That was actaully a good summary of what you said.
This seems like more of the same illogic. If the past 200 years of theories were not as “elegant” as “society”, that doesn’t mean that current theories, based on far greater scientific understanding (and not really the same claims altogether FTM) are also not as elegant as society.
I’m not up for a debate on whether the disparities are “more elegantly explained by society”, not the least because I think it’s probably true, and I tend to be skeptical of genetic claims about racial intelligence and character and so on. My only point here is that you can’t dismiss out of hand someone who disagrees about the current weight of the evidence for Theory A based on prior debunkings of Theory B. Which is what you’ve done here.
But what really shows what you’re up to is the claim that “folks making those attempts are trying to deny rights to a group”. I don’t know if that’s true. You’re probably making the illogical leap from "folks trying to deny rights to a group are making those attempts " to “folks making those attempts are trying to deny rights to a group”. There are any number of people who are not trying to deny rights to anyone who also make that claim. (Even if this were not so, it would be dubious anyway, for a number of reasons.)
That assertion is more revealing of what drives your own approach to this issue than anything else.
The definition of “racism” isn’t all that controversial - it’s the belief that there exist defined categories of humans known as “races” and that, as a generalization, certain of these categories have physical, moral and/or intellectual superiorities or inferiorities to others, based on their genetic heritage alone.
What is controversial, apparently, is whether there is any truth to such claims, and whether making them is morally wrong.
On one side is the position that if the claims are true, making them cannot be morally wrong; and futher, even if they prove not to be true, it is not morally wrong to investigate them.
On the other side is the position that the claims are not true; and further, that making the claim is not motivated by an interest in the truth, but in historical forces that make racist claims attractive to some.
To my mind, the scientific evidence is pretty clear - that there is no truth to the claims, which have been investigated ad nauseum. I find the “…and further” debate uninteresting and unresolvable.
ISTM that your final paragraph flows entirely from your first sentence, in which you limited the “racist” position to “defined categories of humans known as “races””, which is not valid.
Maybe you ought to do the same. The claims are identical whether we are talking about the 1800s or now. The same arguments and the same quality of evidence. It’s completely irrelevant that today’s racists are able to create a fantasy world couched in the jargon of genetics while yesterday’s couched it in skeletal features.
They’re abusing the discipline and their audience is people who are simply know-nothings about genetics. They know just enough terms to create a child’s crayon drawing of the field of genetics relative to the masterpiece that is actually out there.
There is no hard genetic data saying anything relevant to the topic of the relative intelligences of one social group over another. In the face of that, a truly objective person would say “I don’t know”. A racist says “I know its the genes!”. They jump to the conclusion and fight for it tooth and nail because they’re cognitively biased by their racism.
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. That said, it does not seem that you’re directly addressing what we’re discussing here, or on which side of the argument you’re actually on. More below.
No, it’s completely relevant, since they’re different theories, and if a theory about skeletal features has been extensively debunked it does not logically follow from this that a theory about genetics is also bogus. It might be bogus and it might not be bogus but you need your pro-bogus argument to stand on its own and not be based on “the same type of people who liked the bogus theory like this one, so this has to be bogus too”.
[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.)]
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.
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.
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, and you can make some assessment of the likelihood that some unknown genetic aspect might be in play by considering whether the alternatives are enough to account for the observed differences. But that’s not for here – we’ve beaten this horse before, IIRC.
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.
So again, while I get that you’re not especially fond of racial-IQ theories and don’t think there’s any real basis for such claims, it’s not at all clear what your position is WRT the narrow issue that you were actually commenting on.
Are you saying that there is a category of the “racist” position that does not believe in the existence of defined “races” (hence my definition is too narrow)? Or that, having defined racism that way, the conclusions are obvious - because there is no valid definition of human “races”?
These days it’s about the possiblity that certain genes might be more prevalent in certain populations, although those populations might not themselves be remotely monolithic or even be meaningful at all from a genetic standpoint.
[To use an example I’ve posted in other threads, if chihuahuas are the most popular dog in LA and great danes are the most popular dog in NY, that would create differences in average dog size between LA dogs and NY dogs. These differences would obviously be genetically based, but that doesn’t mean that there’s such a thing as an “LA dog” or a “NY dog”, or that these categories are themselves meaningful genetic categories. So if someone says there are differences in average size based on genetics between dogs in LA and NY, and someone else tried to present that position as believing that there are defined categories of dogs based on cities, that would be a misrepresentation.]
