In the comments to the previous thread, Freddie said something that got me thinking. Part of the problem with talking about race and gender in America is the definition of racism and sexism. Most of us use a working definition of racism and sexism that is something like "Holding (bad) false beliefs about racial minorities and women". But if that is our definition, everyone is going to fail a racism/sexism self-check: no one believes that their own beliefs are false. I'm sure that Tom Metzger's disciples mostly believe that their views about blacks are absolutely true, and therefore not racist.
This is why many feminists prefer to focus on institutional outcomes rather than how you, a successful member of the patriarchy, feel about things. The problem is, institutional outcomes have many possible determinants; even if there were no institutional discrimination at all, pregnancy would make outcomes different, in ways that are harder to make justice claims for remedy than cases of straight bigotry. But the other extreme doesn't work either.
You're overthinking this. People won't embrace labels that carry condemnation with them.
It wouldn't matter if you showed Tom Metzger ironclad scientific proof that he's a racist, got the UN Security Council to pass a resolution recognizing his racism, and brought his mother around to call him a racist, you're just not going to get to the point where he thinks hard about it, decides you're right, and willingly flies the flag of racism.
Let me say, first: I believe everyone has racist attitudes, to one degree or the other. I have them. What is important are actions (there's the existentialist in me.) If you have certain racist fears or prejudices inside of you, but you treat people the same way regardless of your inner feelings, that is the important thing. We have to privilege actions. Also, I always prefer to think in terms of "that statement or action was racist", as opposed to "that person is a racist", because you are never done with the job of creating who you are. But, as you can see, I sometimes fail in that aim.
Also, I want to say that I think one of the sad realities of our current race dialogue is the fact that we are so incredible efficient at ruining the lives of a Michael Richards or John Rocker, but so bad at eliminating the continuing discrimination in hiring practices, housing access, etc. Destroying Michael Richards's career does precisely nothing to help black people in this country. Reforming our death penalty system so that black people aren't condemned to death so much more readily than white people who commit similar crimes does. But which are we capable of doing? Which do we treat as a bigger deal.
That said-- if you are a genetic determinist or a "race realist" or whatever else, yes, I do believe that is racist. One of the obnoxious things about the Bell Curve movement is the tendency for its proponents to make these kind of "contrarian" statements and yet be shocked-- shocked!-- to be accused of racism. Well, look. I'm open to discussing our definition of the term racist. But I really struggle to comprehend one that doesn't include "thinks black people are inherently predisposed to stupidity and criminality" within it. And, again, people place the emphasis on feelings-- "I mean black people no harm!"-- rather than on material concerns-- "but I won't hire one for my factory, because they're stupid. And violent. And they steal."
I often have battles with Steve Sailer, a noted racialist commentator, over at Matt Yglesias's site. He is unapologetically supportive of the notion of black genetic inferiority, and yet he dislikes being referred to as a racist. But really, what is the objection to? I don't think it is out of tune with the dictionary definition or conventional understanding of racism to say that, yes, if you think the average black person is stupid, you're guilty of racism. The objection is to the stigma of being called a racist. They don't like having the word associated with them.
But, look-- your opinions have consequences. The things you think change the way people react to you. And if you're going to enjoy the "iconoclast" cred that comes from condemning the large majority of black Americans to intellectual or criminal irrelevance, I'm going to call a spade a spade and use the term society has agreed to assign to people like yourself. (I'm using a generic "you" here, by the way.) But look, embrace it. Just don't hide behind weasel words.
Freddie,
Sailer has never said that blacks are "genetically inferior" to whites, neither has he said that they are genetically predisposed to being criminals. I know you have an aversion to facts sometimes, but to be fair, you should dispute things people have said or written, not your straw man versions.
Most of us use a working definition of racism and sexism that is something like "Holding (bad) false beliefs about racial minorities and women".
Actually his point revolved solely around "bad". Whether or not they're false seemed to be irrelevant.
Tom Metzger enthusiastically embraces the label "racist." He just doesn't define "racism" as holding false beliefs about race. (Quite the opposite -- he believes racism consists of holding accurate beliefs about race.)
JSinger and Freddie seem to be onto something. There's is an odd obsessiveness in some quarters about documenting the existence of sexism and racism in society. And there is relatively little effort to prove that invidious sexual and racial attitudes are false--as I hope they are.
The people who hold invidious sexual and racial ideas, as Megan says, think they are true. And they think the truth of their invidious ideas explains the disparate outcomes that, Megan notes, feminists are careful to document. It would seem that the important work is in determining whether those ideas are, indeed, true . . . not in documenting their prevalence or effects.
GW,
You're right. I don't actually know much about Metzger and was relying on Megan's characterization. But I just looked it up, and--sheesh--you are right. Apologies, and I'm going to go huddle in the corner now . . .
It is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that there are actual measurable differences in populations based on various factors like race and gender. For example, women tend to be shorter than men. To deny this is just stupid. To acknowledge this is not racist or sexist.
The problem comes when one judges an individual member of a group by the group's statistical average. Any given woman may be taller or shorter than average. Any given man maybe taller or shorter than average. So just because, on average, men are taller than women, you can't assume that any given man is taller than any given woman.
