Only a racist butt says "I'm not a racist, but..."

Nice... Not nearly as clunky as mine. Could probably still use some work. ;)

Is there any such thing as a "Race". I am a homo-sapien, last I looked. Just what is this "Race" thing of which you speek?

"a group of persons united by common descent or heredity." The races in question are those descended from European ancestors, and those descended from African ancestors, specifically those African ancestors who were brought to this country during the slave trade.

Any other questions?

Although your article is definitely striking the right note, Pamela, I think even you are missing the boat on what "racism" is.

Perhaps a part of the problem is that "racism" really isnt the right word. "Prejudice" is a lot closer to the mark when you try to identify the problem that Obama is trying to get people to talk about, but somehow "prejudice" has been watered down and politicised to the point where it doesnt really mean anything, anymore. The problem that you have when you try to talk to people about "racism" is that a lot of people (not just "white people" but people of all flavours) think the word implies some sort of beyond-the-pale, in-your-face offensive, David Duke or Louis Farrakahn sort of screaming antipathy towards people of a different "race". That isnt the problem that Americans need to deal with. Those people are already marginalised.

What you need to deal with is the type of racism which you described in your article, and which Senator Obama was referring to in his speech. And for that reason, I think it may be best to stop calling it "racism". Because as your definition illustrates, people thing of "racism" as a narrow term referring to attitudes about ANYone of another race. If you harbor absolutely no feelings of racism towards your African-American colleagues at work, and only feel them towards baggy-trousered rap-caricatured inner city kids who "deserve" your scorn, then how could you possibly be a "racist"?

I prefer to use the word "tribalism", because after all, that is what its all about, isnt it? We all share the deep-seated and irrational fear and hatred of people who are from some other "tribe" that we dont understand. Thats right -- WE ALL share it. As Ive observed before, it may even be coded into our DNA, from that period of human history when loyalty and trust of ones "own tribe" and fear/distrust/hatred of the "other tribe" was an essential factor in survival.

Tribalism has nothing to do with descent or heredity. You can see a form of it even in the friction between "African" blacks like Obama and "American" blacks. Tribalism includes the hatred of Irish catholics for Irish protestants, despite the fact that they may be nearly identical in genetic lineage. It includes the discrimination faced by low-caste Indians from upper-caste Indians who may actually be more similar to them in genetic content than they are to other upper-caste Indians. It includes the discrimination practiced by men against women (and vice versa, let us be courageous enough to admit), or the way that not only African-Americans, but also other whites will react to a co-worker who speaks with a thick, southern-trailer-park "cracker" accent.

Until everyone in the country is brave enough to admit to themselves that this is the extent of the problem that we all face, and that every single one of us carries an element of this tribalistic irrationality around with us at every moment of every day, there is no way that the country will ever be able to truly make progress on the issue. So long as "racism" is a problem that exists in "somebody else" (but certainly not me), you cant hope to address it. Because the only way to truly address it is to start by addressing that portion of the problem which resides within your own heart.

Im a racist, youre a racist, hes a racist shes a racist, they are racists, we are racists, shooby-doo-wah.

Sing a few verses, and then see if you can start working on the problem.

I know my definition differs from what Pamela posted but racism (and all of its insidious, damaging consequences) is alive and well in our nation.

Racism is about far more than simple prejudice, it is about power. People from all groups can, and do, say all kinds of vicious, hateful things about one another. People from all groups have poor attitudes and a lot of misinformation about other groups. "Prejudice" is rampant within our society.

It becomes RACISM when the dominant group with POWER continues to OPPRESS non-dominant groups. How much impact does Rev. Wright's words REALLY have for White America? None really, he is not in the dominant group. But when White America (dominant group with power) speaks and acts in harmful ways the non-dominant group suffers in innumerable ways.

Yes yes yes.. racism is alive and well in America.

I think you're a little off-track with this, in the context of the original post:

If you harbor absolutely no feelings of racism towards your African-American colleagues at work, and only feel them towards baggy-trousered rap-caricatured inner city kids who "deserve" your scorn, then how could you possibly be a "racist"?

If, as the author of the Instapunk post did, you refer to said kids as "niggers", an epithet that has always been applied generically to dark-skinned people, it's pretty clear that you're kidding yourself that you harbor no animus to your A-A work colleagues. The guy at Instapunk wants to re-define the word so that "nigger" only applies to black people he doesn't approve of, because he wants to feel free to use the word again. I'm gonna have to say that puts him squarely in the category of "racist".

