Does Race exist?
- Thread starter H4run
- Start date
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,603
By "contemporary" I'm assuming you don't mean "to today"?
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,603
Yes, we all definitely saw Irish people as "black" in 1997. And we definitely all hated them because of that because we were all racists. What an amazing point, well made.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Go back to Stormfront.
I mean historically.
You are a liar, it didn't come from a magazine, but an actual book published that detailed the author's serious, genuine racist beliefs about the Irish.
I believe it was a magazine that first popularized the claim that "Irish weren't considered white". As for the book, the author believed that the Irish were as violent as Africans, but he never claimed they weren't white. In general, this whole "Irish weren't considered white"-thing is the most salient in the United States, which, yes, did hold some prejudices against the Irish (inherited from Great Britain). But even back when US citizenship was limited to free white men of good character, the Irish weren't excluded from citizenship. And their citizenship was never revoked, as happened to Indians (I am referring to Indians from India, not native Americans). Also, it was one guy's opinion. If someone today writes a book about how vaccines cause autism, are you going to take that to represent the majority opinion today?
Senethro
Overlord
He didn't actually say this though, and sarcastic flailing doesn't help.
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
This thread has been solved 10x over and is now merely posturing/ad hom flinging. I'll lay out my argumentation, slowly and methodically, split into points that are easy to argue against. Anyone may chime in, but I won't promise to reply, anyone may take this wherever they want and reply in my place.
A good post, which I picked to preface mine. The fundamental misinterpretation that "black, African, dark skinned are all the same terms, or that they are all inherently discriminatory is not what I (or other people) are arguing. Racism is simply classifying people by race, with no value judgement attached. It's not "only racism when bad things are done". Clearly Affirmative Action is, by definition, racist, which does not mean it is necessarily bad, that is another point to argue.
haroon points out here why race, as a concept, is bad, without even restorting to race. his argumentation is the same as mine:
race always conflates phenotypical traits (example here eye color) with unrelated traits (multifaceted traits like being a good pilot, for example). the human brain loves fallacies like these, which is why people fall so easily for it. it is also the reason why we have a giant wikipedia page both on fallacies and on psychological mechanisms of self-deception, because those are a big part of our mental sphere. how I reach this conclusion you can read in the following explanation:
1) we all agree there are differences between human populations
2) these differences can be described in nearly infinite ways
3) a specific system of categorization that we now call "racism" emerged out of enlightenment thinking
3.1) groupin human populations by "race" is not something inherent to humanity
3.2) many different system of classification have evolved, and, like many people here falsely claim, the greek concept of "ethiopian" or "dark skinned" are not equal to our racist notion of "blackness", neither are any other tribal, cultural, or phenotypical distinctions the same as race. concepts and words are meaningful and need to be treated as such. people in antique times and the middle ages were not racist, they were discriminatory (based on skin color, culture, anything).
4) this system is not to be conflated with other systems of categorization: ethnicity, skin color, mDNA, haplogroups, nationality, ancestry
5) a racist system of categorization can possibly be a genuine tool in reaching scientific conclusions, e.g. grouping people by race correlates with likelihood of disease
6) the fact that the category produces certain valid conclusions does not necessarily speak for the validity of the category itself, in fact there may be an infinite amount of potentially useful systems of categorizations which will lead us to discover new correlations
7) correlations in and of themselves mean nothing and are not the concrete goal of scientific endeavor, e.g. "black" people might be more prevalent to certain diseases, a useful fact for everyday life, but "dark skinned" people probably are, too, and people "of African ancestry" are, too, and people "with certain mDNA" or certain allele frequencies are, too.
8) every single valid descriptor of categorization we use in our every day life is significantly more scientifically valid and useful than race:
8.1) a witness W is describing the perpetrator of a crime to the police. W says he was "asian" or "of asian race"
8.1.1 that could mean he is either Indian, SEAsian, Chinese, Polynesian, Mongolian, central Asian, or even siberian, depending on what the person in question means by "asian (race)"
8.1.2 the same confusion exists on the part of the policeman P trying to interpret the claim of witness W
8.2) a witness W is describing the perpetrator of a crime to the police. W says he was "yellow skinned" (I purposefully used an idiotic descriptor that does not relate to real life, to show that social constructs can indeed vary in their usefulness)
8.2.1 even though the descriptor that W uses is nonsensical, the other person instantly knows what is meant: a person with tan skin like the people in China, Japan, or Southeast Asia. unlikely anyone would mean a person of African ancestry with that description, nor a person from Europe or Mexico or India. so now the potential for confusion both on side of W and P is significantly lowered.
