Who's the most intelligent racist?

In My Humble Opinion
21

Actually, I have to agree with imthjckaz here in that, yes, racism is a form of ignorance. In human behavior classes it is called xenophobia: fear of strangers or that which is different. I think that the SDMB may actually help in some sense, in that people virtually meet and talk to other people from all walks of life.

And imthjckaz, who is a Mexican-American transplanted from his home state of California, has lived in this ultra-conservative, previously lilywhite area in our state for thirteen years and has witnessed racism directed toward him. He has made friends who previously hadn’t had much contact with other races, who asked him some pretty strange questions, which he answered kindly and tolerantly.

22

[hijack]
It appears, much to my disappointment, that there are a great many Dopers who don’t know or understand that there are nontrivial differences between “ignorant” and “stupid.” In fact, you might even say they themselves are ignorant of certain things.

Ignorance as a state is completely independent of intelligence. I daresay that all of us are ignorant on many different topics, and there is not (and should not be) any value judgement attached to that. Willful ignorance, however, is something very different.

[/hijack]

23

While sometimes ignorance and low intelligence correlate with each other, it is not always necessarily so. I think it is probably more likely that people of “low” intelligence (and how is THAT measured accurately?)(a whole 'nother question) are more likely to be ignorant generally; that is, know fewer facts and have lesser ability to alter that.

24

Racist = ignorance? I don’t think so, at least not in the typical sense.

I mean, first define ‘intelligent’. IQ scores? IQ doesn’t measure intelligence per se (i.e., it doesn’t measure ‘what you know’) – I have read quite a bit about it, and the more I read the less I understand it, but I believe IQ is a measure of ‘intelligence potential’–but this has nothing to do with what you ‘know’. Example: you could take a man born in the 1700s with an IQ of 220, and drop him into a modern-day science lab. His high IQ would be meaningless: it would take him 10 years just to figure out how to ask the right questions, before he could make any significant contribution.

What we call ‘racist’ thinking is a set of beliefs, much like religion, or love, or other ‘value’ sets. ‘Racists’ --meaning, for our purposes here, people who believe that one group of people or nation is superior or inferior–may be equally perplexed and dismayed with equal intensity at ‘non-racists’ beliefs that we are ‘all the same’.

Those with ‘knowledge’ (as measured, perhaps, by advanced organized education, or second/third language skills, overseas living experience, etc.) appear to exhibit less ‘racists’ traits than others without similar knowledge: but a closer look at this ‘knowledge’ suggests that in fact we are talking about experience and exposure: all prime factors in determining our value sets.

Why was ‘The Bell Curve’ so problematic? Because it attempted to statistically and rationally state an argument that many of us emotionally and psychologically do not want to hear: we want to believe that we are all the same, that there is no hereditary or genetic inferiority in any race or group of people.

I have not read the whole book, and make no claims that the book is right or wrong; nor do I make any claim as to why the book was written. My initial thought on hearing about the book and the subject matter, however, was why we should be surprised at hearing about a difference among the races in intellectual traits, when we largely acknowledge the various physical differences. Again - not saying whether I think this is the case or not. Just playing the devil’s advocate in saying that should we be surprised if this does prove to be so?

In any event: I believe that we need to distinguish between intelligence and racism.

A proper measure of intelligence would probably make for a fascinating thread in its own right, actually.

25

I have to disagree that an extremely intelligent person from the 18th century would take years to even begin to understand modern science. The nice thing about the scientific method is it’s consistent and applies to everything. I don’t think it would take Ben Franklin too long to brush up on new principles of physics, chemistry, and biology enough to understand modern science. He would probably figure out a number of things on his own once he started, though a lot of it would have already been figured out by previous scientists. I think it would be a lot easier to explain to Ben Franklin how a computer works than to your typical modern American, who has no understanding of the scientific method.

26

I’d just like to say it’s not that I’m so much morally or emotionally and psychologically
offended by racism (well not just that) as I am intellectully offended.

For one thing, I find the whole idea of the existence race intellectually untenable. Of course there are gene pools. And any gene pool will share certain chacteristic. There’s also enviorment (ie gene pools in countries closer to the equator will be the ones with all the melanin.) But the idea that people can be divided into seperate races is assuming a line of demarkation that doesn’t actually exist. At this point I potentially share more genetic information with lots of American blacks (and if I were any whiter I’d be clear) than the American blacks share with any given Nigerian. Or than two people living at the opposite ends of Africa.
Also, I consider not being able to see differences in any other terms than inferior and superior to be a failure of intellectual imagination. And therefore, yes, stupid.

And of course racists, many of them, do cling to unsupporable ideas and reject evidence that contradicts their original theory. And of course not being able to change your ideas when new information is presented is a mark of stupidity.

That said, I do think there are intelligent racists. Take Thomas Jefferson.

27

If you count dead people, my first guess would be Adolph Hitler. Anybody as manipulative as he was would have to be very intelligent.

28

Oh this is easy! the “Reverend” Jessie Jackson. that man is so racist agaisnt whites its rediculous! I wouldnt even concider him intelegent, because “inteligent racist” is an oxymoron. ohwell, milk this thread for what its worth

29

woops. mybad. diddnt see that people already used the oxymoron defence. its true nevertheless

30

I would second David Irving.

He has been a well respected historian with many research papers to his name.

He has used this position to subtly try to change the perspective of the world in general to the holocaust.

His work has been of such high calibre that he has often been challenged but these have largely been swept aside.

It was only when an American journalist called it as it was and he tried to sue for libel that the academic world finally got its act together and provided her with the means to refute his claims that he was not an anti-semite and not racist.

At the end of the trial David Irvings reputation was in tatters and the whole corpus of his work has finally been called into question but it took over 30 years of a high profile academic career before he was nailed and meantime much of his work has ben cited in far right propaganda.

31

I don’t know about intellegence, but that Farrakhan (sp?) guy has to be the snappiest dresser!

Methinks the KKK chaps are the worst dressed though- that cone-hat thing just puts the outfit over the edge into hilarity.

Hmmm.
Don’t know what this is about…

32

How about William Pierce.

He was a physics professor before starting the National Alliance. Many of the media types who interview him are stunned that he isn’t the moronic beer belly Klan type that they expected, but a charming man with high intellect.
Racism doesn’t have to be equated with ignorance. How about equating it with anger? Sometimes justified anger. A white man tries to apply for a job and is told he can’t because of an Affirmative Action program. He gets upset and racist thoughts prevail in his mind. He’s not ignorant, he’s angry. If a black man were told he couldn’t have a job because he were black, he’d storm off mumbling about whitey. He wouldn’t be ignorant. He’d be angry.And rightfully so.

Saying that “Racism always = ignorance” is, well, ignorant.

33

He died about 2 years ago, but I have to nominate Enoch Powell. Although I wholeheartedly disagree with the ‘rivers of blood’ speech, he was an intelligent man who made a lot of very cogent points on various other issues.

34

I’m with zyzz… James Watson… how many other living racists have won the Nobel Prize?
and it’d be too easy to comment on the bell curve post. I’m not going to be feeding that one.