prior threads. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > [I should also add that in addition to differing in an emphasis on skeletal vs. genetic differences, perhaps the more fundamental difference is that the old theories were based on a cruder understanding of race, and tended to think of races as being more monolithic, and based on morphology and geography, while modern understanding is that these so-called races are really comprised of subgroups who often have little connection to each other. Thus the discussion has shifted from the notion that all members of various races had certain racial characteristics to the notion that certain genes are more prevalent in some sub-populations, and - by extension - in some broader populations. This is significant, because the old notions of race are probably the most debunked aspect of those racial difference theories. (This is what I objected to earlier about Malthus’ post.)] How come they have failed to turn this new understanding, this new theory into a single successful test of this theory? The answer is simple, they do not want to do the hard work of actually testing their ideas. Their goal isn’t to test the theory at all. The goal is to make a theory based on their racist ideology and then wrap it up in the data they’ve either incorrectly gathered or interpreted to support it. Again, this is no different than the 1800s. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Bottom line remains that there’s nothing fundamentally different – in respect to this particular issue – than any other area of science. Science advances, in all fields, and old theories fall away and are replaced by new theories. So you’re saying these people and possibly yourself are just interested in population differences in intelligence? That’s what you are interested in? > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > If old-time doctors tried to explain some medical phenomenon based on an approach to biology that turned out to be completely wrong, that does not mean that the phenomenon itself has been debunked or that modern attempts to explain should be rejected, or judged by how closely they adhere to the ancient explanation. If you can debunk a given theory then that refutation needs to be able to stand on its own, and the fact that you debunked an ancient theory that shared certain aspects has zero bearing on the matter. So, using your examples all together…an old-time doctor incorrectly describes a medical problem and comes up with an incorrect explanation for the medical problem based on his prejudices. more than a century later, a new doctor comes along and incorrectly describes a medical problem with fancy new words, and comes up with an incorrect explanation based on his prejudices. Why should I treat one with any more respect than I treat another? > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > To your first sentence, “hard genetic data” is not the only thing in play, since we’re missing hard genetic data about a lot of things,… Yet I do not see posts on message boards on all these other things. I do not see people try to infer that the data actually exists when it doesn’t in conversing about all these other things. I do not see people trying to force fit data that we do have on these other things that has a specific, narrow interpretation and turn it into something that it isn’t. I do not see, and this is the heart of the whole thing, people try to take this armchair speculation and attempt to make it about government policy on these other things. Mind listing one of these “lot of things” so we can compare how racism affects the study of intelligence versus the study of something else that racists do not care about? > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > To the discussion here, your assertion that “a truly objective person would say “I don’t know”” seems to contradict what you’re saying otherwise, and contradicts the LHOD position that you’re ostensibly defending. LHOD’s position is not “I don’t know”. His claim is that there is “mountains of evidence against” it, a far cry from “I don’t know”. And the only actual evidence he’s been able to offer is that some of the same people who liked the debunked theories now like the new theories, which is illogical. I was referring to people with little to no knowledge of genetics making decisions about what to think when faced with this question. If they care about understanding the topic, then they need to admit what they don’t know. Instead, what we have is people stating their claim and then picking, choosing, and perverting information to support that claim. The manner in which these people have picked, chosen and perverted this information is what **LHOD** referred to. The carefully collected, replicable data is all in studying culturally defined group based differences in IQ as a function of society. It’s fundamentally revealing that the racialists cannot seem to say much about the topic of the “genetics of intelligence” as a study in and of itself. They only show interest in socio-cultural and other environmental factors when they’re studiously rejecting them. A real scientist, interested in a phenomenon like the one we have here, would be interested in everything - from how the test design affects the results all the way to genes and environment - in trying to understand the phenomenon. Yet what we have here is thread after thread after thread of how racists would study the phenomenon. And as far as the topic of identifying racism goes, its a fantastic example for enabling those who are unsure to differentiate between how a person biased by prejudice approaches an observation versus a person who is simply interested in the observation. It’s also good for recognizing this behavior in oneself. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/63 "2013-11-14T20:29:05Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > That’s how it seems to me, to a large degree. The conversion would be like this: > > A: “X is true” > B: “You don’t really mean X is true, you really mean Y is true but are afraid to admit it. And Y is evil and bogus and therefore you are evil and no one should listen to anything you say.” > > But in the context of this thread this is not necessary. As noted in post #57, the OP of this thread doesn’t seem to require this logic. He seems to be saying pretty clearly without any regard to the basis for the claim that “That’s pretty much the purest example of a racist belief – the belief that one race is inherently less intelligent, or less moral, on average, than another race”. (Having seen a number of threads on the subject, I can tell you that quite a lot of people share that view.) > > I assume you would disagree with that? No sure I understand the controversy here. The notion that one race is inherently inferior in intelligence or morals is a “racist” belief. It pre-supposes the existence of “races” capable of being inferior or superior. Of course racist conclusions can be true or not, but to date, despite many efforts, no-one has been able to demonstrate truth to them - in part because, as you know, “races” aren’t really genetic categories, but social-cultural ones. In short, it is stating Y, not X, in your model conversation. X would be something like ‘studies have demonstrated certain gene patterns are associated with higher or lower intelligence’. This only becomes a concern when the link is made to existing racial categories. ---
**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 14, 2013, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/64 "2013-11-14T20:44:44Z")
Inbred Mm domesticus ISTM that this is a lot containing little. What you’re saying seems to boil down to “it’s wrong because it’s wrong” plus that you really really have a low opinion of the people who push these theories. To the very limited extent which you’ve half-way addressed the issue we’re discussing - with a heavy emphasis on “very” here - you’ve said that the old theories were wrong and the new theories are also wrong and therefore you have no respect for either. Which is fine but completely misses the boat. So I don’t see much to respond to. Your post looks like some sort of mind dump, expressing your low opinion about racial theories and those who promote them. Which is a lot of stuff that you might be right about, or not, but either way not anything I’ve been discussing or am interested in discussing at this time. > [@Malthus](#): > > No sure I understand the controversy here. The notion that one race is inherently inferior in intelligence or morals is a “racist” belief. It pre-supposes the existence of “races” capable of being inferior or superior. This is not correct. To return to the example in Post #51, LA dogs and NY dogs are not meaningful categories. The significance of this is that a great dane in LA has nothing in common with a Chihuahua in LA, and there’s nothing about LA which would make that dog any likely to be smaller than any other great dane. Is that great dane a member of a smaller “race”? Now suppose “blacks” were made of of 87 different subgroups of populations, most of which had no genetic connection to each other. But one group – call it the Geshnarkies – has a lower IQ than average, and this drags down the average for the entire population of “blacks”. Now suppose we consider a black non-Geshnarky. Is he a member of a less intelligent “race”? ---
**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 14, 2013, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/65 "2013-11-14T21:19:29Z")
[quote=“Fotheringay-Phipps, post:64, topic:673334”] Which is a lot of stuff that you might be right about, or not, but either way not anything I’ve been discussing or am interested in discussing at this time. [QUOTE] So could you: 1. post a link to the specific thing you are discussing, 2. state, in a sentence, what you are discussing, 3. mention the post# that specifies what you are discussing. ---
**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 14, 2013, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/66 "2013-11-14T21:35:00Z")
1. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16842569&postcount=38](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16842569&postcount=38) 2. Whether one could infer based on the fact that previous racial theories were incorrect that current racial theories must also be incorrect. (If I can add a second sentence, the issue is **not** whether current theories are correct or not, but whether this can be logically deduced from the mere fact that prior theories were incorrect.) 