Additionally, I don't think anyone "feels" racism. They feel fear, and anger, towards people who they perceive as "other" - racism is the term we use to describe the actions and words used to express that fear as it is applied to an entire group of "others" based on their ethnic background. "Tribalism" is a less emotionally charged word that can be used to cover this behavior, as well as that towards "others" of different religious or socio-economic background - but changing the terms doesn't change the problem.

Perhaps you believe it would be easier to deal with the all-encompassing problem of "tribalism", and thus eliminate ethnicity-based tribalism as a by-product. Perhaps you're on to something there - but while people can change their clothes, their speech patterns and their church in order to escape certain types of tribalism, they cannot change the hue of their epidermis so readily. That makes the problem of racism by far the most intractable sort of tribalism to overcome - gender tribalism comes a close second, granted - and why it will always be necessary to deal with racism as a separate issue.

--but while people can change their clothes, their speech patterns and their church in order to escape certain types of tribalism, they cannot change the hue of their epidermis so readily. That makes the problem of racism by far the most intractable sort of tribalism to overcome--

Sorry shermj, but while that comment may be more or less accurate in the US, that isnt the way it works in all societies. Hatred of another "tribe" doesnt have any respect whatsoever for colour, flavour, shape, size or aroma.

The dark-skinned Christian American kid who views all Muslims as "hajjis" who are to be shot with impunity doesnt care whether the Iraqi he shoots is as dark-skinned as he is or as white as Donny Osmond. If hes got a towel on his head, he's fair game

Nor does the fair-skined, blue-eyed Iraqi (go visit Mosul some time, and youll see lots of 'em) give a damn whether the infidel scum he targets with his IED is as light-skinned as he is, or as black as Kunta Kinte. Theyre all infidels if they wear the olive drab mark of a Crusader, theyre an appropriate target.

Hatred of "the other" is exactly the same old hatred that it always has been, no matter what shape, size, colour, fragrance or ideology it happens to attach itself to. Until you get that fact through your head, you aint gonna solve the problem.

-- on rereading your comments, though, I think you may simply have misinterpreted what I was saying. That question mark at the end of the part you quoted was a rhetorical question. My point was that there are people who tell themselves (and others) "How could I possibly be racist. Ive got lots of brown-skinned friends and I treat them with the utmost of kindness". But that is a lame excuse because it ignores the bigger issue

You see, the reason why you get along with your co-workers is because they have become members of your tribe. You identify with them DESPITE their skin colour, not BECAUSE of it (or for that matter, in the absence of any consideration of it). That is exactly why "racism" can be a misleading term, and why Ive offered a substitute. If you view the kids with the baggy pants and boom boxes as "(insert Richard Pryor/Dan Akyroyd skit here)" then it doesnt matter how many African American friends you might have; youre still a racist.

Too many people (including Mr Dogg, it would appear) will tie themselves up in rhetorical knots rather than admit that they themselves carry a kernel of racism within themselves. Racism is always "someone else's problem".

And thats why it can never be solved. Because people can only change their own behaviour, they cant do a thing to reform "someone else"

I think Smoking Man needs to have whatever he is smoking tested for paraquat.

I won't judge whether the attempt to diminish, justify, weaken, and possibly legitimately explain racism as a universally-held and hitherto unidentified anthropological phenomenon known as "tribalism" is itself an act of racism, but it is certainly wrong.

What Smoker is inadvertently alluding to is the innate flight-or-flight warning system that all animals, including humans (which, of course, excludes neocons), possess. Whenever encountering a stranger, particularly a large one, it engages instinctively. It can be rationally disengaged by recognition, rationalization, a friendly gesture, etc. It occurs even among members of the same "tribe", literally or figuratively as Smoker newly defines. It has no racial basis whatsoever for being activated. You are not familiar with members of your same race because they are members of your race, so it activates for all strangers regardless of their ethnicity, race, even gender (somewhat). It is mitigated by your rational mind, and this is where racism comes in, as a defeater of rational mitigation (irrationality is a divider, not a uniter).

Instead of having some as of yet unidentified genetic basis, racism is based instead on the intervention of irrationality and ignorance (as evidenced by children almost completely incognizant of their racial differences). Black punks advertising as such are no better or worse than their tattooed, skinhead, and equally poorly dressed white punk counterparts. And of course, while being alarming has long been fashionable among youth, appearance can never be allowed to be a substitute for actual culpability. There is nothing wrong with being on the alert when dealing with a group of young toughs. But singling out those because of a particular race or ethnicity...

