Toward the end of the previous thread on race, the poster called “unknown” made the following comment:

“If I could be bold enough to say we are ALL racist to some degree, it's how we act on it that partially defines who we are.”

In response, LW stated:

“Agreed that everyone is in some ways and some degrees racist. That's all the more reason for us to work sedulously to identify and uproot racist institutions.”

I assume that comments such as these are intended to be taken literally (as factually true), and not just rhetorically (as just a convenient talking point to jump start further social change). I think these kinds of statements are both false, and dangerous. Here’s why:

As acknowledged in the other thread, “race,” is a meaningful, useful, and legitimate concept within a social context, even though it does not represent a natural kind in a scientific context. The same goes for “racism” and “racist.” (I won’t repeat myself here, as reader can review the comments in the other thread.) So, my problem is not about these concepts. My problem is the use of universal quantifiers (“all” and “every”) to define the scope of these terms across society. I do not believe that all people are racist “to some degree,” or that “everyone is in some ways and some degrees racist.” The reason I don’t believe it is because (1) there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim, and (2) there is plenty of evidence against it.

But first, let’s try to come together about the general social meaning of the concepts “race,” racism,” and “racist.” These are difficult terms to pin down, but not impossible. In the social context, “race” can mean simply the following:

Race: “Identifying categories ascribed to groups within a society or culture based upon some shared physical characteristic, such as skin color, facial features, stature; or a shared ethnicity.”

Now, I assume that this definition—whether one deems it correct or not—is itself not racist in any pejorative sense. Racial categories are just categories that are ascribed to people based upon their appearance and background. There can be no doubt that people can be categorized in such a way because of common appearances and background. I see nothing offensive about that. All it states is that people are different is ways that are visibly, ethnically, and culturally apparent.

Accordingly, “racism” might mean:

Racism: “The belief that humans not only can be identified as belonging to a group having some shared physical characteristic, such as skin color, facial features, stature; or a shared ethnicity, but also that such people can be assigned *behavioral traits* that correspond to such physical and ethnic differences; which traits suggest, in one context or another, superiority or inferiority of one 'race' over another. Such beliefs may result in behavior that is antagonistic, prejudicial, discriminatory.”

To fill out our definitions, a “racist” is simply someone who holds beliefs and/or attitudes—-whether expressed or not—-that is consistent with “racism.”

So, then, is everyone a racist, “to some degree?”

Such a claim implies (1) that there is something inherently racist in human nature, or (2) that all human environments are to some degree inherently racist. In either case, the further implication is (3) that human beings lack the inherent power of free will to overcome such racial dispositions, whatever their source. Item (1) is essentially a biological or genetic claim. Yet, there is no evidence for any genetic component for racism: There is no “racist” gene.” Item (2) suggests that racism is so ingrained in all human societies, that any given human must to some extent adopt a racist attitude. There is no evidence that all human cultures either are, or must be, to some extent racist. And, again, even if (1) or (2) happens to be the case, there is no evidence that humans (3) lack the power of free will to root out all such racist beliefs and attitudes.

So, again, there is no evidence for (1), (2), or (3). Moreover, there is a plethora of evidence of people within society that both claim *not* to be racist, and whose behavior supports such a claim. To rhetorically assume that they are mistaken, or lying, is add the further implausible claim that one can “get into the head” of a person beyond their expressed statements and behavior. Item (3) is therefore also without evidence.

When society adopts the unfounded view that human beings are inherently racist, or otherwise predetermined to be racist, it feeds into extreme and dangerous forms of CRT, and fuels the attitude that not only is society racist, but that there is nothing any individual person can do to avoid such a character deficit. Racism becomes essentially inevitable; particularly if you are white. You can fix social policy to avoid racist laws, and discriminatory practices, but you cannot root out racist psychology. Again, there is no evidence for such a conclusion.

Just as a person can completely shed their deeply ingrained Mormon beliefs and attitudes, they can also completely shed whatever deeply ingrained racist attitudes they might have. That is the operation of free will and self-determination, which is the essence of what it means to be human.

The only sliver of support I can offer has to do with children.

I would be very hard-pressed to define or describe how, when, and why a completely non-racist child becomes sensitized to the contexts that establish "racism"; that is, a feeling of contempt or pity for someone who is 'different'.

But it happens to everyone capable of interpreting the subtexts that accompany the social/societal rituals of 'growing up'.

Pretty much everyone gets to feel superior to someone else. Even kissing cousins, the Irish Protestants & the Irish Catholics, find reasons not to get along.

And look at Black v. Black atrocities, with the Tutsi v. Hutu being the most visible example!

But their kids, under a certain age, would have no trouble getting along.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
The definition I was implicitly using was racism means people are more comfortable with people who look like themselves. That may not be a standard definition but it was what I meant and I think that definition is generally true.

An example. When one of my daughters was just over one, an old friend from a different country and of a different race came to town and we went to see him in his hotel. At the end of our visit, I told my daughter to give him a kiss goodbye and she climbed up on his lap and did so. My dear friend started to weep. I asked why and he explained, "babies of your race don't kiss men of my race."