8.3. this same game can be played over and over with every single descriptor we can imagine: skin color is more clear and sound as a concept than race is. eye color is more clear and sound as a concept than race is. ethnicity is more clear and sound as a concept than race is. ancestry, mDNA and haplogroups are even more clear and even more objective descriptors of human population variation.
9) race by definition associates complex traits (like intelligence, personality, traits which we generally agree are dependant on both nature and culture, and are dependant on literal millions of alelles interacting with each other) with monolithic and unchangeable identities (race, the racist argues, is based in DNA, because the racial phenotypical traits are, too).
10) from this misreading in turn it follows that certain races are inherently more or less intelligent, inherently more or less violent, inherently more or less civil, because measurable differences exist between these population groups.
11) this is of course a conflation of correlation with causation, the same alelles that are responsible for ones' skin color are not responsible for intelligence, similiarly proving that one particular group of people has a lower IQ than another group of people is also a correlation, not a causation.
12) the fact that these ideas are not scientifically valid is irrelevant for the layman, and it is even irrelevant for the scientists to some degree. if certain statements are repeated ad nauseam we internalize them and they shape our view of the world in some way or other, no matter if we agree with them or not.
13) these assumptions that automatically follow from the categorization by race will from now on be called baggage.
14) baggage is not necessarily biological, in fact many assumptions that follow race are distinctly cultural: e.g. "asian people are more collective minded, caucasian people more individual".
15) race is therefore a vehicle for people to conflate claims about DNA and culture with completely unconnected traits like skin color (there might, again, be a correlation, but that in itself does not allow us to make any conclusions).
16) therefore we conclude: race categorization, by its very essence, no matter whether it is used in good faith or not, forces us to muddle phenotypical traits with completely unrelated other traits. race forces us to make connections that simply do not exist in real life based on outdated science and correlation.
17) because race scientists maintain the claim that race is based in DNA that means all racial traits are by definition unchangeable, one person cannot go to bed "black" and wake up "caucasian", and similiarly one person can never shed the traits associated with blackness.
18) in this way race as a concept is dehumanizing. it denies our ability to change, it denies our ability to develop distinct from outside influences, it presupposes certain complex patterns like behavior are to a degree determined by ancestry, and therefore denies human agency.
19) it is irrelevant to claim number 18) whether or not you think black people are inherently violent or not, whether or not you personally associate complex traits with phenotypical traits. this is the underlying idea of race science, and has always been, and crying that your personal view of races are "non-biased" is not only anecdotal, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I conclude:
20) Race is not useful as a scientific concept and is hardly ever used. If it is ever used, it is likely in reference to genetic makeup, in which case it would have been better to genuinely group people based on their genetic makeup, not on race (which as explained earlier is not just genetic makeup, it is a multifactoral system of classification). The example red_elk provided is a perfect counterexample of his own point. The paper would have been much more concrete if it actually explained the racial categories it was building based on either alelle frequency or mDNA, so that scientists using their paper as a source could objectively identify the source of prevalence for disease, and would not have to guess whatever is meant by "black", "caucasian" etc.
21) Race is not a useful concept in every day talk, because race is culturally constructed and heavily varies in meaning. It is an inherently muddy way of characterizing human groups and the opposite of concise language. It also excludes many useful descriptors. e.g. a "black" person (which could be anything from a mexican to an african to a person from micronesia depending on whom you asked) could also be described as very dark skinned, with dark eyes, this or that stature, this or that facial makeup, ad infinitum. These second claims are concrete and less affected by culture (though still affected, as proven by how different cultures interpret colors differently). A "black" person could theoretically have green eyes, dyed hair, and actually be an australian aboriginal, but the person you're describing this "black" guy to most likely just thinks of a stereotypical African.