The poster quoted in the article above talked about how the other ethnic groups made it out of the ghetto, but forgot to mention that they almost always did so due to another ethnic group taking their place (as any good boxing fan knows). Unfortunately for many Black youths, the game of ethnic musical ghetto chairs ended with them.

As I said earlier, racism is the pigheaded refusal to allow someone to be an individual (because of their race).

The glibness with which people cleverly place the racist label on everyone except themselves is as predictable as the mindless "what have you been smoking" cliche that people invariably use to try to laugh off any comments that "SmokingMan" may have made, which happened to hit the mark. Ha ha. Arent you clever. Clever enough to kid yourself, at any rate.

I simply observed that in the U.S. of Agitpropism, people have managed to redefine "racism" in a way that will somehow allow them to pretend that it doesnt apply to them. That is the only reason I see the need to offer an alternative term. So whats the first thing that "SnoopDopeyDogg" (never mind . . . I wont bother with the predictable dimunition) tries to do? Why naturally, redefine "tribalism" in a way that allows him to feel like it doesnt apply to him.

The point, my friend, is that people will find reasons to hate one another even if they are blind and incapable of distinquishing one skin colour from another. If it isnt based on skin colour ii isnt racism??? tell that to the 1 million Hutus slaughtered in the most brutal manner imaginable by Tutsis due to their "tribal" affiliation. Or tell it to the hundreds of thousands of Croats murdered by Serbs, Serbs murdered by Croats, Kosovars murdered by Serbs and Croats, Serbs murdered by Kosovars, Macedonians murdered by all three of the above and vice versa . . . where does it stop?

The answer is -- it doesnt!
Not until YOU (in the universal sense of the word) start recognizing the root of the problem in your own heart and start taking steps to deal with it. It is entirely true that tribalism on the basis of skin colour has been a particularly pernicious form of the disease. But if you refuse to recognise the source from whence that disease arises, you sure as bloody hell are not going to make any headway in fixing the problem.

Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye....thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam from thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly enough to remove the mote from thy brother's eye.

We can only control ourselves, and often we aren't in a position to really assess how our actions are preceived by others. We may think we are totally egalitarian, but that is truly rare. Many people come fairly close to being egalitarian, and I have had the priviledge of meeting a few of those fine individuals.

On the other hand, the irrational haters I have encountered really make me wonder how they got that way, if they can ever be reformed, or if they only really care about themselves. They make me worry that there are enough of them that our collective future at times looks rather dim. Too many people focussing on short term and selfish goals.

Peace

No my fume-sucking friend, the only point proven was the prominent one atop your swollen cranium.

My point was that your attempt to dilute racism with your absurd universal expansion of a nonexistent excuse known as “tribalism” to ALL of us was nothing more than a dodge. All you have done was provide further evidence that it was just that. No sir, I did not try to redefine your discovery called “tribalism” so that it would not apply just to me, but merely pointed out that you had discovered yet another bogus Piltdown man that did not apply to ANYONE.

We do NOT "all share the deep-seated and irrational fear and hatred of people who are from some other 'tribe'", as you falsely claimed. None of the examples you relied on, either in your first post or your futile attempt at rebuttal in your second post, support your contention that racism is due to an omnipresent new universal genetic predisposition discovered by you called “tribalism”. That other various bigotries exist is a fact. Discrimination based on ethnicity-based bigotry (which includes most of what you have newly labeled as “tribalism”, and falsely included racism as a sub-category of, such as the conflicts between Serbs, Croats, Macedonians, and Albanians, and even Hutus and Tutsis, but many of these animosities also include geo-political and economic motivations which have nothing to do with ethnic bigotry), religion, place of origin, creed, nationalism, language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, physical appearance, disability, age, or any other criteria drawn from an infinite pool of differences between individuals can form the irrational basis required for knee-jerk hatred (bigotry or prejudice) by knuckleheads against their fellow persons. Bigotry is based upon the intervention of irrationality, intolerance, and ignorance in place of rational mitigation, not an innate predispositon common to all of humanity. This is a mouthful that simply means bigotry is a conscious process, because our rational minds separate our basal perceptions from our actions. We can also rationally choose not to be bigots, to treat others as we would like to be treated, as equals. It is the conscious, deliberate, and rational choices made that separate the racist from the non-racist.