-------------
> Such a claim implies (1) that there is something
> inherently racist in human nature, or (2) that all
> human environments are to some degree inherently
> racist.

Not necessarily. All my claim requires is that humans evolved to function in groups of less than, say, one hundred individuals. In effect, we were hunter-gatherers operating in areas where the density of food resources imposed a maximum population size and gave groups an incentive to resist outsiders who threatened their territorial monopoly.

Such a small-group inclination implies a tendency to see the world in us-versus-them terms and naturally to find social, political, and, yes, physical characteristics to reinforce the delineation. That, in my view, is the foundation of racism. There is no racist gene, in your scheme, but there are genes that predispose people to see physically different individuals as outsiders to whom the duty of loyalty and goodwill is attenuated.


------------------
> In either case, the further implication
> is (3) that human beings lack the inherent power
> of free will to overcome such racial dispositions,
> whatever their source.

Again, you insist on viewing humanity in binary terms. People are constrained by their genetics but can achieve significant change within those constraints. It may not be easy, but a person predisposed to weight gain can with effort moderate or even counteract that tendency.

My statement presumed an ability of humans to overcome much if not all of their small-group consciousness. That requires effort both on a personal and an institutional level, which is why I mentioned institutions. It is essential that we step back, look at society, recognize where our innate preference for people that look like us has created structural biases, and work to eradicate them.


----------------
> Just as a person can completely shed their deeply
> ingrained Mormon beliefs and attitudes, they can
> also completely shed whatever deeply ingrained
> racist attitudes they might have.

Yeah, I think your assertion is naive. I don't believe for a second that anyone who has spent decades in Mormonism can ever escape it "completely." Humans cannot escape the legacy of the experiences that produced them. Small-group preferences are even more deeply ingrained in humans because they are genetically programmed. That's why I put the emphasis on scrutinizing and improving both individual and institutional biases.


-----------------
> That is the
> operation of free will and self-determination,
> which is the essence of what it means to be human.

This is where you get circular in your reasoning. You start with the presumption that free will and self-determination are absolute. You call them "what it means to be human." Having adopted that perspective, you ignore all evidence to the contrary and are then pleased to see that your conclusions match your presumptions. Humans can overcome much of their genetics but not all.

I've said it before and will say it again: your imperviousness to immense and empirically valid fields of research is itself very Mormon. So too is the tendency to interpret others' statements as binary.

The definition I was implicitly using was racism means people are more comfortable with people who look like themselves. That may not be a standard definition but it was what I meant and I think that definition is generally true.

COMMENT: Well, even if it is generally true that "people are more comfortable with people who look like themselves" and even assuming that this fits into the "racist" criteria, it does not follow that it is a universal condition, or that it is an inevitable attitude. As such, there is no evidence that this principle holds for "everyone" or "all people," which was the claim you made, and the only claim I was disputing.
__________________________________________

An example. When one of my daughters was just over one, an old friend from a different country and of a different race came to town and we went to see him in his hotel. At the end of our visit, I told my daughter to give him a kiss goodbye and she climbed up on his lap and did so. My dear friend started to weep. I asked why and he explained, "babies of your race don't kiss men of my race."

COMMENT: One example of a racist attitude is hardly sufficient evidence to support your universal quantifier.
____________________________________

All my claim requires is that humans evolved to function in groups of less than, say, one hundred individuals. In effect, we were hunter-gatherers operating in areas where the density of food resources imposed a maximum population size and gave groups an incentive to resist outsiders who threatened their territorial monopoly.

COMMENT: This is nothing more than an evolutionary "just-so" speculative story offered to explain racism. It is not evidence of anything; most certainly not of any universal human disposition. Moreover, evolution establishes biological traits that are inherent within a population; and as such must be supported by biological and genetic evidence, not just by cherry-picked examples of behavior. There is no such biological or genetic evidence! Moreover, there is no reason to believe that even if by chance such a story might explain some patterns of behavior that it applies across the board to all individuals in all populations.
_____________________________________________

Such a small-group inclination implies a tendency to see the world in us-versus-them terms and naturally to find social, political, and, yes, physical characteristics to reinforce the delineation. That, in my view, is the foundation of racism. There is no racist gene, in your scheme, but there are genes that predispose people to see physically different individuals as outsiders to whom the duty of loyalty and goodwill is attenuated.

COMMENT: So, where are these dispositional genes! You cannot just announce your theory without evidence and expect credibility. Such genes need to be isolated and identified before your theory carries the slightest weight. This is typical of an evolutionary psychologist that knows little or nothing about biology, genetics, or evolution, but nonetheless thinks all human behavior can be explained by some vague evolutionary story.
__________________________________

Again, you insist on viewing humanity in binary terms. People are constrained by their genetics but can achieve significant change within those constraints. It may not be easy, but a person predisposed to weight gain can with effort moderate or even counteract that tendency.

