Question about race
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:11:32 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Question about race
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Question about race  (Read 5011 times)
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: March 10, 2006, 11:36:47 PM »

The problem is that this thread was already four pages long when I jumped in, and I've not yet been in the mood to read pages two through three.  Lewis' defense of his uncharastically inconsistent initial post may lie somewhere within.  These presents are best opened on festive occassions.  Christ, did I say festive?  you can't even say festive anymore without everybody giggling.  I blame the democrats.

By the way, here I sit all broken hearted, tried to schit and only farted.  But it gave me a chance to do some reading, so I looked up in my dictionary "conservationist" and it said one who advocates conservation of natural resources.  How in the world can that not be described as conservative?  Seriously.  That epitomizes conservative, imho.  There's a movie on right now with Jackie Chen called "Shanghai Noon" and the scene shows him taking a bath alongside Owen Wilson, giggling, laughing, and drinking hard liquor.  There was a day when two cowboys could take baths together and everybody was cool about it.  Conservation of water.  Conservative of water.  Conserve water.  Conserve.  Con=with; serve=to keep, or guard.  Two cowbows bathing at the same time is very conservative. 

I think what really matters here is not so much defining racism as deciding whether these statements are racist.  Unfortunately, the latter decision won't happen without first accomplishing the former.  So are we at least in agreement on the definition of racist I posted above, in the thread you dismissed?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: March 11, 2006, 12:05:35 AM »

The problem is that this thread was already four pages long when I jumped in, and I've not yet been in the mood to read pages two through three.  Lewis' defense of his uncharastically inconsistent initial post may lie somewhere within.  These presents are best opened on festive occassions.  Christ, did I say festive?  you can't even say festive anymore without everybody giggling.  I blame the democrats.

By the way, here I sit all broken hearted, tried to sh**t and only farted.  But it gave me a chance to do some reading, so I looked up in my dictionary "conservationist" and it said one who advocates conservation of natural resources.  How in the world can that not be described as conservative?  Seriously.  That epitomizes conservative, imho.  There's a movie on right now with Jackie Chen called "Shanghai" and the scene shows him taking a bath alongside Owen Wilson, giggling, laughing, and drinking hard liquor.  There was a day when two cowboys could take baths together and everybody was cool about it.  Conservation of water.  Conservative of water.  Conserve water.  Conserve.  Con=with; serve=to keep, or guard.  Two cowbows bathing at the same time is very conservative. 

I think what really matters here is not so much defining racism as deciding whether these statements are racist.  Unfortunately, the latter decision won't happen without first accomplishing the former.  So are we at least in agreement on the definition of racist I posted above, in the thread you dismissed?

Back at our little socialist exercise, are we not? Har har har. Well, you're right. It probably is about more than semantics. You mentioned somewhere a question to "take our language back." That sounds very noble, but from whom are we taking our language and for what reason are we taking it back? I think those are the most important questions here.

As for the two statements Bono brought up, they're false assertions of some fact of nature. With tons of qualifiers about averages and sub-groups and statistical controls, along with some rephrasing, some kind of statement that many experts would accept might be crafted out of that crude form, but as it stands they're indefensible scientifically. I think it's important not to politicize science. If you want to politicize science, one of the best ways of doing that is to get people to forget that there is a difference between what is and what should be. Though some interrelation is inevitable, the more people get latched onto the idea that their political (in the broad sense) station is dependent on the outcomes of scientific study, the more vulnerable that study is likely to be (and don't assume the enemy won't be the presidential administration, either). At the very basic, it is important to keep concepts distinguished. This means having one term that describes scientific study, and another term that describes judgments about good and bad. If you can't keep them separate semantically, you're going to need lots of luck keeping them separate communicatively, conceptually, and socially.

Regarding the dictionary definition, I'm not quite sure how important it is to you. You make it sound like it isn't. But looking at them, it's interesting that both dictionaries use the AND operator: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." It's the second part that might put your position on Bono's statements in a tricky light. I inferred "better [at] athletics" and "better at reason" to mean empirical testable statements wherein individuals can be categorized into racial categories, then tested physically and through the "intelligence quotient" exam, and empirical results that show that the two groups are statistically different might possible then be derived from there. Would you agree that this results does not necessarily result in any judgments about "good" and "bad" (which must first be done in order to create a basis by which to measure "superiority" and "inferiority")? I think that's the crucial question here. It kind of reminds me of a certain movie that I saw last, Forrest Gump, which shows the stupid ignoramous stumbling nobly through life on his mother's wisdom while others are lost around him; almost as if his ignorance and stupidity was superior to the others' sophistication. Not that I necessarily agree with that message, but it's interesting how things can be presented.