In fact, one could argue that the natural state is not racism, but tolerance, again as evidenced by watching children of different races and ethnicities interact with each other before being instructed by adults.

Being cognizant of differences is not the same as being prejudiced against those possessing those differences (bigotry). E.g., people in wheelchairs have a characteristic different from me. There is nothing wrong with my realization of that fact. Discrimination, based on a bigotry against them, is my acting upon that difference negatively, treating them as my inferiors generally.

You are justifying one bigotry, racism, by claiming it is nothing more than a predisposition that we all have called “tribalism”, so we are therefore all racists, according to you, so let’s not be too tough on our fellow racists. And that pesky SnoopDopey is merely excusing himself from the universal human condition. No, we are not all racists. We do not have a natural racism due to some innate newly discovered universal prejudice called “tribalism”. And while we all must be aware of bigotry and make a conscious effort not to harbor or develop prejudices which may then manifest themselves as overt discrimination, that is separate from the ignorance, intolerance, and irrationality that is the cause of bigotry, one of which is racism. Is that stuff you are smoking, per chance, horseshit?

Nice spin effort though.

....but many of these animosities also include geo-political and economic motivations which have nothing to do with ethnic bigotry), religion, place of origin, creed, nationalism, language, religion, gender, sexual orientation, physical appearance, disability, age, or any other criteria drawn from an infinite pool of differences between individuals can form the irrational basis required for knee-jerk hatred (bigotry or prejudice) by knuckleheads against their fellow persons.

Man, you sure went through a helluva lot of effort to repeat exactly what I just said, in slightly different words.

Whatever else I dont know about you, one thing I can guess with little fear of error -- you dont have any kids of your own, or if you do, they havent reached elementary school age yet. You aint seen tribalism in action until youve supervised at recess.

Oh, and just for the record, I most certainly was NOT trying to "diminish" the evil of racism by my comments, much less seeking to "justify" it; I was merely holding up a mirror so you can see the beam.

If you prefer to leave it there, mores the pity.

Yes, I did go "through a helluva lot of effort to repeat exactly what I just said, in slightly different words", to show you that the one type of bigotry you had mislabeled as "tribalism" was not proof that we are all inherent racists. And to prove to you that re-labeling the learned bigotry called "racism" with the less harsh, bigot-lite, we-are-the-world, let's hold hands with those wearing sheets and burning crosses (or hating or hurting any member of ANY race because they are a member of a particular race) and all sing "Kumbayah" in acknowledgement of our common defect, word "tribalism", because it is an inherent defect that we all share, from Mother Teressa, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. to the local Gand Dragon of the KKK, was, well, sorry, but you know it's coming...horseshit.

Sorry to have over-intellectualized on your ass, especially since all I really needed to do to prove that you were wrong was to point to the proof of history and anthropology.

Anthropologists and historians both recount peoples, such as the Arawaks that Columbus encountered, who had no fear or hatred toward others that were markedly different than themselves. They were usually described as having a "childlike innocence", a strange and foreign good-heartedness (a strange phenomenon to Europeans), and immediate acceptance of all those they encountered. Only when presented with absolute evidence to the contrary did they change their positive behavior towards others (they had a fierce animosity against the vicious Caribe Indians, e.g., but this did not jaundice their dealings with others). While many societies have been found to be markedly different, the Arawaks were typical of many primitive peoples, and anthropologists have documented other more modern societies with the same positive outlook towards different "tribes." In other words, Smoker, when the pristine examples of tribalism themselves refute your argument, it is time to spread it over a field somewhere and put it to work growing something you can smoke in the future.

Tolerance can be learned. Intolerance can be unlearned. It is the same with most human characteristics, i.e., they are learned behaviors. The ignorance and irrationality that are the root of bigotry against those of a different race is one of many learned behaviors that can be unlearned.

We are animals with very few instincts, and neither racism nor its proposed bigot-lite replacement, "tribalism", are among the few.

PS Good post Ms. Troy. Keep fighting the good fight.

...your comments about Arawaks are so far out in left field that its hard to resist.

Among other things, the Arawaks were extinct as a culture by the mid-1500s, so any "scientific" consideration of what they may or may not have believed is based solely on the writings of Europeans who not only were as culturally insensitive as anyone else of their era, but also were incapable of speaking to the Arawaks in their own language, and in any way "understanding" what went through their minds. Furthermore, your own comments about their vicious hatred of the Caribes suggest that they were as racist as any other group of humans. They just werent sufficiently familiar with the Spanish to know what to make of them.