Racism or sexism is when one takes a stereotype or group characteristic and assumes every individual has that characteristic.
As far as making generalizations, people do that and it works. It's more efficient than trying to judge every single individual you meet on an individual basis. Sometimes you don't have time to.
For example, I'm walking alone down a dark street. I see someone coming towards me. I'm not going to introduce myself, get his resume, and check out his criminal record before deciding whether or not to cross the street. I'm going to make a snap decision based on what I see. If he's wearing a suit and tie and carrying a briefcase, I'll probably walk by him. The cost of getting accurate information is very high in this case but the cost of taking a precaution is very low.
When hiring someone for a job, though, you have more information and more opportunity to learn about the person. And it's illegal to judge based on race. So you do a little more work.
EI
It would seem that the important work is in determining whether those ideas are, indeed, true.
Even if one could prove these ideas in the general, the proof would say nothing about any individual you might meet. So what exactly would be the point of proving the Bell Curve thesis?
Oops, I see EI has made the same point. Read his. It's better.
Earnest Iconoclast,
The real problem of acknowledging average differences between groups are the logical consequences that follow for traditional ideas about diversity and affirmative action. If we observe the fiction that there are no average differences between groups, then it follows that if a group is under-represented in a profession or a freshman class relative to its share of the population, then this must be the result of prejudice and it requires affirmative action as a remedy.
Take African Americans, for example. They comprise about 12% of the American population. If we pretend that there are no average differences in IQ between African Americans and other groups, we should expect to see 12% of the students in elite universities be black, etc. (this is close to the case at military academies, where it is mandated by law). If, on the other hand, we take average group differences into account, we would expect a much smaller percentage of African Americans in elite universities, professions, etc. Say, for example, that a certain profession demanded an IQ of 100 or more, which is the average white IQ in America. If only one out of six African Americans has an IQ of 100, is it reasonable to assume that 12% of the members of this profession should be black? Of course not; you might expect 2% to be black.
Affirmative Action that ignores reality doesn't really help anyone. It sets up under-qualified minorities for failure later, including in professions where lives are at stake (engineering, medicine, etc.).
The Bell Curve thesis has no implications for judging individuals but a great many for assessing policy. If it is true -- and the data are quite stubborn on this point -- that there is a difference of one standard deviation between adult black and white IQ scores, then blacks will be extremely scarce at the far right of the distribution. That goes a long way toward explaining black underrepresentation in professions that place a premium on IQ, like engineering and hard science. The standard explanations of institutional racism lose traction, and the standard remedies look a lot more foolish.
Besides, don't you want to know what's true, just for its own sake? As the Faber College motto runs, "Knowledge is good."
The definition isn't about the mindset of the holder (does the holder believe what he's saying?), but rather the content of the beliefs.
Racist X has sincere belief Y that blacks are inherently inferior; the holding of Y makes one racist; ergo X is racist.
Institutional or structural racism or sexism fills an explanatory gap, purporting to answer the question how the society at large seems to have racist / sexist outcomes even when most of the constituents don't expressly hold racist / sexist beliefs.
Even if one could prove these ideas in the general, the proof would say nothing about any individual you might meet. So what exactly would be the point of proving the Bell Curve thesis?
In addition to meeting individuals on the street, you and I also talk about public policy. That is, we discuss policies that affect large numbers of people. And while it is true that demographic studies are of dubious utility in individual interactions, the truth value of demographic ideas does help to resolve concrete policy questions.
For example, given a population X, how many hospital beds and jail cells do we need? That depends on the statistical likelihood of members of population X to get sick or be convicted of a serious crime. Of course, if you meet a woman from population X, you won't be able to tell her that she is necessarily sickly or criminal (or healthy or virtuous). But that doesn't make studying the demographic trends of her cohort a fatuous pursuit.
Aaron Haspel made the point more pithily than I did. Nice work.
Sailer has never said that blacks are "genetically inferior" to whites, neither has he said that they are genetically predisposed to being criminals. I know you have an aversion to facts sometimes, but to be fair, you should dispute things people have said or written, not your straw man versions.
If I could post links here, I would. He is absolutely unequivocal: he believes black people have a genetic predisposition towards lower intelligence than whites, and a genetic predisposition towards violence that leads to criminality. It is, in fact, the crux of his views.
So, in other words, you're simply wrong.
Two questions for Freddie:
1. Is the alleged IQ gap between races an empirical question? Is it susceptible to scientific investigation, or is one obliged to deny it a priori?
2. If the question is empirical, what evidence would persuade you that an adult black-white IQ gap does, in fact, exist?
I would point out that many hold open the possibility that they could be wrong. They don't necessarily need to assume they are wrong themselves to possibly find racism within themselves.
As long as we do not understand what truly unites us all - it will be difficult to come up with meaningful explanations of the differences?
The problem is that the brain is generally overwhelmed by the similarities (which are too numerous) and has evolved to concentrate on the few and weak differences?
Jews vs Christians vs Muslims... I mean... come on! women vs men, black vs white,...