So, I wouldn't label science racist, for that is akin to equating truth with racism, and I would no more do that than equate truth with communism, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, conservatism, or Nazism. Unless, of course, I wanted to forget the possibility that an alternative to those things ever existed.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: March 11, 2006, 12:14:37 AM »

Would you agree that this results does not necessarily result in any judgments about "good" and "bad"?

I agree with you. 

I only disagree with your assertion that this is the crucial question here. 

In fact, now that I think about it, Bono posted that one is racist while the other is not, and I remember most posters immediately posting that both are racist.  That's when I got off on the tangent of what is and isn't racist. so I'm just saying, as an aside, that any consideration of race is racist.  and that's where you disagree.  fine.  I'm tired of arguing about that point.  Mostly because it goes so far off topic.

so back on topic, both statements are racist.  Fine, I'll accept the MW definition.  Again, by this definition they are both racist statements.  And it's irrelevant whether they are true or false.  You seem to be hanging on, like Lewis, to some notion about validity.  Validity is a fine concept, worthy of discussion.  But Bono didn't ask whether the statements were valid.  He only asked whether they were racist.  and that's an entirely different question.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: March 11, 2006, 07:05:37 AM »

you're talking about public school teachers?  I did that too, for two years, a long long time ago.  I can tell you that they're not so much cheap as poor.  There's a difference.  Here's when I really offend you and dazzleman, being as how you're serious hardcore republicans:  most of those teachers are underpaid.  That's just the way it is.  They're broke all the time, so they don't spend much. 

angus, do you know what teachers here make a year, after a few years of experience?  Teachers can easily make $100K+ per year here with some seniority, for a job where you get the whole summer off, and have tenure.  Sorry if I'm not bubbling over with sympathy for their financial deprivation, but it doesn't sound like such a bad deal to me, if you're in a good school.

I have a lot more sympathy honestly for the administrators.  They take on a lot more responsibility, don't have the job protection that teachers have, have to work through most of the summer, and don't make a whole lot more than an experienced, tenured teacher.  That is where the problem really is, IMO.

Of course, teachers starting out make crap.  Around here, a new teacher will generally have to build up experience either in a poorly-paying private school or a bad urban district, before being able to get a job in a well-paying suburban district that offers a decent work environment.  But that type of thing exists, in one form or another, in any profession.

I've found that tipping has more to do with how you feel about your financial situation, not the actual reality.  I know people with little money who tip well, and those with a lot of money who tip poorly.  When it comes to finances, there is the perception and the reality, and they are often two different things.

I think civil servants do tend to be cheaper tippers than average, for whatever reason.  The link could be in the personality type that is drawn to a civl service job in the first place.  Most civil servants are not 'high rollers' to put it mildly.  They have a more conservative personality type when it comes to money, and tip accordingly.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: March 11, 2006, 02:26:26 PM »

so back on topic, both statements are racist.  Fine, I'll accept the MW definition.  Again, by this definition they are both racist statements.

There are two definitions. The definition you are focusing on says "capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race," not "an inherent superiority in a particular race." This closely mirrors the American Heritage definition where it is phrased as "a particular race is superior to others." Both of these seem clearly meant that one must believe that one race is generally superior to others, not just that one race is superior to others by one particular measure of ability. One may believe that blacks are superior in one area and whites another, and as a whole neither race is 'superior'. One may even believe that one race is superior in a particular area yet inferior overall because they are inferior in other areas deemed more important. This involves a value judgment. From neither of Bono's two statements can you impute as much as overall racial superiority per se. Both statements are only about superiority in a narrowly defined field whose value in determining overall 'racial worth' is unaddressed. Therefore, they fail to satisfy both the MW and AH requirements in the belief in "an inherent superiority of a particular race... a particular race is superior to others"

Now it is true that if you believed that one race was superior in all measures of ability and character, this could be reduced to some testable scientific hypothesis about nature. I will concede this much. Yet this would involve an assumption so strong that even many self-admitted racists probably would not accept it. In practice the determination of overall superiority includes some sort of value judgment about which measures of superiority are more important and produce an overall superiority.

Now you probably decry this definition as overly narrow, but it looks as if it was made deliberately that way because the word is not as general as you want it to be.