COMMENT: But that is *my* point, not yours. Remember, we started this with your claim that "everyone" is racist to some degree. If they can make "significant change" there is no reason in logic that they cannot root out racist beliefs and actions entirely.
__________________________________________

My statement presumed an ability of humans to overcome much if not all of their small-group consciousness. That requires effort both on a personal and an institutional level, which is why I mentioned institutions. It is essential that we step back, look at society, recognize where our innate preference for people that look like us has created structural biases, and work to eradicate them.

COMMENT: See above. Just admit that your statement in the other post was over-stated. Not everyone is a racist!
______________________________________________

Yeah, I think your assertion is naive. I don't believe for a second that anyone who has spent decades in Mormonism can ever escape it "completely." Humans cannot escape the legacy of the experiences that produced them. Small-group preferences are even more deeply ingrained in humans because they are genetically programmed. That's why I put the emphasis on scrutinizing and improving both individual and institutional biases.

COMMENT: There you go again with your genetics story, without genetic evidence. And don't forget your universal quantifier. "Everyone is racist to some degree." What is your evidence for that statement. It is very simple. State your evidence (not your evolutionary story).
______________________________________________

This is where you get circular in your reasoning. You start with the presumption that free will and self-determination are absolute. You call them "what it means to be human." Having adopted that perspective, you ignore all evidence to the contrary and are then pleased to see that your conclusions match your presumptions. Humans can overcome much of their genetics but not all.

COMMENT: If humans can by their will overcome some of their genetics (and some of their environmental influences) they have some inherent capacity of free will. So, you are assuming the same thing I am. That said, my post asks for evidence for a universal position you stated that "Everyone is a racist to some degree." So far, all you have done is agree with me that there is no reason to assume that this correct. (And, by the way, my reasoning was NOT circular! Even if my argument relied upon a premise of free will, which it didn't, the conclusion had nothing to do with free will, it was merely that there is no evidence for a universal assumption that everyone is a racist.
_______________________________________

I've said it before and will say it again: your imperviousness to immense and empirically valid fields of research is itself very Mormon. So too is the tendency to interpret others' statements as binary.

COMMENT: I did not interpret your statements, I quoted them. Why is it that every time we have a discussion, you insist on demonstrating that you do not know what you are talking about. I did not intend to pick a fight with you, and you could have easily just qualified your statement to agree with me. (Which you essentially inadvertently did anyway!) Instead, you try to impugn my reasoning not with logic and evidence, but with vague, unsupported, statements and personal attacks.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why is it that every time we have a
> discussion, you insist on demonstrating that you
> do not know what you are talking about.

Actually, I do know what I'm talking about. You just don't want to look at evidence. We could go back and look at your claims about the inability of science to localize brain functions and your rejection of all the data I indicated because while they are empirically valid and used daily by science and medicine, they don't accord with your reductive world view.


---------------------
> I did not
> intend to pick a fight with you, and you could
> have easily just qualified your statement to agree
> with me. (Which you essentially inadvertently did
> anyway!)

Alternatively, you mischaracterized my statement about racism and the need to address the institutions thereof--which is recognition that progress is possible--as binary and now want me to accept that straw man? Nah, I think not.


-------------------
> Instead, you try to impugn my reasoning
> not with logic and evidence, but with vague,
> unsupported, statements and personal attacks.

Here it is again. You say I don't know what I'm talking about and then accuse me of "personal attacks." You've done this many times over the years, denigrating science that is not only established but used all the time, as my failure to comprehend the genius of books from 1994 and even the 1950s as if they were the revealed truth and will never be disproved.

I don't think much of that reasoning. And my saying so is not a personal attack.

Actually, I do know what I'm talking about. You just don't want to look at evidence. We could go back and look at your claims about the inability of science to localize brain functions and your rejection of all the data I indicated because while they are empirically valid and used daily by science and medicine, they don't accord with your reductive world view.

COMMENT: So, start a thread on that topic. I would love to have that debate. If you think, as you stated in the other thread, that there is a "one-to-one correspondence" between brain imaging data, and human cognitive functioning, that is just blatantly false, so please have at it, and we will find out whether you know what you are talking about, or not.
__________________________________________________

Alternatively, you mischaracterized my statement about racism and the need to address the institutions thereof--which is recognition that progress is possible--as binary and now want me to accept that straw man? Nah, I think not.

COMMENT: How did I mischaracterize your statement about race? Is "everyone a racist to some degree" or not. If not, just say so. There is no straw man here, or binary thinking. If you disagree, state exactly what the straw man is, and what my binary thinking entails. Otherwise, your comments are just empty rhetoric.
__________________________________________________

Here it is again. You say I don't know what I'm talking about and then accuse me of "personal attacks." You've done this many times over the years, denigrating science that is not only established but used all the time, as my failure to comprehend the genius of books from 1994 and even the 1950s as if they were the revealed truth and will never be disproved.

I don't think much of that reasoning. And my saying so is not a personal attack.