History, if nothing else, should tell us that psychologically we underestimate the similarities and overestimate the differences?
Forget intelligence. Not long ago we had difficulty accepting that children and blacks feel pain the same way that adult whites do. How do we explain this when discussion intelligence?
I tend to agree with Mark Twain:
Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal. Note his history, as sketched above. It seems plain to me that whatever he is he is not a reasoning animal. His record is the fantastic record of a maniac. I consider that the strongest count against his intelligence is the fact that with that record back of him he blandly sets himself up as the head animal of the lot: whereas by his own standards he is the bottom one.
In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which the other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning. Among my experiments was this. In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.
Next, in another cage I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scotch Presbyterian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping. Then I stayed away two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and fleshnot a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court.
Aaron asks: Is the alleged IQ gap between races an empirical question? Is it susceptible to scientific investigation, or is one obliged to deny it a priori?
All me to pose a hypothetical.
Let us suppose that empirical studies demonstrate that there is a gap between the I.Q.s of the wealthy and the poor. Would this demonstrate:
A) That the wealthy are wealthy because they are more intelligent, or
B) The wealthy or more intelligent because they are wealthy?
What set of evidence would be able to decide between conclusions A and B?
The problem I have with Bell Curve type studies isn't that they are empirical. I'm sure that they are and I don't doubt that there are distinct distributions of intelligence between various groups. My objection is that I don't believe that the studies do an adequate job of distinguishing between genetic differences and differences created by other externalities (nor are all of those externalities cultural... poor nutrition, among other things, can also impact IQ).
The major concern that I have with these studies is that a lot of people seem to jump to the automatic conclusion that the major factor in the distribution is hereditary but teasing out hereditary factors from environmental factors is notoriously difficult. In the meanwhile, a lot of people are using these studies to "confirm" their existing prejudices.
So no, one isn't required to deny the possibility of empirical research that could demonstrate differences in intelligence between groups a priori but, at the same time, it behooves us to recognize what that research does and does not show.
no one believes that their own beliefs are false.
Clearly, everyone must consciously believe their beliefs to be true. In their heart of hearts, they may suspect otherwise, which is why many people try to avoid disconfirming evidence.
People often deal with this by moralising opinions.
To say that blacks are disproportionately likely to be jailed because blacks are more violent than whites is anti-black, therefore immoral and racist
To say that men are disproportionately likely to be jailed because men are more violent than women is pro-women, therefore moral and feminist
Race norming benefits members of some races at the expense of members of other races, but is not racist because it tends to benefit the right minorities (and tough luck to Asians, who tend to be ignored in this sort of discussion).
In the segregation-era South, on the other hand, to be anti-black was to be pro-Southerner, thus showing loyalty to the South, and the immorality of voting Republican (or letting any blacks do so).
And so on.
Note that the process can be applied to other subjects: supporters of the free market/ school vouchers/ the UN and so on are all decried by their enemies as being not mistaken, but evil, and probably treacherous as well.
The (unconscious) point of all this is to destroy the ability of the enemy to argue back.
Yes, blacks as a group have a lower average IQ score than whites, but the problem is (and the serious problem with the Bell Curve) is that there is very little evidence that IQ scores actually measure intelligence, as opposed to the education a person received to be able to do well on an IQ test.
Justin, IQ is a measure of past academic achievement because people with higher IQs tend to achieve more academically than those with lower IQs. IQ is also a measure of the ability to reason abstractly and perform well on highly g-loaded tests like Raven's Progressive matrices, which is not a test that one normally studies for.
Whatever it is that IQ tests are measuring, if term "intelligence" is giving you the willies, in a RPM exam correlates highly with academic success which is independent of eduactional opportunities as you appear to be suggesting.
Aaron and southpaw,
Knowledge for knowledge sake is fine.
However, if we decide to start making southpaw's public policy choices based on a generalized idea of certain races' IQs, then are we not, perhaps, trampling the individual who is an exception?
I wouldn't think such maximize the utility choices in public policy would be ones libertarians would favor.
Which is also fine.
Justin: I did not use the term "intelligence" and there is no need to. I will simply note two known facts about IQ, without speculating on the underlying quality that it purports to measure. First, it is probably intractable, at least for individuals. (I hedge only because of the Flynn Effect.) Short-term IQ gains can be induced in children, but they disappear over time.
Second, it correlates highly with life outcomes generally regarded as favorable, like making a lot of money and staying out of jail. And by "highly" I mean a lot better than any socioeconomic variable you care to name.
Andrew: Actually the studies have been done, and, mirabile dictu, rich people have higher IQs. Which demonstrates neither A nor B in your hypo. Trying to tease out heredity from environment is a fool's errand; "heritability" is a far more slippery concept than it looks and not for the mathematically faint-of-heart. What you ought to focus on is tractability, which is an altogether different animal -- actually orthogonal to heritability, though the two are frequently confused. You want to know where we go more than how we got here.
Sycamore: I'd need an example to answer your question. Southpaw's instances didn't strike me as trampling on anyone in particular.