More important than any of the above discussion however, definition 1, the abstract hypothesis about nature, is obviously, very clearly not what most people mean when we say racism. Most people generally refer to and think about definition 2, "racial prejudice or discrimination". "Discrimination" used in this sense clearly involves an attitude, a "partiality or prejudice", an "irrational suspicion or hatred", an "irrational attitude of hostility". It is this definition to which I have been referring for most of this exchange. If one infers from Bono's statements nothing more than assertions about some testable phenomenon in nature, then they cannot possibly satisfy this definition.

Thus by both definitions, the exquisitely narrow one and the more generally used one, both statements fail the dictionary definition when they are interpreted in the way that I interpreted them: as testable hypotheses about nature. It is only when the definition is expanded to mean anything that deals with race that they become racist.

That is the theory. In practice, of course, when such statements are uttered they are virtually without exception indications of racism because, as they stand, they are so clearly false that only a racist or someone who accepted some racist idea would continue to say them. It is hard to imagine a world in which all blacks are better at athletics than all whites and all whites are better at reason than all blacks. It would make the Olympics rather unfair, wouldn't it? Furthermore, Bono used the words "better," which could easily be interpeted as more than just a testable hypothesis. For these two reasons it is not hard to say why most people said both statements were racist.

So... you claimed Bono's statements are both racist, but used it as a jumping off point for a broader discussion that warranted clarification of the topics, and I pointed out that when interpreted as hypotheses about nature, neither statement is technically racist according to proper English usage. Of course, you have your own preferred definition. Which brings us back to the broader point. You seem to be tired of debating this and this may or may not be the last I am going to say about it.

There was a study done once that after the debate peoples views only become stronger and more entrenched. Undoubtedly your views are becoming more entrenched. Myself, I genuinely have no problem with the clarification of ideas and concepts or with increased precision in communication with the aim of reaching at truth. If this involves the invention of novel words, or the use of commonly unused as instruments to fill a void, all the better. In particular, I currently see in no problem in the use of the word 'racialist' to mean something that considers racial differences across people.

Yet it is one thing to do the above, it is something very, very different to take a broadly used existent concept and attempt to take away its linguistic existence in order to serve the needs of some other concept that you personally apparently consider to be more important. This is not the creation of something new but the attempt to take from something else that which is already in usage and appropriate it for one's own personal usages. It is a violent sort of act, and what are the stakes in this struggle? None other than which concepts are given embodiment in language, and the mode of human thought and communication... the same sort of stakes faced in an Orwellian world of doublespeak, for the right to use a word is more often than not the right to conceptualize the object; the very building tools of social communication and thought. To destroy the word is to destroy the concept, and George Orwell was perfectly aware of the consequences of that.

But you've mentioned two times your quest to "take our language back" and suggest this is what it's all about. I've asked you from whom we were taking our language back, and was met with silence. Surely not the French? Or the PC Police that come knocking on doors at night taking people away? Perhaps it must be those secret agents of the DNC who work at Merriam Websters. But it is none of those, for "our" implies some class if people identified with the "self" and another class... nameless, dehumanized, and defined as the "other..." and it is imperative that they remain nameless and dehumanized, isn't it? And what are "we" going to do about it? Why we are going to "take" from the other, presumably without their consent, which suggests theft. And what are we going to take from them? Language... which in this quest is no longer the universal human instrument of communication but the privledged property of some class of individuals "we" only "we" have a right to.

Unfortunately for the justice of this quest, the importance of the concept of racism as it exists today is too important for its linguistic existence to be ripped away in a personal crusade to return to some imagined level of superiority about race dialogue that is supposed to have existed before the civil rights movement, no matter how self-righteous that crusade purports to be. This is quite true and likely will always be so for the rest of our lives. And it is worth saying that, even if this exchange has merely strengthened your resolve.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: March 11, 2006, 02:31:31 PM »
« Edited: March 11, 2006, 02:36:12 PM by dazzleman »

Beet, you are one f&$king tenacious dude.  And stubborn too. Cheesy

angus is probably nursing a hangover now, having long forgotten this discussion.  You really ought to be nursing a hangover too, man. Tongue
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: March 11, 2006, 09:33:00 PM »

Patrick and dazzleman, whether teachers make over a hundred thousand dollars a year depends on the subset you select.  I guess you can find a group that's not overpaid.  Nice to know that they're so well paid in the President's native state.  I'm guessing that the median teacher's salary nationwide is somewhat lower, but I haven't looked up so I won't pursue the argument any more.  I think tipping may also have more to do with social custom than economics anyway. 