COMMENT: My repeated claim that "you don't know what you are talking about" is based upon my experience regarding your responses in threads involving science. In other threads, I assume you are more knowledgeable, but I don't know.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: So, start a thread on that topic. I would
> love to have that debate. If you think, as you
> stated in the other thread, that there is a
> "one-to-one correspondence" between brain imaging
> data, and human cognitive functioning, that is
> just blatantly false, so please have at it, and we
> will find out whether you know what you are
> talking about, or not.

We have had several debates about that. You asked for references, I gave them, and you said you couldn't be bothered to read them. If you want to revisit those discussions, the search function is readily available.


---------------
> COMMENT: My repeated claim that "you don't know
> what you are talking about" is based upon my
> experience regarding your responses in threads
> involving science.

See above. I'm not interested in debating someone who thinks the final word was revealed in the 1950s or 1994.

I do agree that racism could be defined as simply distinguishing the differences between various types of humans and may not be discriminatory in the slightest.

If this benign definition is accepted, then the term "racism" as used currently, gets very cloudy very quickly. Mucky actually with a side of finger pointing as dueling definitions flare.

Acting on the unchangeable differences in humans may be bigotry and hatred and not necessarily racism then under that understanding. However, the word racist will never ever get a neutral connotation no matter what. No clean slate for that word!

I do agree with LW. But it's complicated.

This is why I cringe when I hear people say "I'm color blind" when claiming to not "have a racist bone in their body." Another one I hate.

What I see are a lot of people who want their own candle to appear to burn brighter by blowing everyone else's out. Some are able to claim their superiority over those they wish others to see as inferior, by pointing out the lack of education, or manners, and other things people have control over. The really lazy, or "self-esteem challenged" will revert to using color of skin for this purpose as they have no other way to feel superior using only their own meager merits.

I worship accomplishment. Hard won success. I am impressed by people who have done that and therefore have no need to blow anyone else's candle out. Few and far between, they are.

Survival of the fittest is a great thing if the fittest then boost others.

>
> Survival of the fittest is a
> great thing if the fittest
> then boost others.
>

I believe in the above statement.

But there are those who would 'correct' it, to read:


Survival of the fittest is a great thing, because then the fittest can eat the others.

En su libro, Los hijos de Sánchez, Oscar Lewis describe la oración diaria de los oprimidos en la Ciudad de México: "¡Oh, Dios, por favor pon delante de mí a alguien más tonto que yo para que pueda aprovecharme de él!"

Oscar Lewis ha dicho todo! A si es la vida.

"I do agree with LW. But it's complicated."

COMMENT: So, you agree that everyone is a racist to some degree. How is that complicated? Either there is evidence for such a statement or there is not. And there is not! (Unless you can provide it) Your intuitions, experiences, or beliefs, are beside the point.
________________________________________

"This is why I cringe when I hear people say "I'm color blind" when claiming to not "have a racist bone in their body." Another one I hate."

COMMENT: I cringe at that too, because people who say such things usually betray their racism is subtle ways. However, that is not to say that EVERYONE IS A RACIST, OR THAT THERE CANNOT BE SOME PEOPLE WHO IN FACT DO NOT HAVE 'A RACIST BONE IN THEIR BODY'. I SUSPECT THERE ARE SUCH PEOPLE. DO YOU DISAGREE? IF SO, EVIDENCE PLEASE! What is the evidence that racism is an inevitable human trait?

It is complicated for the very reasons you listed. It is unknowable because there are 8 billion people on the planet and it is absurd that you imply that I believe I have evidence. Please, Mary!

The intuition, experiences, and beliefs are not beside the point except in your extremely black and white mind. They are the point. My eyes and ears are open. I know what I see. I have no interest whatsoever in proving anything at all to you as I see you as the king of finding a way to be right at any cost.

It is complicated for the very reasons you listed. It is unknowable because there are 8 billion people on the planet and it is absurd that you imply that I believe I have evidence. Please, Mary!

COMMENT: The problem is not in knowing the minds of 8 billion people. The problem is knowing the mind of one person. Take your own circle of friends. Are there any that do *not* exhibit any racist behavior, for example do not make racist comments, do not state racist beliefs, and do not engage in racist conduct? If so, then how can you know that such a person is nonetheless "racist to some degree." Obviously, you can't. That is why such a view must be supported not empirically (by your own experience), but theoretically (by some theory related to human nature.) That is where traditional theories related to the "nature or nurture" debate enter the picture, which is basically genetics or environment, or some combination of the two. If you do not have such a theory--supported by competent evidence--there is no logical basis to hold the view that "everyone is racist to some degree." That is the whole point of this post. I am sorry if it offends you.
___________________________________________

"The intuition, experiences, and beliefs are not beside the point except in your extremely black and white mind. They are the point. My eyes and ears are open. I know what I see. I have no interest whatsoever in proving anything at all to you as I see you as the king of finding a way to be right at any cost."