If you think you have solid evidence to suggest otherwise, by all means provide links and citations. Otherwise your "example" is as spurious as Pamela's claim that there are no physiological differences between the races. This is not true; on the contrary, the Nazis compiled reams and reams of data showing just the opposite to be true. You can find a more recent study here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/200/4341/503.pdf

What *IS* true, however, is that those documented physiological differences have never been shown to have a meaningful impact on one's "intelligence" or "character" or anything of that nature. In fact, the best debunking of the "racial superiority/inferiority" theory I have seen is a study about the cranial capacity of the worlds leading intellectuals, political leaders and so on. Those recognised as the true "geniuses" or "revolutionary thinkers" typically had average or less-than-average cranial capacity.

Thats the last I have to say on this topic. When people start throwing around spurious, or even "mythological" references like the Arawak indians, you know its time to drop the subject.

"Among other things, the Arawaks were extinct as a culture by the mid-1500s.."

What a proverbial pantloadful. Your report of their death is greatly exaggerated. Sometimes they feel a little rundown after centuries of abuse and exploitation, but they are still hanging in there. Although devastated by smallpox, the Arawak survived and are alive TODAY: Most live in Guyana, where they represent about one-third of the Indian population. Smaller groups are found in Suriname, French Guiana, and Venezuela. (Encyclopædia Britannica Online; see also Columbus and the Golden World of the Island Arawaks: The Story of the First Americans and Their Caribbean Environment (1992) D. J. R. Walker, about the Arawaks generally). Wow, when you are wrong you don't go for the little stuff, you go ALL the way.

So, we have had 500 years to gather info about their culture, which is still extant, stupid. As far as your claims of faulty and/or biased historical records, take it up with the historians at American Heritage, who have written extensively on the matter, and would certainly like for you to point out the flaws of the historical record they rely on, and extensively reference in their articles (so as to "solid evidence", I'll pit any of theirs against ALL of yours). Besides, if the culturally biased Spaniards recounted how kind and decent the Arawak were, that would only make it more likely to be so, would it not? Especially after treating them like Nazis deserve to be treated. They have been accused of exaggerating how rotten the Caribs were, e.g. Why would they lie about how good the Arawaks were?

"your own comments about their vicious hatred of the Caribes suggest that they were as racist as any other group of humans. They just werent sufficiently familiar with the Spanish to know what to make of them."
No, stupid, the Arawak tribes just had an aversion to being killed and eaten by them. I liked the Carib response to the Spaniards, however. They killed them every chance they got (pretty much as they did with everyone they encountered). The first Spaniard to land on the beach of Carib territory was killed by an arrow. They continued to kill Spaniards for the next 2 to 3 hundred years. Besides, since the Caribs and Arawaks were closely related, indistinguishable physically, it only further proves what a shitload your theory of universal "tribalism" is.

Thanks for the laugh about Nazi science! Whenever I need an ego boost I always think of those morons who were pathetically stupid enough to believe such gibberish.
Yes, it is a tough call as to whether Curly, Larry, Moe, or Nazi scientists made the greater contribution to science. I don’t think ANY of the Stooges were mentally impaired enough to harbor such laughably stupid beliefs as those propounded by Nazi “scientists”:

Horbiger's Cosmic Ice theory, which held that the stars were made of ice.
That the novel "Dawn in Atlantis" by Edmund Kiss was based on truth- that the Aryan Race was descended from the crew of a crashed alien space craft and established Atlantis, before being over run by inferior races (some severely retarded Indians (from India) also believe a variation of this and made it a cult).
The SS employed a team of archaeologists searching for proof of these theories, and a host of equally stupid theories such as Himmler’s expedition to the Middle East to prove that the Holy Grail was really a product of a superior Aryan civilization.
These are the same tards that sponsored the “experiments” on race you moronically referred to.

Perhaps the most thorough debunking of the libraries-full of debunkings of Nazi race “science” is the 1950 UNESCO statement, “The Race Question”, and its several updated releases, a compendium of the voluminous flaws of Nazi racial research, theories, and experiments assembled by some of the world’s leading scientists. Here’s a small sample of further reading on the subject, although none is necessary after the UNESCO statement’s thorough thrashing of Nutzi pseudoscience:

Ehrenreich, Eric. 2007 The Nazi Ancestral Proof: Genealogy, Racial Science, and the Final Solution. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Grant, John. Corrupted Science: Fraud, Ideology and Politics in Science

Poliakov, Leon. 1974. Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg, October 1946 - April 1949. Washington D.C.: U.S. G.P.O, 1949-1953.