Factor, I don't think the validity of a statement is what makes it racist or not, and a multiparagraph rant doesn't hide the fact the you require validity as a qualifier.  (Bet you didn't think I'd read the whole thing when you decided to sneak the validity argument in there without my noticing.)  Moreover, whether or not the statement is verifiable, as you suggest it may be, is irrelevant as well.  Verification of a racist claim makes the racist claim no more or less racist than it was before it was verified.  Sure, you can till your dying breath insist on a definition of racist that has something about "scientifically verifiable" or "valid" in it, but for me validity is irrelevant.  A true racist statement is just as racist as a false racist statement.  And both statements refer to widely recognized racial groups and, since they make statements concerning the superiority of a group (presumably over other groups, though that isn't specifically mentioned in the original post), then they are racist.  (It's not worth quibbling over whether the preposition is "of" or "in" in my view, since both statements make statements which, generalize about race.  That is, I don't care whether you go out at night or go out in the night, so long as you lock up when you leave.  But do leave.)

You're the only one who is still arguing, so you're the one stealing my language, so it's you I would sue.  But, I'm in a generous mood, so I've decided you can keep the word gay.  And anyway I'm not feeling very gay at the moment anyway.  As a matter of fact, I'm feeling a little fagged from too much wine and a very long bicycle ride today.  And being all fagged out, I'm not in the mood to take any words back from you.  So keep as many as you like.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: March 11, 2006, 09:42:40 PM »

angus, if I understand you correctly, then you're saying that recognizing proven differences among races is 'racist.'  Isn't that kind of like saying it's sexist to acknowledge that men have penises and women don't?  Of course, in the example I used, the validity of the point is 100%, but in the case even of proven general differences among the races, the validity will never be 100%, though it probably could be fairly high in certain cases.

Or are you driving home the point that the term 'racist' isn't necessarily negative?
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: March 12, 2006, 12:52:07 PM »

I do not think it needs to be a negative term.  For example, I think saying east asians generally have less body hair than, say, semites, may be regarded as a racist statement.  Or that african populations have a greater incidence of sickle-cell anemia.  And large penises.  And curly hair.  I don't think we have to have "superior" or "inferior" in the denotation.  However, I'm just tired of arguing the point, and I will, for the purpose of this discussion, accept that racism necessarily involves the belief that one race is superior to another, in some aspect.  (we can call mere observational statements, whether they are humorous or dry, something else.  Factor has suggest "racially sensitive" as a term.  While I bristle at such a term, it at least allows us to avoid having this discussion for the nineteenth time, so I may adopt it for the purpose of this discussion.  So let's just agree that "racial sensitivity" needn't be negative.  And you can call it whatever you want.  Call it racist if you're a purist.  Or call it racial sensitivity if you like flowery language.  Or call it Pete or George.)  What I cannot accept is that validity or formality is necessary.  Racist statements, given our new definition, can be true or false, and they can be instutionalized or informal.  The same holds if you accept my initially conceived definition, so it really doesn't matter.

The bottom line here is, Bono in the original post, made the claim that one of the statements is, and one isn't, racist, but then didn't offer a definition of racism.  Now, several of us initially said they're both racist.  But if you want to tweak the word racist to mean something I didn't have in mind when I made my initial post fine.  Pick another definition, in which case neither may be.  Really, it's not a problem if you want to find definitions of the word racism that makes both statements racist, or if you can find definitions of the word that makes neither statement racist.  My inclination is to think both statements are racist, since they observe differences between races, and my inclination is to think that such observations are not only not harmful, but may actually be helpful in some capacities.  The only bizarre, or inconsistent, posts were those which claimed that one was and one wasn't.  Bono's tacit disagreement that one is and one isn't should have been obvious to all.  What's not clear is whether he thinks both are or both aren't.  But that really doesn't matter to me at this point, since I am so tired of arguing over this that I will accept any definition of racism you like.  Really, you can define the word "orange" to be what looks, tastes, and feels like a banana, and as long as we accept that definition we can have an intelligent discussion. 

I'm dead. 
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: March 12, 2006, 01:41:01 PM »

angus, I think the real issue is what type of 'racism' or for that matter, 'sexism' is acceptable under political correctness.

Anything negative about whites or men is acceptable, and anything negative against blacks or women is not.  It's really that simple. 