COMMENT: If you just want to announce your views, without suggesting that they are rationally based, then fine, thank you for sharing. But you cannot dismiss my arguments, and salvage your entrenched, but misguided, position, by merely stating your view and coupling it with some ad hominem, pejorative, attack. That does not offend me, but it should be offensive to you!

Finally, note the following:

It is easy to state or announce one's belief on a subject.
It is much harder to defend such a statement or belief with logic and evidence.
It is even harder still to change one's belief when presented with sound logic and evidence.

You, and others, commonly exhibit the same belief entrenchment in the face of contrary sound argument and evidence as any good TBM. The only thing that is different is the belief, or set of beliefs, that you intuitively feel must be right, and cannot let go of.

Your need to define the indefinable and declare victory is astounding. Why did I bother?

You are a debater. You require a conversation in debator terms or you are lost. In my post for those who don't require a response to be in the form and terms they require, there is a very clear statement that I see the need in everybody* to shine. Some have the tools to do that and many don't and cheat--becoming racist is one way to cheat. This is part of all* humanity. So everybody* is subject to it.

I know you do not speak my language and therefore miss entirely my points. There is a lot to my words but you have to let go of stiff as a board thinking. This board is not a court of law nor a classroom.


*everybody: In this world we use the term to term to mean the vast majority, most, or 95%. "Everybody was at the party!" for instance. Everybody knows that doesn't really mean everybody.

* All: see everybody


PS The intention here was to be as offensive as you are.

I appreciate your comments, and I truly *do* want to understand your point of view and where it comes from. I take no pleasure in being obnoxious, or offending people.

"You are a debater. You require a conversation in debator terms or you are lost. In my post for those who don't require a response to be in the form and terms they require, there is a very clear statement that I see the need in everybody* to shine. Some have the tools to do that and many don't and cheat--becoming racist is one way to cheat. This is part of all* humanity. So everybody* is subject to it."

COMMENT: It is no doubt true that I am by nature a debater; particularly in a post that I set up as a debate. Certainly, such debates are appropriate on the Board, and we all can learn from them. But you are right, that is not the only stance one can take, and I often take casual comments too literally. When I do, I hope that people can just clarify what they meant. In this case, early on I stated: "I assume that comments such as these are intended to be taken literally (as factually true), and not just rhetorically (as just a convenient talking point to jump start further social change)." So, I invited clarification. Notwithstanding, LW--one of those I quoted--just doubled down. So, it seems to me that if I decide to post an opinion that clearly invites debate, that the thread should proceed accordingly, unless a poster indicates that he is only stating his opinion and does not intend to engage in debate about it. Had you done that, I would have left you alone, as I did several others. Instead, you announced your agreement with the position I was challenging, with substantive comment. And now you seem to be offended that I substantively responded.
_____________________________________________

"I know you do not speak my language and therefore miss entirely my points. There is a lot to my words but you have to let go of stiff as a board thinking. This board is not a court of law nor a classroom."

COMMENT: I know there is a lot to your words, but I have no way of understanding your point of view unless you express it, and the reasons for it. There is value in opinions, even when they are not argued or defended, but they have to be expressed. As for the Board, it is many things to many people. However, if you, and others, do not regard it as a place to learn, and sharpen one's exMormon worldview, then indeed I am in the wrong place.
____________________________________________

*everybody: In this world we use the term to term to mean the vast majority, most, or 95%. "Everybody was at the party!" for instance. Everybody knows that doesn't really mean everybody.

COMMENT: Yes, but in this case it did not seem to be used in that limited way; and, as noted, I invited the people involved to clarify whether their position was intended to be taken literally.
______________________________________________

PS The intention here was to be as offensive as you are.

COMMENT: Well, I did not find your comments offensive, which is personally reassuring.

Responding to any of your posts makes me feel like I am being wheeled into surgery. For this I become a little "Knives Out". I do not regret this.

I appreciate your skill with the scalpel, but sometimes I want to keep all my organs no matter what. Also, as with any medical procedure, I like a second and even third opinion before the transplant.

Responding to any of your posts makes me feel like I am being wheeled into surgery. For this I become a little "Knives Out". I do not regret this.

COMMENT: Surgery is generally a good thing, however painful, discomforting, or snarky it makes us feel. If it is any consolation, I wheel myself into surgery every single day and it is often very painful and discomforting. To complete the analogy, our body is our worldview, and the surgery is constantly being confronted with ideas that challenge our preconceived and often preferred thinking.
_____________________________________

I appreciate your skill with the scalpel, but sometimes I want to keep all my organs no matter what.

COMMENT: That's fine, but don't blame the surgeon after you voluntarily enter the operating room.
_____________________________________

Also, as with any medical procedure, I like a second and even third opinion before the transplant.

COMMENT: By all means. That is what the Board is for. But some surgeons are better, more knowledgeable, and more skilled than others. And certainly, you want to take advantage of all the resources available to you when your body (worldview) is at stake.