Biddiss, Michael D. 1970. Father of Racist Ideology: The Social and Political Thought of Count
Gobineau. New York: Weybright and Talley Proctor, Robert.

Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988.

Anderson, Ken. Hitler and the Occult. Prometheus Books: Amherst, New York 1995

no matter how icky or upsetting it might be.

I used to hear a version of your argument all the time back in the 1970s. "Oh no-no-no!" some moderate or liberal would insist, fluttering their hands in alarm. "Don't use the 'R' word! That will just UPSET them and close the DIALOGUE!" And so racism ceased to be called racism and became so re-entrenched into the mainstream that by 1994, Murray and Hernstein could publish a book claiming black Americans were dumber than white Americans and blandly insist that their claim wasn't racist.

I have absolutely no patience with this and, no I'm not going to join in and sing some supposedly cute parody of a 1970s advertising jingle. The fact that we all have some racism in our makeup -- just as we all have some larceny, lust, dishonesty,etc. -- does not negate the value of the word "racism." Nor does it change the fact that racism in the form of white supremacy is so entrenched in our society that it affects the income, the health, the well-being of African Americans as a group.

Perhaps I can teach an OldDog a new trick, all people today are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens, that two sapiens for the price of one. You've got to keep better track of yourself!!!

Now I'm not a racist's butt, but I can definitely guarantee you that no black person has ever invaded a country, killed a million of its citizens, displaced scores of millions of its residents, killed over 4000 of his own bravest soldiers, threatened another nation with nuclear annhiliation, destroyed the economy of the richest nation on earth, and then in the end claimed "what, me worry?"

Nope, can't think of a single one.

It seems that building empires and subjugating people's is almost entirely the purview of white people.

But I'm not a racist for pointing that out, am I?

I might agree with the premise that white people have not been the nice guys on the block. But lets have a little more balance.

We've killed more people simply because we had and have the technology to kill more people.

Let's not cross the line into making up a completely phony history. The Watusi (now called Tutsis) were never very nice either. They fought the pygmies and one of their methods of executing prisoners was to have them stomped to death by the women. It's amazing how creative you can get when you don't have bombs or depleted Uranium.

The idea of the "noble savage" was a daydream by someone who should have known better. Society did not corrupt humanity. We have always been killer apes, and that's cross-cultural and cross-racial.

And by the way, we are not the only empire builders. We are simply more inept than most previous empires. Actually we were pretty good at it until Bush was selected to be in charge..

And in typical Western fashion, we managed to leave most of these previous empires out of our history. They were not white empires so they do not count.

Let me get this straight. You're saying: we don't intend to kill so many people, our technology makes us do it.
Amazing how simple it is when it's explained by an expert.

If we're not accountable for handling more a more lethal technology with greater moral sensibility, then what's point of civilized life over "Noble Savagery"?

Your response is hardly worth a reply but wtf:

1. Technology does not MAKE us kill more people, it just makes it easier. We wind up with Hiroshima which is kind of hard to ignore.

2. Where did I say we were not responsible?

3. The noble savage was a myth created by Rousseau in the 17th century to explain why human beings suck so badly. His idea was that human beings were basically good and society makes us evil. Then we move to the idea that OUR society is evil and more primitive peoples are inherently good.

So I pointed out what should be obvious - people in primitive societies are just as nasty as our presumed civilized people.

If you are going to make an argument, at least take issue with that was actually said.

Like Lewis Carroll's Humpty-Dumpty, you can declare that the word "racist" means what YOU want it to mean. That won't change the facts of common usage, or the primary definition offered in most dictionaries. Nor will it change the essential and ugly nature of what you are embracing if you believe that people of African descent, as a group, have some inherent intellectual deficit when compared to people of European descent, as a group.

I invite you to name a single society that embraced this notion without it having a significant and negative impact on individuals within the group deemed to be, as a group, less intelligent, less honest, more violent, etc., etc. etc.