Sure. But I was discussing the definition of “racism”, not “genetics”. I don’t think a position can be meaningfully “racist” unless it presupposes, for example, that the genetic differences more-or-less, close-enough-for-government-work, correspond to something approaching “races” which are recognizable to non-scientific observers.
In short, I don’t think you can have “racism” without “races”.
But the problem here is that words mean what people think they mean, because these are the ideas that they convey. Positions such as what I’ve described are widely termed “racist” even though they don’t conform to your personal definition.
You can use whatever definition of racism you believe to be accurate, but it’s important not to confuse the issues in the name of linguistic accuracy.
If when you say “racist” you mean one thing and a lot of other people say “racist” and mean something else, this can lead to a lot of confusion between people using the same word but meaning different things.
What made it more confusing in this particular instance is that you began your post by saying “The definition of “racism” isn’t all that controversial”, implying that there was widespread consensus on the definition that you then proceded to give. This is completely incorrect, as the term is widely used in other contexts, and in fact in this very thread there are any number of people who are objecting to “racism” that does not fit the definition that you gave.
Really? There is widespread controversy over this?
While the wording is different, I don’t see much fundamental disagreement here. This isn’t “my personal definition”, but the one used in every source I’ve ever looked at. Where is your data that says these definitions, which appear in pretty well every dictionary, are “completely incorrect”?
The reason that you get controversy is not that people have widely different definitions of “racism”, but that people look at someone’s scientific argument, and say (rightly or wrongly, articulately or not) something along the lines of: ‘that person is just using a bunch of pseudo-genetic and ‘sciency’-sounding arguments to plug the same tired old racist theories’. The mistake you are making, from what I gather, is thinking they are objecting to science itself, and calling science “racism”. What they are objecting (again rightly or wrongly) to is what they would term the misuse of science, or pseudo-science, which claims objectivity but really is in service to establishing (once again) that one “race” is superior to another in some manner.
Weird thing is that your first cite, right after the paragraph that you quoted, states the following:
[BTW, I did not say that the definition of racism that you gave was “completely incorrect” - only that it was completely incorrect to imply that there was widespread consensus that this was the meaning.]
The orginal assertion was not about the “general” definition, and it’s easy but not necessarily meaningful to make a consensus by being broad enough.
But the point is that the term is widely used in a manner which does not conform to Malthus’ definition, including the OP of this thread which stated:
If you disagree with that, then have at it.
Worth reposting at this point post #15 from Chief Pedant
Worth noting in part because nothing that Chief Pedant has said on this subject (from what I’ve read) fits into the definition offered by Malthus or from any of his sources, and yet he (CP) is widely described on this board as a racist (or racialist) with no peep of protest from any language purists.
What it is saying is that the meaning of the concept of “race” is problematic - which happens to be very true; and that what consitutes “discrimination” is controversial - also true.
How on earth does this invalidate the notion that “racism” is as I’ve defined it?
You said it was my “personal definition”, and bolsetered that with the notion that claiming widespead consensus on this was “completely incorrect”. Neither of which is in fact true, as I have demonstrated by showing that various very basic sources - such as dictionaries - define it as I’ve said.
You have yet to provide any source which disagrees.
One main reason the concept of “race” is problematic is because it can be used either for genetic groups or for cultural-societal ones. So that while an old-time racist or anthropologist might have thought of “blacks” as being one race, it’s not understood that on a genetic level this is not one group at all, although on a societal level there is some degree of grouping.
The problem is people imputing inherent inferiority/superiority to groups popularly defined as “races”.
In the modern world, “inherent inferiority/superiority” is typically given a genetic guise.
The subtext for a modern racist is that, while they may pay lip service to the notion that “races” as we know them are social constructs based on superficial characteristics and socially-defined rules (like the ‘one drop’ rule that makes someone Black in America if they have any visible Black ancestry), generalizations based on genetics apply ‘close enough for government work’ to the categories defined socially as to make little practical difference.
In short, that it’s the same stuff, in a more modern-looking package.
Or, at least, that’s the argument. The argument for those making genetics claims is, presumably, that they are doing no such thing, but merely objectively reporting facts.