Q. How many legs does a sheep have, if you call its tail a leg?
A. Four.
Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg, and believing a claim isn’t racist doesn’t stop it from being racist.
If the aliens land, grant us their knowledge, etc–in other words, in the racists’ most plausible scenario for their claims–then sure, I’ll no longer call those claims racist. I think that being wrong is a necessary condition of being a racist.
THINKING that you’re wrong, however, isn’t. Someone’s perfectly able to think that they’re correct and still be a racist, if their beliefs are incorrect.
This points to the crux of the problem. We have a Claim. By what objective metric can we assess the degree to which the statement is racist? As opposed to merely being racial? One line of thinking, that of Mr. Dibble, seems to hold that merely by talking about race one is being racist. In which case there really isn’t anything to talk about. You might as well tell me I own and drive a ping pong table to work.
Moving away from that extreme position, what is the metric by which we can judge whether a Claim is racist as opposed to racial? I think there are Claims that we could all probably agree that are racist—think Nazis, the KKK, Skinheads, Slaveowners, etc. So that stakes out one end of the spectrum. I’m curious as to what types of claims, if any, you and others might agree are racial, but not racist, that might occupy the other end of the spectrum. Can you supply some?
I don’t even know what the word “racial” means, so I don’t think I can answer this question. I’ll try, though- I think it means something like “having to do with race”, so how about “black people, on average, have a lower income”.
A question for you- would the following statement, by a hypothetical slave-owner, be racist: “I honestly believe, based on statistics on education and crime, that African-Americans are not intelligent enough to manage their own affairs, and so they should be held as slaves for their own good.”?
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Hmmm. I thought you were a man of science, and thus, would know what the word correlation meant. My mistake.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
I know several meanings of the word. Please show which one applies in the face of the counter-examples.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Not sure what you’re asking for exactly. But the definition here seems fine.
[/QUOTE]
Which one? You snarked about “man of science”, so I’m guessing you mean the statistical one? Which is what my examples quite nicely overturn.
I’m off to bed - let me know when you’ve calculated r for “Blackness” vs hair kink. I’m especially interested in how “Blackness” is going to be defined as a variable…:dubious:
:rolleyes: You asked for a definition and I gave you one. Don’t you think the the definition with the 1. in front of it might have been the most logical?
How about: Based on IQ tests and studies that have looked at heredity and intelligence, it appears to be a difference in the innate intelligence among Asians, Blacks and Whites? [I’m referring to those studies cited by Chief Pendant]
Yes, that’s a racist claim. After the follow up question (“which race is the least intelligent?”), which might be answered “black people are, on average, inherently less intelligent”, it would be a bit more racist.
So here’s one right back at ya, from a hypothetical Nazi: “Based on IQ tests and studies that have looked at heredity and intelligence, black people are, on average, inherently less intelligent, and based on other personality tests and heredity research, Jews are, on average, inherently greedier and less trustworthy”. Racist?
Racist. And ridiculous. The only reason that intelligence is allowed on the table is that we do have some ways to measure that. Greed and trustworthiness? Not so much.
But I do disagree with your characterization of what I offered. Can you explain why it, by itself, made today in 2013, is necessarily a racist claim?
OK, take out the part about greed and trustworthiness. Is the claim by this hypothetical Nazi about black people’s intelligence a racist claim?
Because it fits the definition- a claim that one race (or ethnicity/group/etc) is inherently, on average, superior or inferior in such a fundamentally human characteristic as intelligence.
You mean " the state or relation of being correlated; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone "? That’s what I’m actually asking you to actually, you know, support, when I ask you to calculate r - or is the maths too hard? Which would be rich given the “man of science” snark, but that might not be your background, I don’t know, so I’m cool with a very rough back of the envelope calculation.