So the question is, should this be acceptable?  I say no, and I suspect you would agree with me.  There are others who use the whole 'power structure' argument to say that it should be acceptable, and many of these are Uncle Tommish-white men who support feminism and political correctness.

thefactor is a cool guy, and a very bright guy, but he does have some blind spots when it comes to feminism and political correctness in general.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: March 12, 2006, 03:30:03 PM »

Bah. I think angus you misinterpreted what I wrote about validity (which has more to do about inferences about the speaker than the words themselves) and I still think the 1st dictionary definition refers to belief in overall superiority of one race in general, but I'm done arguing over this as well.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: March 12, 2006, 10:24:44 PM »

Anything negative about whites or men is acceptable, and anything negative against blacks or women is not.  It's really that simple. 

well that may very well have been where Bono was going with this, but as you can see his phrasing of the question opens up a big ol'  can of worms.

But if that's all this is about, i.e., some antiquated double standard, then I'd say you are living in the late 90s.  That double standard hit a high water mark circa 1998, and even my ultrafeminist, Harvard-ecucated, no meat-eating, pseudomarxist leftist roommate (at the time) agreed that some of the programming had gone too far that season.  And if you knew this woman you'd appreciate how much that means.  Anyway, I think all old school man-bashing is out of the closet and is receding.  It's very Ten Years Ago to complain about it.  Let me just say that if you have some good sexist or racist humor, and if it's really funny, I'll laugh.  If it's not, then I won't.  I don't mind sexist or racist humor, as evidenced by my many many posts on the FOX network's Sunday night lineup.  Anybody catch the stupid thing that came on after War at Home by the way?  Man, talk about disfunctional.  The show was a loser for me.  But I'll continue to watch Fox for its unconventional, anti-politicallycorrect rantings, and the obligatory stab at neoconservative hawks as well.  No one is spared.  Insensitivity is the new sensitivity.  Apparently.  In fact, it's very possible that the PC backlash is more than even the anti-PC backlashers intended.

I'd say, as a final examination of my feeling about this matter, that if someone is truly a bigot, then it may very well be important to you to publicly recognize their bigotry.  First, the word bigot is more useful and all-encompassing than silly terms like sexist or racist, since it bigotry may refer to hatred of groups which don't really form a race, such as ethnoreligious groupings (e.g., Catholics, Jews, Muslims, or Evangelical Protestants), or ethnonational groups (e.g., mutual animosity between Japanese and Chinese people, still very very strong, even though they are of the same race), or even ethnic groups (e.g., Hispanics in the US, which may be of any race).  Also, bigotry spans race and sex, thus the sexism and racism to which you refer, in the most negative sense, may be identified as bigotry.  Also, bigtotry can refer to geopolitical bigotry (e.g., "oh, those Massachusetts assholes, they know nothing but taxes and gay marriage" or "oh, those hypocritical Swiss, with the gold they stole from dead Jews having the nerve to call us EU folks imperialists" or "oh, those rednecks in Appachalachia, of course they voted for Bush, they're all morons").  Also, the term bigotry helps us separate the sort of racist who makes or laughs at a racist joke but who harms no one and doesn't ever refuse anyone a job based on the color of his skin, from the bigoted racists, who do cause economic harm to people, whether they be of a different race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, geographic region, nationality, veteran status, or ideology.  This is important to recognize.  While racism, at its core, is not a major problem, the bigotry and the discrimination which often follows it, is a problem.  I think that is the nature of my diatribe.  And yes, I think it's possible to be as bigoted toward a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Yankee Male as toward an emaciated, nature-worshipping, pagan African who's never even seen a light bulb, let alone a pint of Ben'n'Jerry's Ice Cream or the campus of a proper New England private university.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,024
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: March 13, 2006, 04:12:12 PM »

Why is it not racist to say blacks are better in certain fields, such as athlethics, but it is racist to say whites are better at reason?

There is too much of a double-standard when it comes to race, political correctness, and being offended.  I think a lot of it still stems from the social brainwashing we had to go through following the civil rights movement, where government and organizations forgot to stop their efforts to realize that the needed level of "awareness" had already been met.  With people that I know and work with, I can clearly make the distiction between "black" and "white," and know that no one will be offended.  And I'm sure that is true with most people.  However, when discussing those issues with the general public, it magically becomes offensive.   I think we have gone long enough with this PC stuff and call a spade a spade and realize that it isn't meant as a term of hate or ignorance.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.047 seconds with 12 queries.