3. #38 (commenting on #37) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/67 "2013-11-14T21:46:23Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This is not correct. > > To return to the example in Post #51, LA dogs and NY dogs are not meaningful categories. The significance of this is that a great dane in LA has nothing in common with a Chihuahua in LA, and there’s nothing about LA which would make that dog any likely to be smaller than any other great dane. Is that great dane a member of a smaller “race”? > > Now suppose “blacks” were made of of 87 different subgroups of populations, most of which had no genetic connection to each other. But one group – call it the Geshnarkies – has a lower IQ than average, and this drags down the average for the entire population of “blacks”. Now suppose we consider a black non-Geshnarky. Is he a member of a less intelligent “race”? The problem here is the observation, if made in those terms, is not meaningful, as “Geshnarkies” share no connection to the commonality of “Blacks” other than by attribution - they are grouped together with other “Blacks” purely for social, not genetic, reasons. The statement ‘Blacks are, on average, less intelligent than non-Blacks because the category “Blacks” contains “Geshnarkies”’ is (assuming the assumptions in your post are true) a factually true but meaningless statement - it is the equivalent of ‘New Yorkers are, on average, less intelligent than non-New Yorkers because most “Geshnarkies” live in New York’. It is meaningless because it has no predictive value in respect of any individual Black, or New Yorker. It’s a definitional game, which could be extended to any group which “Geshnarkies” could be associated with for any reason, and still be just as “true”. Other that to be provocative, what possible reason could there be for playing that game? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/68 "2013-11-14T21:52:59Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 1. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16842569&postcount=38](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16842569&postcount=38) > 2. Whether one could infer based on the fact that previous racial theories were incorrect that current racial theories must also be incorrect. (If I can add a second sentence, the issue is **not** whether current theories are correct or not, but whether this can be logically deduced from the mere fact that prior theories were incorrect.) > 3. #38 (commenting on #37) You misunderstand, [as I’ve already pointed out](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16842588&postcount=40). The point is that people who put forward theories within this tradition face, as I already pointed out, increasingly high hurdles. With respect to the dangers of argument-by-analogy, an argument by analogy might help. The first people who claimed that they had psychokinesis didn’t face especially high hurdles. But when they got tested, it turned out that every one of them was either a fraud or deluded. Every single one. With every debunking of new theories of psychokinesis, with every new claimant who turns out to be a fraud or to be deluded, the hurdle rises for future claimants. This is not a hurdle enshrined in the scientific method. It is, however, a perfectly reasonable hurdle. I know from past experience that there are lots of fraudsters and delusional fools who claim to have psychokinesis, but I know from past experience that nobody who’s made the claim before is correct. When I’m looking at future claims of psychokinesis, I’m going to evaluate them with extreme skepticism, with my default answer to their claim being, “bullshit.” It’s not impossible for someone to overcome that skepticism, but extraordinary claims require, as we know, extraordinary evidence. They better bring it. Contrast that to claims of being left-handed. In my experience, every single person who makes that claim is telling the truth. When someone makes that claim, it’s possible that they’re delusional or a fraudster, and if I’m going to design a test for their claim, technically I should treat it as exactly as likely as a claim of psychokinesis. But in real life, I’m going to think they’re telling the truth, giving immense credence to their claim. Claims of an inherited basis for intelligence that corresponds to socially-constructed racial groups have a history far closer to that of claims for psychokinesis than to that of claims for left-handedness. I’m going to treat them accordingly. ---
**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 14, 2013, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/69 "2013-11-14T22:14:53Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The problem here is the observation, if made in those terms, is not meaningful, as “Geshnarkies” share no connection to the commonality of “Blacks” other than by attribution - they are grouped together with other “Blacks” purely for social, not genetic, reasons. The statement ‘Blacks are, on average, less intelligent than non-Blacks because the category “Blacks” contains “Geshnarkies”’ is (assuming the assumptions in your post are true) a factually true but meaningless statement - it is the equivalent of ‘New Yorkers are, on average, less intelligent than non-New Yorkers because most “Geshnarkies” live in New York’. That’s true. It’s exactly the same as the statement about NY. It’s meaningless from a scientific perspective. But that doesn’t make it false. So the extent that people feel like discussing it you can’t argue that it’s false based on its being