23) Race inherently conflates phenotypical traits with both unrelated DNA and cultural traits, and by asserting that they are connected, denies the fact that those traits are to be seen as seperate. This is an act of dehumanization, it is in short the assumption that certain behavior patterns, ways of thinking, intelligence and other clearly multifaceted traits are all to some degree based on race, and therefore unchangeable, because race is unchanbeable. Every human being is therefore doomed to their predestined classification. It becomes incredibly apparent that race evolved out of social darwinism. this is the reason why race needs to be abandoned as a concept, not because people are using it wrongly, or using it to justify their agenda. it's the fact that the system in and of itself is both flawed and inhumane.
Those are my points. You can argue with them, if you like, in good faith. Point out where there are leaps in logic, weak arguments, please go ahead. But the fundamental point, that race is fundamentally conflating, by bringing together factors that are largely independent of each other. skin color and disease prevalence are a good example: it is not the dark skin color in itself, or the genes that determine your skin color, that causes one to be more likely to catch a certain disease, rather it is a complex mixture of alelles that is present in many dark skinned people irregardless of their skin color, they just correlate because of the mechanisms of maternal and parental DNA.
As always, you make your claim without referencing any kind of source, without explanation or context, without even having the decency of naming a reason for why you think so. Splendid contribution
A good post, which I picked to preface mine. The fundamental misinterpretation that "black, African, dark skinned are all the same terms, or that they are all inherently discriminatory is not what I (or other people) are arguing. Racism is simply classifying people by race, with no value judgement attached. It's not "only racism when bad things are done". Clearly Affirmative Action is, by definition, racist, which does not mean it is necessarily bad, that is another point to argue.
haroon points out here why race, as a concept, is bad, without even restorting to race. his argumentation is the same as mine:
race always conflates phenotypical traits (example here eye color) with unrelated traits (multifaceted traits like being a good pilot, for example). the human brain loves fallacies like these, which is why people fall so easily for it. it is also the reason why we have a giant wikipedia page both on fallacies and on psychological mechanisms of self-deception, because those are a big part of our mental sphere. how I reach this conclusion you can read in the following explanation:
1) we all agree there are differences between human populations
2) these differences can be described in nearly infinite ways
3) a specific system of categorization that we now call "racism" emerged out of enlightenment thinking
3.1) groupin human populations by "race" is not something inherent to humanity
3.2) many different system of classification have evolved, and, like many people here falsely claim, the greek concept of "ethiopian" or "dark skinned" are not equal to our racist notion of "blackness", neither are any other tribal, cultural, or phenotypical distinctions the same as race. concepts and words are meaningful and need to be treated as such. people in antique times and the middle ages were not racist, they were discriminatory (based on skin color, culture, anything).
4) this system is not to be conflated with other systems of categorization: ethnicity, skin color, mDNA, haplogroups, nationality, ancestry
5) a racist system of categorization can possibly be a genuine tool in reaching scientific conclusions, e.g. grouping people by race correlates with likelihood of disease
6) the fact that the category produces certain valid conclusions does not necessarily speak for the validity of the category itself, in fact there may be an infinite amount of potentially useful systems of categorizations which will lead us to discover new correlations
7) correlations in and of themselves mean nothing and are not the concrete goal of scientific endeavor, e.g. "black" people might be more prevalent to certain diseases, a useful fact for everyday life, but "dark skinned" people probably are, too, and people "of African ancestry" are, too, and people "with certain mDNA" or certain allele frequencies are, too.
8) every single valid descriptor of categorization we use in our every day life is significantly more scientifically valid and useful than race:
8.1) a witness W is describing the perpetrator of a crime to the police. W says he was "asian" or "of asian race"
8.1.1 that could mean he is either Indian, SEAsian, Chinese, Polynesian, Mongolian, central Asian, or even siberian, depending on what the person in question means by "asian (race)"
8.1.2 the same confusion exists on the part of the policeman P trying to interpret the claim of witness W
8.2) a witness W is describing the perpetrator of a crime to the police. W says he was "yellow skinned" (I purposefully used an idiotic descriptor that does not relate to real life, to show that social constructs can indeed vary in their usefulness)
8.2.1 even though the descriptor that W uses is nonsensical, the other person instantly knows what is meant: a person with tan skin like the people in China, Japan, or Southeast Asia. unlikely anyone would mean a person of African ancestry with that description, nor a person from Europe or Mexico or India. so now the potential for confusion both on side of W and P is significantly lowered.