However, if we decide to start making southpaw's public policy choices based on a generalized idea of certain races' IQs, then are we not, perhaps, trampling the individual who is an exception?
Yeah, I think you're right. I really dislike abstractly reasonable policies that reliably lead to manifest injustice on the individual level.
That's why I think you really want to avoid race-based and gender-based programs to remedy past inequalities of outcome. Those programs don't work out so well for lots of individuals in the present. But as long as those programs continue, I don't see how you can avoid seeking the truth of what exactly is causing these inequalities of outcome.
Aaron, my precise point was that neither A nor B are evidence by the raw fact that wealthy people have higher IQs.
As I noted, the problem with Bell Curve studies aren't the studies, per se, but the conclusions that people draw from the studies. I am, in fact, concerned that people take the observation that blacks, for instance, score lower on IQ tests than white and then jump to the unsupported conclusion that this proves that blacks are naturally mentally inferior to whites.
I am aware that hereditability is a slippery concept. Again, that's part of the point that I was making. I am not sure, however, what you mean when you suggest that we should focus on "tractability". I presume that you are using the word in a technical sense that isn't the same as the generic definition of how easy it is to persuade someone of something but I don't what that technical sense might be nor have any of the online dictionaries been of any use in helping me to understand your meaning. If you could expand upon that I would appreciate it.
Freddie says that if you think blacks are inherently more likely to be criminal, then you are racist, and I think most of us would agree with him.
But if I think that men are more likely to be criminal than women, does that make me sexist?
Andrew, tractability (also often called malleability) means how difficult something is to change. Adult weight, for instance, is notoriously tractable. Adult height, less so. Adult IQ is a lot more like height than weight.
As usual, a very interesting discussion. Thanks to everyone.
Some random comments of my own:
There are differences between the sexes and among races. Some believe it is the affirmative duty of each member of society to not just ignore but to ameliorate these differences. For example, assume your job is to find six people to load and unload trucks at a depot. You need them to be physically strong and willing to work outside in all sorts of weather. They need not be overly intelligent (not that high intelligence is a hindrance, it's just not a requirement). Where would you go to find these workers? Left to your own devices (and ignoring any obligation to ameliorate gender differences), you might start recruiting at the haunts of strong men. You're perfectly willing to hire a husky women, but spending an equal amount of time recruiting women would be a waste of time since fewer women meet your requirement for physical strength. Some in society insist that targeting your hiring efforts at men would be sexist.
Another example, suppose your job is to hire someone to fill a new position requiring a particular technical skill. From experience, you know Professor Wilson's students master the subject matter. Some students of other professors at other schools might be just as good, but you know you'll find quality candidates by going to Professor Wilson. Professor Wilson's school is located in an area without large black or Asian populations. As a consequence, there are few blacks or Asian's who are or have been taught by Professor Wilson. Would it be racist if you concentrated your hiring efforts on Dr. Wilson's students?
Finally, among of the differences between the genders are differences in aspirations. My youngest daughter is every bit as bright, if not brighter, than her older brother. He wants to be an engineer. She wants to be a kindergarten teacher. I don't know whether my daughter's desire for what is a traditional female job has anything to do with genetics or whether its nurture. (Her mother wants her to be a doctor. Mom wants our son to be a writer.) Is it society's role to convince more women, like my daughter, that they really don't want to pursue the things they think they want?
The charge of "racism" (the word is not even 140 years old) was largely popularized by NeoMarxists (Frankfurt School) as a way to undermine Western Civilization. Realizing that they could not win on class alone, they chose this dubious charge of "racism" undermine Western man and his ancestral traditions.
Interesting article on the UN's definition of racism
link
juan:
"Take African Americans, for example. They comprise about 12% of the American population. If we pretend that there are no average differences in IQ between African Americans and other groups, we should expect to see 12% of the students in elite universities be black, etc. (this is close to the case at military academies, where it is mandated by law). If, on the other hand, we take average group differences into account, we would expect a much smaller percentage of African Americans in elite universities, professions, etc. Say, for example, that a certain profession demanded an IQ of 100 or more, which is the average white IQ in America. If only one out of six African Americans has an IQ of 100, is it reasonable to assume that 12% of the members of this profession should be black? Of course not; you might expect 2% to be black."
Actually 4%, only 50% of whites have an IQ over 100 so blacks are underrepresented by a factor of 3 not 6. Of course this ratio will increase as you raise the bar above 100.
A good definition of racism is crucial to this discussion - I haven't seen any proposed, so here goes:
Definition- Societal Racism: The institutionalization of laws that differentiate between the races, with the intent of harming certain groups.
Definition -"Individual Racism": Holding unjustified Bayesian priors about certain groups, based on racial identification, and acting on those beliefs.
I would argue that the first definition is a type of racism we can do something about, whereas it's probably not possible to do much about the second.
I would further argue that under the first definition, the US is not racist, save for the affirmative action or minority promoting business laws which are clearly racist by that definition [let's move them to economically based criteria, please].
Under the second definition, every person and society in the world is probably "racist". Why? For the simple reason that evolution has programmed us to favor people who are similar to us at the expense of those who are different. This seems obvious.