And one more closing point: I read your posts and I learn from our interactions--even though it may seem like a one-sided onslaught. I want to be a friend, not a foe. Try to remember that if and when I come at you again. Just take a little extra anesthesia and deal with the pain. I think you will be the better for it; even if you are left a bit annoyed. :-)

> Try to remember that if and
> when I come at you again.
> Just take a little extra
> anesthesia and deal with the
> pain. I think you will be the
> better for it; even if you
> are left a bit annoyed.


... said every faith healer, astrologer, mystic, y sobador who ever practiced his/her arts...

  

Meanwhile Florida has a bill designed to protect the hurt feelings of people being reminded of the actions of racist ancestors.

Yep.

And DeSantis supported that bill with exactly the misinterpretation of MLK that El Gato employs. Both pretend that the institutions that benefit them are legitimate and should not be challenged despite the disadvantaging of other peoples. If that isn't Jim Crow, I don't know what is.

    

Political posturing. Bill against such things as the teaching of CRT which isn't taught in Florida schools any way.

That's right.

Racism is about one group of people preserving economic and social advantages over another. As long as people are selfish and unwilling to share, they will use racism to justify their actions.

Is racism ‘science’, or is it an ‘emotion’?

Morris Albert Wrote:
-----------------------
>
> Is racism ‘science’, or
> is it an ‘emotion’?
>


Whenever people feel the need to offer excuses for their behavior, they get their pet boffins to come up with an clever
explanation.

Does it mean much of anything that rabid conquerors can't really be pinned down to a reason they did it all, other than, perhaps, 'just to see if I could...'  So is the urge to have your way, and to, when pressed, come up with a reason, simply an instinct passed on to humanity by those lucky survivors we call the most fit?

(Is there...could there be, a 'lucky' gene, that's worked its way down through the ages? If 'victors' are part of the genetic code, what about 'losers'?)

That will garner you a Whoosh with Silk Tassels any day of the week!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr_yaZQmRzA

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Morris Albert Wrote:
> -----------------------
> >
> > Is racism ‘science’, or
> > is it an ‘emotion’?
> >
>
>
> Whenever people feel the need to offer excuses for
> their behavior, they get their pet boffins to come
> up with an clever
> explanation.
>
> Does it mean much of anything that rabid
> conquerors can't really be pinned down to a reason
> they did it all, other than, perhaps, 'just to see
> if I could...'  So is the urge to have your way,
> and to, when pressed, come up with a reason,
> simply an instinct passed on to humanity by those
> lucky survivors we call the most fit?
>
> (Is there...could there be, a 'lucky' gene, that's
> worked its way down through the ages? If
> 'victors' are part of the genetic code, what about
> 'losers'?)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.[1][2][3][4] Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific.[2][3] Dividing humankind into biologically distinct groups is sometimes called racialism, race realism, or race science by its proponents. Modern scientific consensus rejects this view as being irreconcilable with modern genetic research.[5]: 360 

Scientific racism misapplies, misconstrues, or distorts anthropology (notably physical anthropology), anthropometry, craniometry, evolutionary biology, and other disciplines or pseudo-disciplines, in proposing anthropological typologies supporting the classification of human populations into physically discrete human races, some of which might be asserted to be superior or inferior to others. Scientific racism was common during the period from the 1600s to the end of World War II. Since the second half of the 20th century, scientific racism has been criticized as obsolete and discredited, yet has persistently been used to support or validate racist world-views, based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories and a hierarchy of superior and inferior races.[6]

After the end of World War II, scientific racism in theory and action was formally denounced, especially in UNESCO's early antiracist statement "The Race Question" (1950): "The biological fact of race and the myth of 'race' should be distinguished. For all practical social purposes 'race' is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth. The myth of 'race' has created an enormous amount of human and social damage. In recent years, it has taken a heavy toll in human lives, and caused untold suffering."[7] Since that time, developments in human evolutionary genetics and physical anthropology have led to a new consensus among anthropologists that human race is a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one.[8][9]: 294 [10][11]

The term scientific racism is generally used pejoratively when applied to more modern theories, such as those in The Bell Curve (1994). Critics argue that such works postulate racist conclusions, such as a genetic connection between race and intelligence, that are unsupported by available evidence.[12] Publications such as the Mankind Quarterly, founded explicitly as a "race-conscious" journal, are generally regarded as platforms of scientific racism because they publish fringe interpretations of human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, language, mythology, archaeology, and race.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind_Quarterly

The journal was established in 1960 with funding from segregationists, who designed it to serve as a mouthpiece for their views. The costs of initially launching the journal were paid by the Pioneer Fund's Wickliffe Draper.[7] The founders were Robert Gayre, Henry Garrett, Roger Pearson, Corrado Gini, Luigi Gedda (Honorary Advisory Board),[8] Otmar von Verschuer and Reginald Ruggles Gates. Another early editor was Herbert Charles Sanborn,[9] formerly the chair of the department of Philosophy and Psychology at Vanderbilt University from 1921 to 1942. It was originally published in Edinburgh, Scotland, by the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics, an organization founded by Draper to promote eugenics and scientific racism.[7]