... your right I can't name one where that isn't the case. But is the truth to be rejected if it isn't politically correct? The simple fact is, that while race is not a fair or accurate way to predetermine what an individual can or should aspire to, we should not attempt to suppress general observations about groups simply because they may be misused to justify prejudices. Even children can make such observations. If a child (of any ethnicity) happens to notice that usually Asian children in his school perform well in mathematics, and he asks you why that is, what do you say to that child? "Shooosh Billy, that's racism. You shouldn't say or even think things like that."? For Billy, this is a problem, because he sees that while his observation is true as a generality, he is told that he is a racist if he states it openly. Racism maybe conveniently defined for you in your dictionary, but it necessarily carries a negative connotation with it for Billy. The only thing he has done to deserve it, is voice an observation and ask questions.
Let's not let the dictionary definition end the discussion of what racism is and is not. I'm really rejecting the connotation that goes with the label, but if your definition is the only one that we are permitted to have, then fine, I am a white racist. Please don't tell my African-American wife of 20 years, as it might put a damper on the holidays around my house.

for observing that the Asian kids in his school excel in math. I might say something like, "Yes, their families put a very high emphasis on education -- a lot like Jewish families do." Billy's observation would only become "racism" if Billy added, "Daddy says they do well because Asians are born smarter than anybody else."

And if Billy went on to say, "That's also why Jimmy Goldberg's family has lots of doctors and lawyers and bankers. Jews are real good at that kind of thing. They have this genetic ability to make money. Daddy says Jewish babies are born with the ability to break a twenty. And have you seen how good the black kids are at shooting baskets on the playground? Daddy says that's because their ancestors were running around in the jungle with lions on their butts. They're just NATURALLY fast and athletic..." that would pretty much clinch my impression that Daddy was a racist.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "inherent" and why I've consistently included it?

I do understand the "inherent" reference.
So it boils down to the old "nature or nurture" argument. But the kneejerk liberal response to that is: "Observable differences between racial groups are all because of nurturing, and if anyone says anything different then they're a racist". (I don't think that's an unfair strawman representation of your position.) My answer is different. I think if we remove all of the cultural differences (such as Asian or Jewish families emphasizing academics), we would find far fewer measurable differences than we do now. But it is premature to conclude that there is no inherent genetic component among the observed differences between ethnic groups. You are reaching that conclusion, I think, not from scientific diligence, but because it is the socially acceptable position. That doesn't necessarily make it true.
Barack Obama is more qualified to be President than anyone running right now. (In my opinion.) A large part of that has to do with how he was raised, but let's not conclude that genetics played no role in his success. Barack Obama, Sr. was an exchange student from Kenya when he met Barack's mother. As a rule of thumb, exchange students are the cream of the crop in their countries of origin and typically outperform their run-of-the-mill American counterparts academically. But Barack didn't really know his father well and wasn't raised by him. So how did that intelligence wind up being passed down to him if it was not by nurture? Could his genes have had something to do with it? If you say "yes", then congratulations on recognizing your own racism (as you have defined it).

If you believe that inherent racial traits involving competence are so important that they, rather than the environment, are an explanation for Jewish people being prominent in show-business and finance, or Asian people being good at math/bad at driving, or black people having lower incomes and working for decades in the south as hewers of wood and drawers of water rather than professionals, then you are a racist. In the same manner, if you believe that all private property should be confiscated and held in common by the community, you are a communist.

Now, if you believe these things, by all means defend them, but don't carp and
whine because the word "racist" or "communist" is accurately applied. Yes, by golly, "racism" DOES have some rather nasty connotations. Do tell, srobert -- why do you think that is?

Let's get something straight here. One of the common myths I encounter from racists who get all hot-and-bothered about being called "racists" is that people like me object to ANY reference to differences between ethnic groups. That's simply untrue. The fact, for instance, that people of African descent have a higher amount of melanin in their skin and very curly hair, that Asians have an extra fold in their eyes, and that people of Ashkenazic Jewish descent have a genetic vulnerability for Tay-Sachs disease are not considered especially controversial.

But when you get into an area as subjective and difficult to measure as intelligence or competence in certain areas of intelligence, that's when you run into trouble. Ascribing talents to different ethnic groups has a long, sordid, and embarrassing history that has been repeatedly shown to be based less on valid scientific conclusions than on currently fashionable stereotypes. At one time, Ashkenazic Jews were believed by prominent American measurers of intelligence, to be suffering from the same kind of intellectual deficit Charles Murray ascribes to people of African descent. Go to some Asian countries, and Koreans are labeled as similarly afflicted with low IQs. (And many of their children perform accordingly in school.)

Claiming, "Race A is as a group, less intelligent than Race B" is as suspect as claiming "Race A is, as a group, more inherently moral than Race B." Both morality and intelligence are easy to measure only in cases of extreme gifts and extreme deficits.