8.3. this same game can be played over and over with every single descriptor we can imagine: skin color is more clear and sound as a concept than race is. eye color is more clear and sound as a concept than race is. ethnicity is more clear and sound as a concept than race is. ancestry, mDNA and haplogroups are even more clear and even more objective descriptors of human population variation.
9) race by definition associates complex traits (like intelligence, personality, traits which we generally agree are dependant on both nature and culture, and are dependant on literal millions of alelles interacting with each other) with monolithic and unchangeable identities (race, the racist argues, is based in DNA, because the racial phenotypical traits are, too).
10) from this misreading in turn it follows that certain races are inherently more or less intelligent, inherently more or less violent, inherently more or less civil, because measurable differences exist between these population groups.
11) this is of course a conflation of correlation with causation, the same alelles that are responsible for ones' skin color are not responsible for intelligence, similiarly proving that one particular group of people has a lower IQ than another group of people is also a correlation, not a causation.
12) the fact that these ideas are not scientifically valid is irrelevant for the layman, and it is even irrelevant for the scientists to some degree. if certain statements are repeated ad nauseam we internalize them and they shape our view of the world in some way or other, no matter if we agree with them or not.
13) these assumptions that automatically follow from the categorization by race will from now on be called baggage.
14) baggage is not necessarily biological, in fact many assumptions that follow race are distinctly cultural: e.g. "asian people are more collective minded, caucasian people more individual".
15) race is therefore a vehicle for people to conflate claims about DNA and culture with completely unconnected traits like skin color (there might, again, be a correlation, but that in itself does not allow us to make any conclusions).
16) therefore we conclude: race categorization, by its very essence, no matter whether it is used in good faith or not, forces us to muddle phenotypical traits with completely unrelated other traits. race forces us to make connections that simply do not exist in real life based on outdated science and correlation.
17) because race scientists maintain the claim that race is based in DNA that means all racial traits are by definition unchangeable, one person cannot go to bed "black" and wake up "caucasian", and similiarly one person can never shed the traits associated with blackness.
18) in this way race as a concept is dehumanizing. it denies our ability to change, it denies our ability to develop distinct from outside influences, it presupposes certain complex patterns like behavior are to a degree determined by ancestry, and therefore denies human agency.
19) it is irrelevant to claim number 18) whether or not you think black people are inherently violent or not, whether or not you personally associate complex traits with phenotypical traits. this is the underlying idea of race science, and has always been, and crying that your personal view of races are "non-biased" is not only anecdotal, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I conclude:
20) Race is not useful as a scientific concept and is hardly ever used. If it is ever used, it is likely in reference to genetic makeup, in which case it would have been better to genuinely group people based on their genetic makeup, not on race (which as explained earlier is not just genetic makeup, it is a multifactoral system of classification). The example red_elk provided is a perfect counterexample of his own point. The paper would have been much more concrete if it actually explained the racial categories it was building based on either alelle frequency or mDNA, so that scientists using their paper as a source could objectively identify the source of prevalence for disease, and would not have to guess whatever is meant by "black", "caucasian" etc.
21) Race is not a useful concept in every day talk, because race is culturally constructed and heavily varies in meaning. It is an inherently muddy way of characterizing human groups and the opposite of concise language. It also excludes many useful descriptors. e.g. a "black" person (which could be anything from a mexican to an african to a person from micronesia depending on whom you asked) could also be described as very dark skinned, with dark eyes, this or that stature, this or that facial makeup, ad infinitum. These second claims are concrete and less affected by culture (though still affected, as proven by how different cultures interpret colors differently). A "black" person could theoretically have green eyes, dyed hair, and actually be an australian aboriginal, but the person you're describing this "black" guy to most likely just thinks of a stereotypical African.
23) Race inherently conflates phenotypical traits with both unrelated DNA and cultural traits, and by asserting that they are connected, denies the fact that those traits are to be seen as seperate. This is an act of dehumanization, it is in short the assumption that certain behavior patterns, ways of thinking, intelligence and other clearly multifaceted traits are all to some degree based on race, and therefore unchangeable, because race is unchanbeable. Every human being is therefore doomed to their predestined classification. It becomes incredibly apparent that race evolved out of social darwinism. this is the reason why race needs to be abandoned as a concept, not because people are using it wrongly, or using it to justify their agenda. it's the fact that the system in and of itself is both flawed and inhumane.