I mean, I know it’s maths and Math class was tough, but if, as you claim, the two variable qualities of “hair kink” and “Blackness” are “correlated”, you can show that the two vary together - the more “Blackness” (whatever that means to you, I wouldn’t dare speculate), the more “kinkiness” (or less, negative correlation’s still correlation) and, more importantly, vice versa. So the kinkiest hair would belong to the most “Black” people as you define it (hint: it really, really doesn’t.) I mean, you’re hung up on “correlation” enough to snark about how* I *don’t understand it, so you can show that these two things vary together, right. Since that’s what correlation means…
…or, you know, you can make unsupported statements and refuse to back them up with any proof. Which I’ll take as an admission that no, actually, external differences like skin colour, hair kink and eye folding are not correlated with races - a fact we “men of science” already knew, especially for the race biggy of skin colour. You are making the same mistake the scientific racists make, in mistaking clustering for correlation.
As an aside, I have got to love the fact that a couple of times now, as soon as the other side in this edition of Race Week feels things aren’t going their way, it’s all “I’m out of here” - as if they think somehow that supports their stances to anyone reading along.
I think it all depends on the “IQ tests and studies” they are using. I will say that I think that the claim that “It is a fact of the universe that Race A (or ethnicity/group/etc) is inherently more intelligent than Race B, C or D” is a racist one. Claiming that that might be the case and pointing to evidence to support it, is not racist. At that point that may or not be making racist claims. It would depend on the evidence. I trust that where we mostly differ is that you demand what I consider to be an unreasonably high bar for that evidence, and that anything that falls under it should simple be ignored.
This is the problem. It makes us—me—uncomfortable to think that there might be differences of this type. But that does not mean that there might not be. There is some evidence that supports the claim. Might it be overridden by further studies? I wouldn’t be surprised if that turned out to be the case. But it doesn’t concern me, a white guy, to contemplate the possibility that another race might be more gifted in the intelligence department. Just as it didn’t concern me that most guys I played basketball with were Black. Some were better than me, some weren’t. One of the best guys I played against was Filipino. So what? Just because the a groups has a greater likelihood of being better at something doesn’t mean that every member of the group would outperform the member of every other group. I (a white guy) truly don’t feel threatened by that one iota. Whether it’s on the basketball court, football field or in the classroom.
I’ll just add, that the degree to which any group might have a genetic statistical advantage over another group, the vast majority of the time that advantage can be erased by working a little harder. The only place you really see the advantage manifest itself in the real world is at a super-elite level, where thing being measured is largely due to being born with the ability. Sprinting is the perfect example. Sure coaching, training, nutrition can help, but you’re either fast or not. Period.
Now, I do appreciate that in the case of blackness, there is an ugly history, particularly in the U.S., that we don’t want to see repeated. And I don’t want to fuel the possibility, but I don’t feel that means that I can simply declare that any discussion of the subject is taboo. And that anyone who breaks my taboo is therefore a horrible person.
I ask you, if there were future studies done by people that you chose, and they’re results pointed to the same direction, maybe even conclusively, maybe even with the actual gene being identified, would the claim that “one race or (ethnicity/group/etc)” is more gifted in the intelligence department then be racist?
More generally, can a statement of simple statement of fact be racist? Or would it be merely racial?
I disagree with this strongly- claims about genetics, especially about characteristics such as intelligence, should absolutely require hard genetic data. Not just IQ tests. IQ tests don’t tell you anything about genetics- they just tell you about IQ test-taking ability (which some believe is tied to intelligence, though not necessarily any genetic inclination for intelligence). It really is different, as it should be.
Saying “black people are…” is the same as saying “it is a fact that black people are…”- I think you’re making it too easy.
I think this is weak and perilously close to “just asking questions”… I have little problem with calling such claims racist, depending on how it’s parsed. Saying “black people are probably inherently less intelligent on average, due to genetics” is a racist claim.
Not quite, and that’s not the only place we differ. It’s not that we should ignore data, but we should demand a very high standard of evidence before making any claim about characteristics like intelligence.