Finally, believing that in principle there may be differences in cultural behavior and achievements in certain disciplines among races, without acting in a manner prejudicial to any specific individual is not "racist" - it is merely factual and born out by everyone's life experience.
"Holding (bad) false beliefs about racial minorities and women"
No, in America today, the reigning ndefinition of an evil racist/sexist is somebody who states actual facts about racial minorities and women.
Just ask Larry Summers!
JPC wrote: Under the second definition, every person and society in the world is probably "racist".
As has been famously said in a variety of other contexts, a theory that can explain anything, epxlains nothing. If, as your definition (and Freddies, it would appear) proposes, everyone's actions and attitudes toward racial differences can be explained as "racism" -- then the word quickly dissolves into a greasy pool of funtional uselessness.
Also, "racist" generally carries the same kind of pejorative connotations as, say, "biggot". You can't call someone racist without implying some sort of serious lapse in their character and judgment, and to do so anyway is a leading risk factor for broken noses.
People don't smear you for being wrong (the members of the Flat Earth Society are just ignored), they smear you because they are afraid you are right.
Personally, I believe the truth is better for humanity than lies, ignorance, or wishful thinking. Lots of people, however, disagree.
Discussions of average group differences in, say, IQ or crime rates tend to immediately veer into the ditch with the deniers accusing the empiricists of racism or sexism for claiming that the differences are genetic.
Personally, I was the first to point out (back in 2002) that the very low average IQs of West African (around 70) are clearly depressed by environment, since their genetic cousins in America (who share 80% of their genes) average around 85 (one standard deviation higher). Therefore, I have consistently promoted in my writings Unicef's program to raise national average IQs in Third World countries by fortifying staple foods with iodine and iron (as the US began doing in the 1930s) to eliminate cognitive syndromes caused by the lack of those micronutrients. You'll note, though, that almost nobody else ever brings up this extremely cost-effective idea because the whole topic IQ is off-limits in polite society.
This analysis suggests that the 15 point gap between African-Americans and white Americans (and the even larger gap between blacks and Asian Americans) might also be at least partly environmental, but there are fewer slam dunk programs for closing it within America, like the micronutrients in the Third World. I have promoted breastfeeding among African-Americans, but the evidence now seems to be running against that as having an effect on IQ.
Well, we'll know in one or two decades whether or not these gaps are partly genetic -- behavioral genetics is progressing rapidly.
In the meantime, however, the key point for thinking about public policy is the one Aaron Haspel makes above: whatever their cause, IQ and crime rate differences are fairly stable and not very tractable. This means that we can safely assume that these differences will continue to exist for any reasonable planning horizon, such 30 years.
For example, James Q. Wilson has pointed out that in the oldest dataset available in the United States, blacks have had higher homicide rates than whites in Philadelphia ever since 1839. (The current racial ratio, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, is seven to one.)
Similarly, the adult IQ gap has been quite stable in America since the 1920s, although the children's gap has narrowed, but doesn't seem to continue into adulthood. Why the dichotomy? Nobody knows, but it would seem to be the kind of thing that a lot research investment should be devoted to, but, instead, it's largely off-limits.
Of course, in their private lives, all the readers of the Atlantic act upon this data when choosing where to live and where to send their children to school. But, we allow the vast and self-interested diversity industry to emasculate our public intellectual discourse by smearing people who state the facts as racists and sexists.
Freddie, you've got Sailer here. Care to intelligently discuss this with him or do you want to just stick to smearing him as a racist?
the members of the Flat Earth Society are just ignored
The members of the Flat Earth Society have no political power whatsoever and noone considers them a threat. Slander isn't destructive because it is true, but because it is believable.
Steve
I generally agree with you (loved the nutrition part) but.. As there are 6 billion individuals on the planet and every race label is virtual - racism has obviously very little to do with genes and more with superficial virtual categories? After all - a black person can be genetically closer to a white person than another black person. A few hundred years that would not have helped him - he'd be a slave either way? Today the same - color of your skin is more important than intelligence!!!
So I agree with you - the genetic intelligence debate has nothing to do with it and it is stupid to call scientist racist because they discuss nurture (which accounts for so little anyway). We all know that even if research showed that blacks were more intelligent than whites - we would discriminate if we were culturally told to do so!!
Chimps who grow up among humans and who can know American Sign Language are often appalled when they first meet other apes. They call them names like "dirty black bug" and other insults.. trying desperately to remain different from them. Racism is - as most behavior - partly nature and partly nurture.
Look at modern male humans as another proof for how important not looking like an animal is to humans. Where do males grow body hair and where do other apes?
Human males grow beards - all other apes have no facial hair. Humans have hairy underarms and chests - apes are hairy everywhere but there. Cesar's nose anybody? In other words - we have been selecting against looking like all other apes in the recent evolutionary past. (chimps and bonoboos have white skin underneath their dark body hair.)
Koko, the gorilla who was thought American Sign Language, apparently has an IQ of 90. Given that her evolution over the last few million years has not prepare her for human life - she is a rather impressive lady? But she does not look and sound like other humans and therefore it would be legally allowed to lock her up and experiment on her.