Those are my points. You can argue with them, if you like, in good faith. Point out where there are leaps in logic, weak arguments, please go ahead. But the fundamental point, that race is fundamentally conflating, by bringing together factors that are largely independent of each other. skin color and disease prevalence are a good example: it is not the dark skin color in itself, or the genes that determine your skin color, that causes one to be more likely to catch a certain disease, rather it is a complex mixture of alelles that is present in many dark skinned people irregardless of their skin color, they just correlate because of the mechanisms of maternal and parental DNA.
As always, you make your claim without referencing any kind of source, without explanation or context, without even having the decency of naming a reason for why you think so. Splendid contribution
Last edited:
I agree that it would have been much more concrete if it identified the source of the prevalence. It might even be a medical breakthrough of the year.
The problem was probably with collecting representative set of data to do that. Categorization on "Black" and "Caucasian" is visually observable, while the dataset based on allele frequency or mDNA subtypes would require DNA analysis and a couple orders of magnitude more patients.
Truthy
Chatbot
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 2,209
I've seen a lot of sources make the claim that, say, a random Korean could be more genetically similar to a random Italian than other Koreans. In a way, these claims are a variant of Lewontin's fallacy. They only work when you look at small numbers of positions in the genome at a time and they don't properly account for the correlation structure of populations that makes it possible for (1) there to be a lot of diversity in a population and (2) the people of the population tend to be more genetically similar to each other than they are to others. This paper explains what's going on. They call this probability omega and show how it approaches 0 as you exceed 500-1000 loci. Omega is pretty high when you have populations with recent common ancestors or lots of admixture. Like the French and Germans. It's negligibly low for divergent populations like Italians and Koreans or Irish and Australian Aborigines once you look at a larger window of the genome.
As they state here:
Spoiler :
One takeaway is that with respect to phenotypes determined by small numbers of loci, an Irish person could have more in common with Australian Aborigines than other Irish people. So there’s that. However, loads of phenotypes are determined by hundreds, thousands, even millions, of loci. With respect to these phenotypes, the Irish are absolutely more similar to each other than they are to Australian Aborigines.
A basic issue is a lot of people hear that something like 85% of variation occurs within any population of a few million and think that must mean people within that population are varying so wildly from each other, many are actually more similar to people in divergent populations. But this isn't how it works.
Here's an example I made up:
Population A:
AAaa
AAaa
aAaa
Population B:
aaaa
aaaa
Aaaa
That 85% figure is an Fst statistic (really, 1 minus an Fst statistic). There are a lot of interpretations of what the statistic means, but the most common one is that it means the amount of variation between the subpopulations relative to the total variation. In our example above, by hand I got Fst = 0.278 (also, let's say in some population C the last 2 positions are polymorphic to justify including them at all). So 72.2% of the variation is within the two subpopulations. However, everyone in population A is at least as genetically similar to everyone else in population A as they are to anyone in population B. Yes, it's just a toy example, but I think it illustrates my point.
Yes to both questions.
Last edited:
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,603
I mean... I can get the logic behind saying that, and how that would make sense from a "how English words are constructed" point of view, but you just know that's not what racism actually means, certainly not to the vast majority of people. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't agree that "sexism" means anything equivalent to that.
Also, as I said about 5 pages ago, it's in completely contradiction to the "power + privilege" definition you* have been trying to push down everyone's throats for the past 5 years or so.
*not you personally, but you know... "you".
Cloud_Strife
Deity
No, elaborate, who is this amorphous "you" that you speak off Manfred?
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,603
The Irish of course.
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
Hey Manfred,
first off I want to thank you for engaging me on this level again and I appreciate the time you invested reading my big post and engaging it seriously. I think you've been arguing in good faith a lot recently, maybe more than me
and for that I wanna say kudos. I don't want to lump you in with posters like Hehehe because I genuinely do see you putting in effort and trying to have a productive discussion. so yeah, olive branch to you!to answer your points, one by one:
1) yes, the definition of racism I propose is completely different from the colloquial use of racism, which essentially boils down to "discrimination of X outgroup". I agree completely on that and I think the colloquial definition of racism is rather useless, one could even argue that it is in itself a "Kampfbegriff", a divisive concept used to highlight in- and outgroup and cast a value judgement on them. I certainly would not call all antisemitism or islamophobia racist. (the culturalization of race is another point I will leave out for brevity).