meaningless. Those are two different things. And more important here: if people are saying “this may not be meaningful but it’s true” then it’s a distortion of what they’re saying to pretend that they’re saying something else which might be more meaningful but is also false. > [@](#): > > It is meaningless because it has no predictive value in respect of any individual Black, or New Yorker. It’s a definitional game, which could be extended to any group which “Geshnarkies” could be associated with for any reason, and still be just as “true”. FWIW, it has no predictive value only if you happen to know whether someone is or is not a Geshnarky. That might be true of some broad groupings and not for others. To use your NY example, suppose NY had a high concentration of people of Geshnarky origin but these people have become intermingled with the remaining population and lost their Geshnarky identity, then being from NY would have some predictive value. Which is not to say that you ever should or would ever need to base an assumption about someone’s IQ based on what group they’re a part of (hence “FWIW”). More below. > [@](#): > > Other that to be provocative, what possible reason could there be for playing that game? Truth is that I myself think there’s very little value in “playing that game”. Gets people worked up for little purpose, and I’m somewhat skeptical of whether it’s really possible to measure these things accurately or to isolate for environmental influences. (I should note, as an aside, that this would seem to undercut one argument against the “racialists” i.e. that “why hasn’t anyone found more evidence?”, since most likely many people see little reason to “play that game” and don’t.) So I’m not advocating that anyone play that game. I myself did not start this thread or any other threads on this topic. But to the extent that other people bring it up and say things that I think are logically unsound, I reserve the right to comment back. Not sure if that counts as “playing that game”, but whatever. All that said, I can think of one possible relevance. Because what you’ve said applies to individuals. And that’s more or less true. But in this world that we live in, people don’t only look at individuals. No, there are constantly all sorts of stats being pushed at us – mostly by anti-racialists – which break down the population by these “meaningless” categories, and draw all sorts of conclusions from them. Average for blacks versus whites in terms of income, education level, arrest rates and so on and so on. And the inference is that anything that can’t be explained by socio-economic or similar factors must therefore be the result of straight up bigotry. But if there were genetic underpinnings to these disparities – however meaningless they might be to a pure scientist – this inference would not hold. So as long as these inferences count, then these issues have some relevance. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/70 "2013-11-14T22:56:42Z")
So affirmative action policies are racist? ---
**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 14, 2013, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/71 "2013-11-14T22:59:19Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > You misunderstand, [as I’ve already pointed out](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16842588&postcount=40). The point is that people who put forward theories within this tradition face, as I already pointed out, increasingly high hurdles. > > With respect to the dangers of argument-by-analogy, an argument by analogy might help. > > The first people who claimed that they had psychokinesis didn’t face especially high hurdles. But when they got tested, it turned out that every one of them was either a fraud or deluded. Every single one. With every debunking of new theories of psychokinesis, with every new claimant who turns out to be a fraud or to be deluded, the hurdle rises for future claimants. > > This is not a hurdle enshrined in the scientific method. It is, however, a perfectly reasonable hurdle. I know from past experience that there are lots of fraudsters and delusional fools who claim to have psychokinesis, but I know from past experience that nobody who’s made the claim before is correct. When I’m looking at future claims of psychokinesis, I’m going to evaluate them with extreme skepticism, with my default answer to their claim being, “bullshit.” > > It’s not impossible for someone to overcome that skepticism, but extraordinary claims require, as we know, extraordinary evidence. They better bring it. I tend to agree with this in general. But I have 3 observations. 1. In the case of racial claims, unlike psychokinesis, many of the people who put forth racial theories were not “fraudsters and delusional fools”, but rather were serious scientists working with a very lacking understanding of what they were studying. Like most other fields of science, advances have rendered much of they believed false. That’s how science works, in all fields. Chemistry evolved from alchemy - this has zero bearing on what type of hurdle chemistry theories need to have. And so on for any other field. You can’t compare this to a field where the history is of fraudsters and delusional fools. 