In other words - if you do not want to be discriminated against in a racist society - don't look or act like an animal? Look and sound as much as the people who might discriminate against you and you will be just fine (your intelligence does not matter per se. Emotional intelligent might even serve you better than analytical in order to act like the one of them)!!!
I think anony-mouse misunderstands my point, which is different to Freddie's and more similar to Steve Sailer's. The point is basically that there should be no institutional racial preferences or codified group discrimination at all. That being said, people will form internal judgments about groups based on their own information, experiences and prejudices. These judgments [right or wrong] are probably outside of the purview of governmental intrusion, and are hard-wired by evolution top some extent. And, obviously, it is to be guaranteed pariah status to differ from the academic party line that everyone is "identical", as opposed to "equal".
Also, please note that my second definition of individual racism specifies **unjustified** priors. This definition clearly precludes **justified** priors from the "racism" label. I think people like Freddie want to outlaw any priors that differentiate between groups. And, again, I'll emphasize that while it may be justified to hold priors about certain groups, that doesn't imply anything at all about a specific individual.
The problem with the terms racism and sexism is that they are tied to the boomer battles of the past. A past built on segregation and submissiveness. For the non-boomers some part of our lives are minimally integrated and our mothers worked. The battles of the Civil Rights Movement and Women's Liberation were more tangible because the demonstration of the oppression and discrimination was explicit. You cannot deny lynching or denying the right to vote. Those actions are highly visible. With the success of those struggles we grew up without the continual demonstration of explict racism and sexism. When events were reported they seemed an aberration; therefore, the terms do not provide context for the discussions we try to have because we don't have personal living histories that support what was previously an obvious conclusion. Now we are talking about the high number of subprime mortgages for people of color even when they qualify for traditional mortgages or the lack of female CEO's. That is not explicit to all. There could be logical reasons whether its lack of access to better lending sources or women leaving the workforce to have children thereby slowing their coporate ladder climb. Furthermore, there are all these examples from Oprah to Dick Parsons that we have overcome. The reality is that those examples while numerous happened inspite of not because of institutional systems currently in place. The conversation we need to have in the 21st century is how do we transition away from a society built on white privilege and entitlement. This country was built to support white, male land owners but it was also designed to value merit. The problem is that we have grown past the original demographic and to quote Cokie Roberts, "There aren't enough white men to go around anymore." For own survival as a nation we need to demonstrate the meritocracy we claim to be or failure is the only outcome. The difficulty with a discussion of white privilege and entitlement is that all white folks would have to admit they have received preferential treatment to varying degrees. The statistics are clear. A white non-high school graduate makes more in his lifetime then a black high school graduate. The system benefits those that most resemble the founding fathers. White folks would have to acknowledge all that they have gained and no one gives up power without a fight. For example, George Bush is the poster child for privilege and entitlement. He was drunk, aimless and without a purpose for 40 years; yet, he became a governor and president. How did he accomplish that? Clearly not by merit. I read comments by Lee Ioacoca that says he supported G.W. because he knew the parents and figured he came from good stock. He went to some of the best schools in the country and received token passing grades based solely on legacy. Anyone and everyone who had every worked for his father steered his campaign and organized the White House for him and supported every idea he came up with like a group of nannies. The result has been failure: Iraq, Katrina, Gitmo, torture and secret prisons. As a nation we have become a shining beacon of hypocrisy. Another example, it is common knowledge that white women have benefited more from Civil Rights legislation that communities of color. Case in point, Hillary Clinton. We face the possibility of a presidential dynasty because she is married to a former president. We are suppose to see this as breaking the glass ceiling. Her experience is based on wearing ball gowns for 8 years. She claims she won't meet with dictators her first year, but she will send Bill the former president. My point is what evidence did we have for George W. and now for Hillary that proves they are qualified for the job? They both arrived at the threshold of power because they were privileged through birth or marriage and now they feel entitled to the job. Move beyond the past conversations of IQ, evolution and the rest of the crap that has already been debunked. Let's deal with what is actually happening. As a nation we are at the moment where we will decide once and for all if we are going to be the meritocracy we have always strived for or are we going to collectively perish to maintain the privilege and entitlement of the few.
Real B.G. -
The statistics are clear. A white non-high school graduate makes more in his lifetime then a black high school graduate.
So demonstrating that whites are more productive than blacks shows... what? If you wanted to talk about how dark skin made you more likely to receive a harsh jail sentence, I'd listen. But you seem to be shooting yourself in the foot here. Caucasians take fewer government services for every tax dollar they contribute. That's an accomplishment, not a crime.
Move beyond the past conversations of IQ, evolution and the rest of the crap that has already been debunked.
Yeah, I must have been sick that day in bio class when they debunked evolution. Seriously, who 'debunked' IQ? How did they do it?
Granted, folks like GW Bush (or Kerry for that matter) got where they did based on old school connections. But labor earns much more compared to capital than it did 100 years ago, accounting for the bulk of millionaires. Venture capitalists allow anyone brilliant with an idea the chance to get funding, unlike 100 years ago.