Its foundation may in part have been a response to the declaration by UNESCO, which dismissed the validity of race as a biological concept, and to attempts to end racial segregation in the American South.[10][11]

In 1961, physical anthropologist Juan Comas published a series of scathing critiques of the journal arguing that the journal was reproducing discredited racial ideologies, such as Nordicism and anti-Semitism, under the guise of science.[12][13] In 1963, after the journal's first issue, contributors U. R. Ehrenfels, T. N. Madan, and Juan Comas said that the journal's editorial practice was biased and misleading.[14] In response, the journal published a series of rebuttals and attacks on Comas.[15] Comas argued in Current Anthropology that the journal's publication of A. James Gregor's review of Comas' book Racial Myths was politically motivated. Comas claimed the journal misrepresented the field of physical anthropology by adhering to outdated racial ideologies, for example by claiming that Jews were considered a "biological race" by the racial biologists of the time. Other anthropologists complained that paragraphs that did not agree with the racial ideology of the editorial board were deleted from published articles without the authors' agreement.[14][16][17][18]

Few academic anthropologists would publish in the journal or serve on its board; when Gates died, Carleton S. Coon, an anthropologist sympathetic to the hereditarian and racialistic view of the journal, was asked to replace him, but he rejected the offer stating that "I fear that for a professional anthropologist to accept membership on your board would be the kiss of death". The journal continued to be published supported by grant money.[17] Publisher Roger Pearson received over a million dollars in grants from the Pioneer Fund in the 1980s and 1990s.[19][20][21]

Morris Albert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is racism ‘science’, or is it an
> ‘emotion’?
===============================

Sharp-minded question.

"-ism" of any kind betrays an ideological foundation.
Ideologies are argued on the basis of adherence, the foundation of which is emotion - not empiricism, not reason.
There is personal attachment. That's why these generate such emotion.
"Mormonism." Consider the lavish emotion displayed in fast & testimony.
"Communism" vs. "Capitalism" -- observe the heat.
"Mormonism" vs. "Catholicism" -- observe the heat.
Crusades were powered by this heat. So also was a Cold War.
Nothing to do with reason. Consider the fate of the Kulaks. The irrational self-induced famine.
Consider the heat in this very thread.
Only belief about how things "should" be can generate this degree of emotion.

"Is Racism Inevitable"

The core question: are we "tabula rasa."
Is the human machine actually a blank slate.

Or is it not.

>
> The core question: are we
> "tabula rasa."  Is the
> human machine actually a
> blank slate.
>



“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

--Omar Khayyám



I don't know the fundamental idea Bro. Khayyám was trying to address when he wrote this line.  It smacks of fatalism...

Is Fatalism, aka "Winners win!", something that can be judged?  What's the point of judging something over which one has no control?

And do we ever have complete control of who we are?

Racism is kinda like murder.
It’s never going to go away completely but we have to keep on progressing despite that fact of life.

I'm old enough to remember when rather a lot of what are now considered white people, were considered "less than". Jews of course are still considered less than by significant slices of Americans and other nationalities.

When I was a kid, Pollock and Diego jokes were common as dirt. Irish jokes too, though they were mostly about alcohol, not stupidity. You don't hear those kind of jokes much anymore. There were Bohunks, Krauts, Japs, Chinks, Zips (I was never sure if Zips were Vietnamese, or SE Asians in general), and Ruskies. Several of those terms were actually used in newsreels. Yes, I (just barely) date back to the time when newsreels were still a thing.

I was way out in the mission field, as they say. In my city, a Methodist marrying a Presbyterian was considered a mixed marriage, and viewed with at least a little alarm. Now such an objection would be totally quaint, except for Mormons and similar religions. I guess marrying into a non-Christian family would still raise eyebrows in a lot of circles.

The point I was originally going for is that the definition of "White" in the US has changed quite significantly just in my lifetime.

Is racism inevitable? I'm not sure. Is it malleable? Extremely.

Spics. How could I forget Spics. I grew up within radio range of NYC.

I imagine Hutus and Tutsis would be completely indistinguishable to you and me, but they have been killing each other with considerable determination.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2022 11:42PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Pollock & Diego were an ice skating duo, ¿que no?

Thanks for these comments. It made me wonder to what extent the definition of 'racism' (as opposed to its application) is itself tied to history and culture. Does "racist" mean the same thing today as it did in the 50s? Can racism exist at a place and time when no one is offended by "racist" categories, and the social structures they produce. I think to some extent the answer is yes, and that to some extent racism is objectively morally offensive across cultures. But clearly the nuances of definition and application change over time.

The definition of the term, “racist” is the key.

The way it is currently defined by Oxford is: “prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”

By that definition it’s impossible for institutions like Harvard to not be racist, since they have to make the difficult choice to discriminate against the one minority (Asians) with the highest test scores in order to give preference to a different minority (Blacks) with lower test scores, by diminishing the weight they put on test scores in favor of ‘more wholistic measures’ like community service and extra curricular activities.