2) I do not think that my definition of racism is irreconcilable with what from now I will be calling "institutional racism" (power + privilege as you call it)
2.1) in fact I would argue they are synergistic. the specific form of discrimination we see as a real world phenomenon is dependant on the mechanisms of the human mind acting in accordance with others, and those are influenced by the systematic framework of though.
2.2) that would mean in turn that racial discrimination (the colloquial definition of racism) is a real-world phenomenon, based on the abstract metric of institutional racism (which is more an interconnected system of power than a real world phenomenon), which in turn is based on racism as a concept (which is my definition)
2.3) to make this a little more digestible: (assuming equally skilled candidates) the act of preferring a white man over a black man for a job opening (phenomenon / colloquial or concrete racism) has its basis in internalized structures of power (descriptor / institutional racism) and is contigent upon the view that race is not only skin color, but has associated cultural and behavioral factors (abstraction / my definition of racism)
2.4) how these ideas are inseperable from one another is easily proven by replacing race with a similiar concept and playing the same scenario
2.5) the act of preferring a German man over a Ethiopian man for a job offer is an act of discrimination (phenomenon). it has its basis in the belief that Germans have developed a culture of being hard-working, always on time and very serious (descriptor). however it is different in one important way: the qualities associated with the German are not inherent to all Germans. they have nothing to do with their skin color or DNA. they are a cultural product, and by their very nature subject to change (abstraction). so, if it turns out the Ethiopian man is indeed more qualified, and more hard working, and the German is lazy, contradictory to the stereotype, then the situation flips. with race, however, all the qualities associated with a particular race are thought to be inherent (based in DNA) and can never be changed.
2.5.1) if you really think about it, few forms of discrimination are inherent. discrimination based on class, wealth, favorite football team all hinge on the belief that people belonging to those groups act a certain way, not that their DNA forces them to act a certain way (in this example you can see how race completely denies its subjects of any real agency). there are other forms of discrimination however which also work similiar to racism, for example sexism (some qualities are thought inherent to men and women). whenever complex metrics are biologized in a simple way, we are dealing with a form of discrimination that works in the same way as racism does.
2.6) this is the fundamental way in which cultural, religious or even ethnic discrimination varies from racist discrimination. even ethnicities can be considered somewhat fluent identities (e.g. Tutsi could become Hutu and vice versa), while race, even though it is most definitely fluid and a product of cultural evolution, denies its own nature.
3) what I am saying in essence is that we are looking at three different levels of abstraction, and that we need to distinguish between racism as a concrete phenomenon, the structural causes of racism, and the concept of race in and of itself, in order to have any meaningful discussion.
4) there is zero point in showing that the phenomenon (people acting racist) is bad, I think we all agree on that and should move on. no one here is saying that colonialism was all fair and square, maybe aside from Hehehe
5) there is little point debating institutional racism, because most people itt are both smart and well read, and certainly aware of the psychological mechanisms and structures of power that affect us in our daily life (racist institutionalism being only a small part of them).
6) what really should be the subject on inquiry is the concept of race itself, how race is constructed, and whether or not it is both logically and scientifically sound.
7) if a concept is inherently contradictory, or if it can be proven to lead to irrational thinking and/or violence (not by proxy or correlation, but due to its very nature. e.g. a "Kampfbegriff", like when the nazis decided to call all disabled people "Untermenschen", literally subhuman), then one can make a good case for the abolishment of said concept, or even the prohibition of it.
8) I have not argued that we should get rid of race institutionally, through a law for example, because that's not my opinion. I think it will abolish itself organically and our duty as honest and rational people is to scrutinize the very core tenets that make up the concept of race.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,603
first off I want to thank you for engaging me on this level again and I appreciate the time you invested reading my big post and engaging it seriously. I think you've been arguing in good faith a lot recently, maybe more than me
to answer your points, one by one:
I presume this is sarcasm since I only wrote a short reply to you with about 1 point in it, and then followed that up with "the Irish of course"
I did actually read the big long post however, so now I'll read this big long post too...
Okay so I entirely agree that "racism", "racial discrimination" and "institutional racism" as you define them are all meaningful definitions, all relate to real things, and do not contradict each other.