Harvard is losing much of its status as the incubator of captains of industry and becoming just another good school.
And so on.
If you want a meritocracy, you're going to get one. However that won't immediately remove all cultural differences between groups.
P.S. I don't like Hillary or trust her, but saying that she just wore ball gowns seems to seriously underestimate her qualifications and ability. Flippant comments like that undermine whatever point you were hoping to make.
One nitpick: Racism isn't "Holding (bad) false beliefs about racial minorities" it's holding false beliefs about races. This definition posits that only whites are racist, and only against racial minorities. This is empirically false.
(Although, of course, on a global scale, whites are a racial minority. But I think my point stands.)
Freddie: ..I'm going to call a spade a spade...
LOL! Definitely terminology that you might want to avoid when you're bloviating about racism.
JCB wrote: I think anony-mouse misunderstands my point
Could be.
I have no problem with the idea that rules and structures should not be designed to inherently advantage or disadvantage certain classes. Correspondingly, I'm not a fan of things like affirmative action, since it attempts to level the uneven playing fields of times past in ways that are theoretically sound, but in practical reality simply serve to devalue the accomplishments of the entire class -- i.e., the nominal intent is to help many blacks by giving them an opportunity, the actual result is to punish those blacks who achieve excellence through merit, by weighing them down with false baggage of unfair advantages.
However, I see no benefit in attempting to apply the label of "racism" to all humanity, whether through an abstract inherent trait, or an evolutionary trait, or any other nonsensical explanation. Seems far simpler to me to recognize that humans are inherently suspicious of difference, whether it be difference of opinion or difference of culture or skin tone. This definitely creates problems, but no palpable purpose is present in pinning potentially pejorative properties upon persons. It's like using a hornet's nest as a piñata.
As long as we are avoiding being racist and sexist by avoiding unequal outcomes, shouldn't we be insisting that all athletic programs, public or private, college or professional have proportional representation by race and sex? I think the vision of blacks and whites, men and women playing on the same team would be most edifying. And if Michelle Wie can play with men, why not integrate the professional golf tours in to a single tour?
Hugo Pottisch,
No, quite the opposite: where it counts, we have generally overestimated the similarities and underestimated the differences. That is especially true when it comes to thinking in terms of groups rather than individuals. Why do you think so many people were sold on the idea that the Iraqis would be capable of creating a democratic state? This whole "they're just like us" mentality permeates and poisons the thinking of both liberals and neoconservatives.
Megan: "I'm sure that Tom Metzger's disciples mostly believe that their views about blacks are absolutely true, and therefore not racist."
You're wrong. People like Metzger simply don't care whether people think of them as "racists" or not. Fundamental to such racists' views is the fact that whites and blacks (and others, of course) are different; much more different than the liberal establishment has been leading people (whites) to believe; and that these differences are important, carrying moral, philosophical and political implications.
Freddie is right to be concerned. The facts of racial reality imply much more than a casual obversvation of oh, so black intellects fall somewhat short of white? Interesting...anyhow, let's just carry on as we were.
Racism was (is) considered cruel and immoral because it was asserted that it was known that there were no genetic differences between the races of any great importance. That view can now be shown to be blatanly false: genetic differences exist and are significant and important.
The onus is on anti-racists to show why a person should not act based on the knowledge of racial differences; after all, since such differences are real, to ask someone not to take them into account would be to ask someone to disregard reality -- why should a person want to do that?
CJ:
That term dates from ancient Greece and refers to shovels.
I'm not sure what to call this kind of hyper-sensitivity to racism that interprets non-racist terms as racist. Another example of a word that is often misunderstood is "niggardly".
EI
Tommy
Why do you think so many people were sold on the idea that the Iraqis would be capable of creating a democratic state? This whole "they're just like us" mentality permeates and poisons the thinking of both liberals and neoconservatives.
Well - I am still one of them. I sincerlly believe that Iraqis CAN create a democratic state. I hope that they are NOT like the West and will not require a Boston Tea party, a Civil War, a WWII or a Cold War as in Europe to understand the benefits..
But they would be even better than the West if they could do it without it? If they realize democracy within the next 20 years - that would be impressive indeed?
Why we are disappointed by the war is that we thought that with Western (US)aid - we will have the whole thing up and running in only 5 years and without bloodshed (what has taken the West millions of casualties and many decades). We have overestimated ourselves (as so often) - not underestimated the Iraqis per se?
Doesn't anybody remember what price the Serbs, Croatians, Slovenians, etc paid for their democracy in Europe a decade ago? I am not saying that Turkey or Egypt are model democracies - but you can have a Muslim democracy? Why not - give it at least two decades and then let's talk again?
Anyway - what I was referring to above is the fact that historically we have more often than not - assumed that people who look different than us are also less intelligent or evil.
Women, blacks, children, etc... this is not an absolute and there are exceptions but I do hope that your history does not start with Iraq. Black slaves, Nazis and Jews, religious crusades, females voting in Switzerland (only accomplished in 1975) or females studying law in Harvard (1960s?)...