Weak evidence, and none of it includes genetic data- in particular no evidence about the genes responsible for intelligence. Such claims should simply not be made until we have that data.
My concerns are about the potential for history repeating itself. Such claims were the justifications for monstrous acts, and the perpetrators always thought they had science behind them.
I don’t say it’s taboo. But I won’t refrain from calling such claims racist. Here’s a non-racist way to study it and explain it: “Test scores are lower for group X. We have corrected for these factors ABC, and there is still a test-score gap. There are many factors we have not been able to correct for yet, and we do not know what kind of effect difficult-to-measure things like media influence and peer pressure have, so we cannot rule those influences out as a cause. We also do not know all or even really any of the genes responsible for high intelligence, so we are unable to rule out that possibility as well.”
It would still fit the definition of “racist” (which is pretty clear), certainly. But if that were the case (and it’s not- not even close), perhaps the definition and word usage would ought to be changed.
There are no “simple statements of fact” when you *choose *to use crude race groupings as delineators for human groups. It’s a *conscious *choice to use races as a delimiter for populations, even when it’s known to be discredited science. There’s no difference between racial and racist in that choice - “races” aren’t Platonic ideal human groups, they’re an arbitrary grouping you use willingly.
Perhaps you and others are persuaded by an argument that it is not sufficient to have wealthy and educated parents as an explanation for the children of these parents to turn around and perform so poorly on academic exams that their scores are barely on par with children from families who are uneducated and poor.
I’d like to challenge you to advance a couple of decent reasons this might be so, and further challenge you to explain why it is so only for blacks, at least in the USA, where this discrepancy is well studied by looking at SAT scores.
The parents, remember, have overcome whatever it is you need to overcome to become wealthy and educated. But now their own children revert to crappy performance? These educated parents are unable to guide their children toward a good education? These wealthy parents can’t find money for the same resources other wealthy parents use?
What are these mysterious reasons about which I am so hugely naive and individualistic, and why do they apply only to blacks?
Here’s what we observe in other groups: Grandparents have crappy start. Some of their children do better. Of those children who are highly successful, the grandchildren perform on par with a peer group.
I’ve personally looked at med school applicants–thousands of them–as member of the admissions committee. The underperformance of black kids as a group on MCATS is such a huge problem that we have to overlook score discrepancies by SIRE category, and not by opportunity, or almost no blacks would be admitted to med school because the requirements are so rigorous. We do not look at wealth and educational status of parents; if we did, the best black students would be lost to admission, because the children of educated and wealthy black parents outscore blacks with lower opportunity. We essentially extend a special “because you are black” category to the black students. We do not do this for the Vietnamese kid whose grandparents floated over on a boat after Vietnam. Those grandparents might have started off washing dishes, but if their kids became successful, then the kids of those professionals are assumed to have been as privileged as any other children of the educated and wealthy, and get no slack for being either asian or grandchildren of grandparents with a crappy start.
What special reasons do you want to assign to being black that are so special a kid cannot overcome them even when their parents did?
If you find those reasons persuasive, I’d like to understand them, and why they apply only to blacks in academia (particulary STEM fields) and not to blacks in fields such as athletics or entertainment or human resources or the like… You are correct that, having interviewed hundreds of students from the backgrounds I describe, I am unpersuaded that stuff like “poor teacher expectations” or “culture” or some other reason along those lines is worth a fig.
So nobody’s on to the Jews’ and Asians’ secret that a good education drives success?
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.
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?
See, I think you will say I’m expressing a “racist” position. If you do, then I submit what you are really try to protest is a position you simply don’t like. And you are going to call it “racist” because that’s an effective piece of inflammatory description that cuts off discussion in any polite setting. You therefore can avoid discussing the science of it. We don’t like “racist” scientists.
No, I’m calling it racist because it claims that black people are inherently less intelligent, on average, due to genetics. There’s no way for that not to be a racist claim.