2. Leaving aside the history, part of why psychokines would require an extraordinarily high hurdle is because even today there’s no known scientific process by which such a thing might be possible. By contrast, the racial theories are operating within an accepted scientific framework, and are postulating a theory that is at least theoretically possible. At least that’s my understanding - and inbred can correct me if I’m wrong about this - that it’s pretty much accepted that it’s theoretically possible that there could be genetic variations which would cause differences in IQ, but that people like himself object because they believe there is little or no evidence of this actually having happened and that those who claim otherwise are distorting the evidence, mostly for nefarious reasons. But that’s not at all the same thing as a claim for something that has no known theoretical basis. 3. Leaving aside the first two points, saying it has a higher hurdle is a far cry from your original claim. Your original claim (post #33) was that " These beliefs have been disproven, falsified, curb-stomped, pulverized, torn apart by packs of rational dogs, and blown to smithereens", and that there were “mountain ranges of evidence against them”, based on research in the past few decades. Had you originally said that these claims face a high hurdle I would probably not have responded. But that’s not what you said. You want to tone it down and modify your claim to be “higher hurdle”, that’s fine. But don’t bother telling me I misunderstood what you meant. I understand full well what these quotes mean and they don’t mean “face a high hurdle”, sorry. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2013, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/72 "2013-11-14T23:56:58Z")
Biologically, there are no races among humans. Indeed, our genetic diversity is remarkably small, as though there was a genetic bottleneck 50,000 years ago, in Africa. Racism as used in this thread is strictly a socio-economic phenomenon, one set of humans exploiting another group for financial gain. I’ve taken the liberty of considering everybody’s statements here in the context of medieval Europe, where we have white-skinned Lords and white-skinned commoners. Seems to me to ring all true, this is how the aristocracy thought of the serfs. I’m not familiar with Roman history, but anyone can read in the Bible what Moses done did on his way to the promised land, oh boy. Whatever this “racism” is, it’s been around for a good long time. Perhaps we inherited this trait from the Neandrathals. Sexism is a different kittle of fish, because there are profound and (if you believe Darwin) all incompassing differences. Men and women have difference breeding strategies, so it makes sense that we have different rolls in society. Now apply the “one set of humans exploiting another group for financial gain” conjecture, and perhaps we have a better idea of what … your mother … has endured for you. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/73 "2013-11-15T01:14:47Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 1. Leaving aside the first two points, saying it has a higher hurdle is a far cry from your original claim. Your original claim (post #33) was that " These beliefs have been disproven, falsified, curb-stomped, pulverized, torn apart by packs of rational dogs, and blown to smithereens", and that there were “mountain ranges of evidence against them”, based on research in the past few decades. Had you originally said that these claims face a high hurdle I would probably not have responded. But that’s not what you said. You want to tone it down and modify your claim to be “higher hurdle”, that’s fine. But don’t bother telling me I misunderstood what you meant. I understand full well what these quotes mean and they don’t mean “face a high hurdle”, sorry. Repeating that you understand things you don’t understand fails to persuade. Let’s break it down. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > But it so happens that there’s not a shred of strong evidence to support racist beliefs about intelligence, morality, etc., **and not for lack of looking**. Our culture has literally spent centuries looking for that evidence, and only a few decades seriously examining it. And in those few decades of serious examination, virtually everyone has seen that the evidence to support these racist claims is ridiculously weak. > > These beliefs have been disproven, falsified, curb-stomped, pulverized, torn apart by packs of rational dogs, and blown to smithereens. There is no rational reason to hold these beliefs any longer. This is true, and I stand by it. This is equivalent to talking about study of previous people who claim psychokinesis. > [@me](#): > > No, new theories aren’t false because past theories were debunked. But when there are 200+ years of attempts to explain using biology what’s more elegantly explained by society, and when the folks making those attempts are trying to deny rights to a group, then future attempts to do the same thing face increasingly high hurdles. Do you notice the word “future” in that post? I made it red for you. That’s not the same claim as the one from the previous post, because it’s talking about a different time period. That’s the part equivalent to talking about future claims of psychokinesis. It’s truly hard for me to understand how this is confusing, unless your native language is one without verb tense. ---