If they just based admissions on merit alone, then the college would be mostly Asian and their donors wouldn’t allow that! So they are headed to the Supreme Court to defend their discrimination against Asians in order to fill a racial quota, they claim doesn’t exist.

After reading all the comments, I'd like to mention a few things.


The white / non-white racial is so embedded in American society that many find it difficult to believe that it is not natural. I know people from the UK and Europe who are astonished at the level of racial polarization in the USA. It's not that they don't know about racism -- it's that it is so prevalent and pervasive that is surprising to them.


Racism has two components: A racial dynamic and a power dynamic. Without the power dynamic, you can't enforce a system of racial preference or racial exclusion. There are plenty of ethnocentric Asian and SE Asian Americans, but they don't have the same economic and political power to set up and enforce a system of racial, ethnic, or religious preference.


As I've mentioned before, ancient Rome was an extremely nationalistic, class-concious society -- but not a racist one. If you lived and acted as a "Roman," you were Roman. Ancient Rome was the most racially, ethnically, and religiously diverse society seen on this Earth until 20th Century America. You can't assume racism is natural or inevitable. It isn't. It does not just "happen."


Think about all the crazy things you (probably) heard as a kid -- black men having extra muscles in their legs or other "superhuman" qualities, black women being less sensitive to pain or less feminine than white women, or black people being inferior in intelligence, and so on. I don't remember the title, but there's a famous book that was written by a British colonial sugar planter to justify African slavery in the late 1600s. People back then were already trying to stop slavery. The white racial preference caste system and the racist ideas that we know were created during that time for a simple reason: economics. Agriculture was the wealth of the New World, and it would collapse without African slave labour. There was a deliberate campaign to make it seem "natural and beneficial."


By the 1800s, new forms of religion were even created to justify racism, and yes, Mormonism was one of these. I've travelled widely in America, and one of the things that I've noticed is the correlation between religion and racial polarization. You see more mixed-race and multi-ethnic people in urban/more secular regions, even in the South.


So, no. Racism isn't "inevitable." When you see young children at a playground, they don't separate themselves by "race." Their parents do that.

Racism is not "inevitable"--it is TAUGHT (either by families, or by culture).

Example:

There are Jews from just about all racial groups: black, white, Asian, indigenous, etc.

The overwhelming response from Jews as a whole, when a new (previously "hidden," usually geographically far-flung) Jewish group is discovered is to immediately get them whatever they need (food, medical aid, etc.)...and then (at their request) get them to larger, well established, Jewish communities--whether this is in Israel, or in the USA, or wherever--where they are fairly swiftly integrated into local Jewish communities.

Although I am pretty sure that there are at least some Jews somewhere who are prejudiced in one way or another, overall there is usually rapid acceptance for them into the community structure, and this social and community acceptance is frequently followed by intermarriage, childbirth, etc.

Mostly no one cares about the racial differences. Jews primarily care about whether these are "really" [means: according to Jewish law] Jews...and for those who are not (or those whose ancestral Jewish lines are historically "iffy"), the priority is getting them legally converted into being LEGAL Jews as soon as is [practically] possible.

Race is seldom an important factor.

Racism is not "inevitable."

It is TAUGHT.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2022 05:20PM by Tevai.

I REALLY hope to come back to this. Good and necessary post, Henry. There are so many directions to go. Want to get into the Greaber & Wengrow thesis on the many human ‘inevitabilities’ that simply aren’t.

Life is such a time-suck, am I right?

After 51yrs of America’s longest War on Minorities, 38% of the US prison population is black, when blacks make up 12% of the US population, meaning if you are black in America you are more than 3x’s as likely to wind up in prison than the average American.
With 4% of the world’s population America has 25% of the world’s prison population, meaning if you live in “The Land of the Free” you are more than 6x’s more likely to be in prison than the average citizen of the world.
If you are a black American you are 18x’s more likely to be in prison than if you were an average citizen of the world.
Apparently Nixon’s War on Minorities has been more effective than he could have imagined.
As long as Americans remain AOK with maintaining Nixon’s Warvon Minorities, we are officially a racist state.

End Nixon’s 51yo war on minorities!

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp

Your baby is a natural born racist and why you need to train them to overcome that bias.

https://time.com/67092/baby-racists-survival-strategy/

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-----------------------------
>
> Your baby is a natural-born
> racist and why you need to
> train them to overcome that
> bias.
>


What if a White couple uses a Black surrogate, who then takes care of the child until he or she is old enough to be 'cute', and at that point, the 'Whities' couple take over?

Why then, Time Magazine invokes the names of five famous people and you go on your chastened way.

Somewhat has to set the standards!  They don't just set themselves, you know...

Yes, but does a magazine legitimize itself by reference to famous scientists or to famous science journals?

Got you there, didn't I.

Is that like demanding that you be given credit for how pithy the saying on your license plate frame is?