The problem comes when you call all three things "racism", and then absolutely insist that the thing you are currently calling racism is the only acceptable definition, and act as though anyone else using the term is meaning the same thing by it. And if one day you say that "racism" means "institutional racism", but then the next say that it means [what you are now calling] "racism", then that is contradictory. So I'm saying those two definitions are contradictory, not that the underlying concepts are irreconcilable.
And really it kind of doesn't matter what terminology is used as long as it's agreed on. In fact you could argue that "racial descrimination" is just as good a term for what you're describing as "racism", given that you're saying it's simply making a discrimination between races. But we both know that's not how it's used.
Indeed I recall a similar thread 2 or 3 years ago perhaps, when an argument had been raging for several pages on what racism meant. But both sides seemed to be in agreement that "racial discrimination" was a thing, and that "institutional racism" was also a thing. I think I said something along the lines of "let's just call one of them Bob and one of them Jeff and we can actually get into a more meaningful discussion". But of course the argument just raged on. Which frankly led me to believe that the absolute insistence on using the sociological/academic/"institutional racism" definition in such arguments, when everyone knows this is not the commonly-accepted not even dictionary definition, is generally used as a tactic to derail and neuter any such discussions. But of course that's just my personal pet conspiracy theory and not something I'd assert as definitely being the case.
But anyway, we all seem to agree that these three things are real and deserving of labels (even if you consider one of them to be useless and divisive), and as you yourself admit, the "colloquial" (i.e. dictionary) definition of "racism" is the one that means what you are calling "racial discrimination", so frankly it just makes sense to use the term for this, then use other terms for the other two. So when someone says merely believing in race is "racist", you have to realise how that statement is going to be understood and it's kind of on you to phrase it better, not on the person objecting to it to adopt your language.
Last edited:
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
No, it is not sarcasm at all. You're seeing bad intentions where there are none. I was genuinely happy to see how you approached me in a nice way, even though I've been kinda awful towards you.
Manfred Belheim
Moaner Lisa
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2009
- Messages
- 8,603
I didn't say there was anything bad about sarcasm 
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
It's not just you, in fact this often happens to me. People think I'm being sarcastic (over the internet, not in real life) when I'm being completely genuine. I blame the toxic culture that exists, even on this forum. When I want to insult someone, I insult them. When I want to let someone know that I'm impressed or happy, I let them know. Had I been a new user, and if we had no prior history, I doubt you'd have interpreted it as sarcasm.
Otoh, this also tells me that I have to work on my English and on the expression of my ideas/feelings, a thing I've kinda struggled with ever since learning how to write.
Otoh, this also tells me that I have to work on my English and on the expression of my ideas/feelings, a thing I've kinda struggled with ever since learning how to write.
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
I presume this is sarcasm since I only wrote a short reply to you with about 1 point in it, and then followed that up with "the Irish of course"
I did actually read the big long post however, so now I'll read this big long post too...
Okay so I entirely agree that "racism", "racial discrimination" and "institutional racism" as you define them are all meaningful definitions, all relate to real things, and do not contradict each other.
The problem comes when you call all three things "racism", and then absolutely insist that the thing you are currently calling racism is the only acceptable definition, and act as though anyone else using the term is meaning the same thing by it. And if one day you say that "racism" means "institutional racism", but then the next say that it means [what you are now calling] "racism", then that is contradictory. So I'm saying those two definitions are contradictory, not that the underlying concepts are irreconcilable.
And really it kind of doesn't matter what terminology is used as long as it's agreed on. In fact you could argue that "racial descrimination" is just as good a term for what you're describing as "racism", given that you're saying it's simply making a discrimination between races. But we both know that's not how it's used.
Indeed I recall a similar thread 2 or 3 years ago perhaps, when an argument had been raging for several pages on what racism meant. But both sides seemed to be in agreement that "racial discrimination" was a thing, and that "institutional racism" was also a thing. I think I said something along the lines of "let's just call one of them Bob and one of them Jeff and we can actually get into a more meaningful discussion". But of course the argument just raged on. Which frankly led me to believe that the absolute insistence on using the sociological/academic/"institutional racism" definition in such arguments, when everyone knows this is not the commonly-accepted not even dictionary definition, is generally used as a tactic to derail and neuter any such discussions. But of course that's just my personal pet conspiracy theory and not something I'd assert as definitely being the case.