**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 15, 2013, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/74 "2013-11-15T02:05:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m not answering any hypotheticals here. There’s no reason to believe racist claims are true right now, any more than there is a reason to believe one race is chosen by God to rule over the rest. Such claims are racist, and right now, it doesn’t matter why one believes or makes the claim- it’s a racist claim/belief, regardless of the motivation. It seems to me that for you, if something is “racist” it should not be pursued because it is morally wrong to be racist. Would you suggest then, that we should not pursue research which seeks to establish whether or not there are average genetic differences underpinning average performance outcomes among (self-identified) “races”? Also, is there reason to believe there are any average genetic differences among (self-identified) “race” groups? ---
**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 15, 2013, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/75 "2013-11-15T03:40:13Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > 1. [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16842569&postcount=38](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16842569&postcount=38) > 2. Whether one could infer based on the fact that previous racial theories were incorrect that current racial theories must also be incorrect. (If I can add a second sentence, the issue is **not** whether current theories are correct or not, but whether this can be logically deduced from the mere fact that prior theories were incorrect.) > 3. #38 (commenting on #37) Well on the surface those claims are nothing controversial, but there is no reason to make those claims in this context. My apologies for butting in on your conversation centered on trivia and mythical populations of dogs and humans. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/76 "2013-11-15T03:45:22Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Would you suggest then, that we should not pursue research which seeks to establish whether or not there are average genetic differences underpinning average performance outcomes among (self-identified) “races”? > > Also, is there reason to believe there are any average genetic differences among (self-identified) “race” groups? Differences? To which differences, or types of differences, do you refer? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/77 "2013-11-15T03:52:35Z")
> [@Inbred\_Mm\_domesticus](#): > > Well on the surface those claims are nothing controversial, but there is no reason to make those claims in this context. I disagree–there’s absolutely a reason. The straw man is a time-honored debate tactic, whether it’s done deliberately or, as seems to be the case, unintentionally. Foth persists in arguing against a foolish case that nobody is making and insisting that he knows better than me what case I’m making. If you mean there’s no worthy reason to make those claims, then sure, I agree! ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/78 "2013-11-15T07:29:38Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Would you suggest then, that we should not pursue research which seeks to establish whether or not there are average genetic differences underpinning average performance outcomes among (self-identified) “races”? It’s about damn time you came around, **Chief Pendant**. Like Rushton, I agree that blacks have bigger penises and, in fact, so do millions of _extremely satisfied_ white women all over the globe. It’s not enough that women must earn less than a man, must bear the risk of childbirth, and required to shave their body parts; the woman is cursed to continue to suffer from an incomplete sexual experience from penises that are six inches (or below!). This is a travesty. Ask yourself: if black penis were not so potent, why do whites refer to it as “BBC”? Now, this could be an acronym for British Broadcasting Company, but I believe it’s a nod to the evidence that black penises offer white women a complete sexual experience (e.g. “Once you go black, you never go back”). The vast amount of anecdotal data suggest that BBC is the only phallic instrument engineered to fit inside of a white vagina; Indeed, it’s likely that white vagina is similar to _Secret_ deodorant in that it’s made for a white man but it’s pH balanced for the British Broadcasting Company. It’s my hypothesis that black penis, with superior girth and unprecedented length, is able to stimulate a woman’s Bartholin glands, bringing forth an effusive spray of ecstasy, biracial children, and cowrie shells. It was precisely this fear that facilitated in the prohibition of marijuana. [QUOTE=Mr. Harry Anslinger, testimony to Congress (1937)] Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes. [/QUOTE] Mr. Anslinger was wrong in his assumption. The reason white women seek sexual congress with Negroes isn’t about the marijuana, it’s about the big penises they tend to have. Do blacks have bigger penises than whites? This is an important question, so important that we pursue tax-payer funded research on it. It is imperative that we identify the genes involved in human penis size. Then we should see whether expression is altered among different racial groups. Once we identify the differences, we can treat the white man for his condition and allow him to offer his mate a satisfying sexual experience. - Honesty ---