Modern day slaves are animals. Billions of intelligent and emotional beings are locked up on factory farm in the US so that they cannot see daylight, cannot move and sleep in their own poo until finally slaughter rescues them from their life-long tortures. Stop the torture and start at home!
Do you, Tommy, eat factory farmed products and why?
Do you really imagine Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks battled it out for "democracy"? Are you insane?
The fight was first and foremost for *self-determination*. Once they had achieved that, a democratic form of government could be entertained, but it was of a far lesser concern than being (or at least feeling -- which, with EU-style "democracy" in the works, is all they will do) in control of their own destinies.
The various peoples of Iraq fighting today are likewise not fighting for "democracy"; they are fighting for self-determination, for control of their people's destinies. They are not hunkered-down little individualists, quietly going about their business, concerned with their own little lives. Their "peoplehood" and its "ways of being" are of far greater concern to them than establishing some fancy "liberal democracy". There are, in fact, also millions of Europeans who have lost faith in liberal democracy, and have abondoned faith in its central tenets (see the "New Right"). The project of installing liberal democracy in Islamic lands may just prove the last hurrah of a political philosophy on its last legs; its failure there may also mark the beginning of its decline in the West.
spect8er
You are the first one to get my point:
Do you really imagine Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks battled it out for "democracy"? Are you insane? The fight was first and foremost for self-determination*.
Who ever fought for democracy from within? Tell me? It has always started off as a fight for self-determination. Most humans realize eventually that albeit only 2nd best (there is no 1st best) - democracy comes as close to self-determination as possible!
The point here is that it has taken most democracies a lot of time and a lot of bloodshed to reach a stable democracy!
Those millions of Europeans who have lost faith in democracy - who are they? The Turks? The Bulgarians? The Romanians? The Greeks? The Spanish ? The Italians? The English? Help - WHO has lost their faith??? I know of only a few Germans and the French (those racists who did not want to prevent the genocide against Muslims by Christians in their own continent).
Democracies are on the rise everywhere and in every continent. If we can avoid ecological/political disaster (no more oil/nuclear/coal) - the future looks bright and I am excited to be alive here and now!
But BACK to the topics at hand: racism. Modern day slaves are animals. Do you, soect8er, eat factory farmed products and why?
I think a key question is whether racism refers (or should refer) to negative judgments based on physical features, or based on cultural characteristics. The former is clearly racism. The latter is a more difficult question. I used to criticize my mother's excuse that her distrust of another group was based on "culture, not race." The older I get, the more (somewhat guiltily) sympathetic I get to that position. If a particular group values things like humility, thrift, and respect for education, and they don't see the same characteristics, by and large, in members of another group, and they therefore judge that other group negatively, is that unreasonable? Immoral?
"The problem comes when one judges an individual member of a group by the group's statistical average. Any given woman may be taller or shorter than average. Any given man maybe taller or shorter than average. So just because, on average, men are taller than women, you can't assume that any given man is taller than any given woman."
According to my statistics class, that is exactly what I should do. The best guess of an outcome is it's mean...The tricky thing about racism, is that every race has it's own definition (or classification) of what counts as racism or a racist comment. And, there is variation within races of this definition.
I would have to land on the side of people who say that actions determine racism, and treating someone (or holding different assumptions) about someone based on a physical or physiological difference is "racist" or at least not nice. If everyone treated all races the same from every step of life--health care, education, criminal procedures, voting, providing loans, marketing, etc.--then maybe there would be less pronounced differences in life outcomes between races within a country (mortality rates, jobs, test scores, etc.). But until that day, everything is too commingled to say "Oh Affirmative Action is the only reason X got into college, and of course they failed." Too many unknown and uncontrolled factors to lead to that conclusion.
Differentiate between:
a. Believing different racial groups have different average properties or distributions.
b. Believing racial categories have deep moral significance, that you owe something more to members of your own race than to others.
It seems to me that (a) is a matter of what the data says, and can't be affected by moral or political argument. (b), on the other hand, is all about morality and politics.
And there's this weird thing that happens everywhere, where you stop being able to treat people as individuals. Blacks may average less education, income, IQ points, etc. than whites, but the black cardiologist you've just met is surely very educated, very smart and (assuming he's done with his residency/fellowship stuff) probably pretty well off. Women may have less mathematical ability on average, but the woman you just met who's an electrical engineer is probably pretty good at it. You somehow can't let your opinions on a single person be overwhelmed by your priors about their group, or you will act like a fool a lot of the time.
"Blacks may average less education, income, IQ points, etc. than whites, but the black cardiologist you've just met is surely very educated, very smart and (assuming he's done with his residency/fellowship stuff) probably pretty well off."
But is his IQ as high as the average white or Asian cardiologist's? Affirmative action suggests it isn't.
In our society, "racism" is like "art" - a declaration by the Anointed. I'm white, and therefore automatically racist. I've been told this all my life, by Anointed such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and company.
I've had some of our melanin-enhanced co-speciesists call me "honky" and other words denoting my lack of melanin and other human traits. I've been told they cannot be racist, because I am part of the group in power.
I think it's time to retire the word itself, because the word has been used to even worse effect than any number of bell-curve studies.