But anyway, we all seem to agree that these three things are real and deserving of labels (even if you consider one of them to be useless and divisive), and as you yourself admit, the "colloquial" (i.e. dictionary) definition of "racism" is the one that means what you are calling "racial discrimination", so frankly it just makes sense to use the term for this, then use other terms for the other two. So when someone says merely believing in race is "racist", you have to realise how that statement is going to be understood and it's kind of on you to phrase it better, not on the person objecting to it to adopt your language.
The problem comes when you call all three things "racism", and then absolutely insist that the thing you are currently calling racism is the only acceptable definition, and act as though anyone else using the term is meaning the same thing by it. And if one day you say that "racism" means "institutional racism", but then the next say that it means [what you are now calling] "racism", then that is contradictory. So I'm saying those two definitions are contradictory, not that the underlying concepts are irreconcilable.
I understand and agree. For that reason precisely, I'd recommend us (and everyone ITT is invited) to use easily distinguishable concepts: "Racial discrimination", "Institutional racism" and "race realism". while those are not perfectly accurate and just examples, I think it'd help us have a more meaningful discussion.
For example, I doubt anyone, from neither side would deny that Racial discrimination exists, but we might disagree on the internal contradictions of race science (which some people ITT don't see as a inherently flawed concept, and that is okay).
And really it kind of doesn't matter what terminology is used as long as it's agreed on. In fact you could argue that "racial descrimination" is just as good a term for what you're describing as "racism", given that you're saying it's simply making a discrimination between races. But we both know that's not how it's used.
Yes, also agreed. Ironically enough we need to come to a consensus first before we even enter the debate. And that consensus is wrt definitions.
Which frankly led me to believe that the absolute insistence on using the sociological/academic/"institutional racism" definition in such arguments, when everyone knows this is not the commonly-accepted not even dictionary definition, is generally used as a tactic to derail and neuter any such discussions. But of course that's just my personal pet conspiracy theory and not something I'd assert as definitely being the case.
It is indeed a tactic in my opinion, albeit I don't believe it's something people do consciously or with malicious intent. It's the same with Ben Shaprio, for example, who genuinely thinks he is "owning the libs" and who doesn't think of himself to be arguing in bad faith. I don't genuinely think "leftists" or "idpols" or "sjws" are trying to kill off any discussion by insisting on their terminology, but that is happens often.
But anyway, we all seem to agree that these three things are real and deserving of labels (even if you consider one of them to be useless and divisive), and as you yourself admit, the "colloquial" (i.e. dictionary) definition of "racism" is the one that means what you are calling "racial discrimination", so frankly it just makes sense to use the term for this, then use other terms for the other two. So when someone says merely believing in race is "racist", you have to realise how that statement is going to be understood and it's kind of on you to phrase it better, not on the person objecting to it to adopt your language.
Sure, we can just move one step along and call a person who believes in race a "race realist" as I have proposed earlier. it is a more fitting label than racist, anyway, because it conveys the meaning better imho. I don't have a problem with racism being defined by its colloquial nature, all of this is merely semantics. But it's good that we're even having the conversation, and that other people are reading along.
One argument I want to make however is that being a race realist is in and of itself an act of racial discrimination, because a race realist must qua definitionem always conflate a persons phenotype with their behavior/mental plane, and that is how institutional racism works in the end. there are no bad intentions mostly, no conscious discrimination, it's merely a matter of assessing people.
Lexicus
Deity
It's really not okay though. Like at all. It's disgusting.
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
One could, theoretically, hold such a position that racism is in and of itself a scientifically sound concept, which also happens to be discriminatory and lead to genocide. In that scenario racism would not be inherently flawed, but rather contextually flawed. And I think a lot of people (on here and on god's green earth) fall into that category. Those people I would also call race realists, but I would not say that they have bad intentions. Those would not that race is a construct.
Then there are people who see race as the only reality, and see race not as a concept but rather something essential reproduced via science. Those are another group of race realists, and they have exclusively bad intentions for anyone not part of their in-group. Those people would also deny that race is a construct.
Really, what my entire argument hinges on is that race necessarily conflates phenotypical traits with complex behavioral patterns and physiological differences. If you disagree with that point (which you shouldn't
) then grouping people by race is still arbitrary, but not necessarily flawed.It's important to recognize how different people engage the concept of race and try to protray different POVs as honest as possible, without projecting onto others.