**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 15, 2013, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/79 "2013-11-15T12:34:59Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Differences? To which differences, or types of differences, do you refer? All differences, from appearance to physiology to performance skillsets such as athletics or academic skillsets… **iiandyiiii** , are the following propositions “racist,” and is it appropriate to do research to find out if they are accurate? 1. \*\*SIRE groups vary for the average frequency of gene variants. \*\* (For example, MCHPH1 haplogroup D variant is highly penetrated (70%) into eurasian populations but not into populations from groups whose ancestry remained in sub-saharan africa. Therefore socially-based associations ((such as Sef-Identified Race/Ehtnicity)) which in turn tend to lump people into pre- and post-africa clumps will show clustering of MCHPH1 haplogroup D by SIRE group.) 2. **Black athletes are over-represented in some sports because they are in a SIRE category that has an average higher frequency of favorable genes for that skillset.** (Genes cluster by SIRE group–essentially by continental ancestry. Therefore one plausible explanation for the over-representation of black athletes in sprinting events is that self-assigning to “black” puts an individual in a category that itself may correlate with having a higher incidence of genes favorable for sprinting performance.) Essentially, I’m trying to get at the concern expressed [here:](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1219219726-G//nBCdwhQNk6trkDa3tJw&) \*"But many geneticists, wary of fueling discrimination and worried that speaking openly about race could endanger support for their research, are loath to discuss the social implications of their findings. Still, some acknowledge that as their data and methods are extended to nonmedical traits, the field is at what one leading researcher recently called “a very delicate time, and a dangerous time. There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.” \* I’m not trying to debate whether or not the proposition that genes underpin racial differences is correct. We’ve done that in other threads. I’m trying to discern whether or not the OP considers all research relating to the genetic differences among SIRE groups to be racist… ---
**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 15, 2013, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334/80 "2013-11-15T12:52:09Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > All differences, from appearance to physiology to performance skillsets such as athletics or academic skillsets… > > **iiandyiiii** , are the following propositions “racist,” and is it appropriate to do research to find out if they are accurate? > > 1. \*\*SIRE groups vary for the average frequency of gene variants. \*\* > (For example, MCHPH1 haplogroup D variant is highly penetrated (70%) into eurasian populations but not into populations from groups whose ancestry remained in sub-saharan africa. Therefore socially-based associations ((such as Sef-Identified Race/Ehtnicity)) which in turn tend to lump people into pre- and post-africa clumps will show clustering of MCHPH1 haplogroup D by SIRE group.) > > 2. **Black athletes are over-represented in some sports because they are in a SIRE category that has an average higher frequency of favorable genes for that skillset.** > (Genes cluster by SIRE group–essentially by continental ancestry. Therefore one plausible explanation for the over-representation of black athletes in sprinting events is that self-assigning to “black” puts an individual in a category that itself may correlate with having a higher incidence of genes favorable for sprinting performance.) > > Essentially, I’m trying to get at the concern expressed [here:](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/us/11dna.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1219219726-G//nBCdwhQNk6trkDa3tJw&) > \*"But many geneticists, wary of fueling discrimination and worried that speaking openly about race could endanger support for their research, are loath to discuss the social implications of their findings. Still, some acknowledge that as their data and methods are extended to nonmedical traits, the field is at what one leading researcher recently called “a very delicate time, and a dangerous time. There are clear differences between people of different continental ancestries,” said Marcus W. Feldman, a professor of biological sciences at Stanford University. “It’s not there yet for things like I.Q., but I can see it coming. And it has the potential to spark a new era of racism if we do not start explaining it better.” \* > > I’m not trying to debate whether or not the proposition that genes underpin racial differences is correct. We’ve done that in other threads. > > I’m trying to discern whether or not the OP considers all research relating to the genetic differences among SIRE groups to be racist… I don’t think research is racist, as long as it’s good science. Bad science is often racist. I don’t think claims about superficial characteristics, such as height or foot speed, are racist in general (though they are often ignorant), whether or not they are correct. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-racism/673334.md?page=5)