Thank You. I accept your apology. LOL.
But seriously, does it seem rational to you that genetics could induce such physical differences between racial groups, but that any cerebral differences must be attributed only to environment? Take that thing about Asians being bad drivers, for example. I'm not admitting to that being true, but suppose for a moment that it were. Is it inconceivable that members of non-Asian races were, as a group, more genetically predisposed to acquire the skills necessary to driving than Asians? How do you distinguish between what group differences must be attributed only to environmental causes? You said so yourself, that merely physical characteristics between groups are not "controversial". Now, is that the litmus test? The truth must be non-controversial.
If you're right, I must now embrace my new identity as a racist. Do you suppose my wife will object to sewing up my uniform for my first Klan meeting?
You're fun, Pamela. I appreciate your thought-provoking article and discussion.

that genetics could result in dramatic differences in appearance without significant "cerebral differences" as you put it. As far as I know, no scientist has detected any significant differences in the physical configuration of African brains when compared to European. As different as we may be in appearance, the same blood that pumps in the veins of an African American pumps through my veins, and if I need a blood transfusion, a person of African descent who has the same blood type can easily donate some. I've seen no evidence that African hearts pump blood differently than European hearts, or that African livers function in a significantly different manner than European livers. Why would our brains be so different?

I appreciate your compliment, but I hope you understand why I won't join in chuckling over the thought of you dressing up for a Klan meeting. If you want to know why I'm not inclined to joke about it, take a stab at answering the question I asked you earlier.

Why do you think the word "racism" has such ugly connotations?

Sorry to offend. I sometimes joke about things inappropriately.

Let's see. Your question was originally with this paragraph:
"Now, if you believe these things, by all means defend them, but don't carp and whine because the word 'racist' or 'communist' is accurately applied. Yes, by golly, 'racism' DOES have some rather nasty connotations. Do tell, srobert -- why do you think that is?"

The belief that your asking me to defend is that: Genetics is a contributing cause of differing average performance among racial groups, and of a differing distribution of performance measurements within such groups. I think it is. I have not maintained that it was the dominant cause. Environmental factors are by far more significant. Let's take the concept of performance in intelligence testing (IQ's don't really measure comparative intelligence, but they do measure the ablity to take IQ test, so let's say there's a correlation between that and intelligence.) Human beings evolved first from other primates, and through the mechanisms of evolution, developed superior intelligence as a species. Then those same mechanisms of evolution caused minor variations within our species that we think of as race. But you maintain that after the arrival of our species, evolutionary forces subsequently confined themselves to producing only differences between races that would not prove controversial to our political sensibilities. You maintain that when environmental causes of differing average performance are removed, and when cultural biases are (theoretically) eliminated from testing, that the average intelligence of people of one race, and the distribution of intelligence withing that race, would be identical to the same measurements taken among any race. The only way that evolution could possibly work that way would be if it were being guided by someone who was deliberately trying to obtain those results. I find that highly unlikely. And by your definition, that makes me a racist.

But let me see if I can answer the question.
When we think of a "racist" we think of the violence of Klansmen and Nazis. The word conjures up images of slavery and concentration camps. We think of the imposition of Jim Crow segregation, lynching, and the smug sense of superiority of ignorant men who claim that God values and loves people of their race more than other people. We think of Archie Bunker, who characterized the softer bigotry that was, and sometimes still is, so prevalent in America. We think of the twisted reasoning that denied black people, Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans the right to enroll in institutions of higher learning. Racism denotes a predisposition toward disenfranchisement of others from advancement in profession, vocation, and full participation in the social organizations and in the institutions of democracy. It denotes a way of thinking that obstructs an evenhanded dispensation of social justice before the law, and an unfair and arbitrary imposition of poverty, incarceration, and oppression.

We might also think of the of the brave actions of those who have fought to obtain justice in the face of such oppression; of Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Cesar Chavez, Nelson Mandela, or Leonard Peltier. We might hope that their struggles have not been in vain.

See in my view, I'm not carping and whining because the word "racist" has been accurately applied as you suggest. I'm pointing out that, while I fit your definition, anyone who knows me would say that the label somehow doesn't fit. You yourself said that the definition should be consistent with common usage. So why are you unwilling to admit to the possibility that the definition that you supplied could benefit from some revision?

"does it seem rational to you that genetics could induce such physical differences between racial groups, but that any cerebral differences must be attributed only to environment?"

It didn't to the Nazis either, who were infamous for their experiments and studies on race. Anyone who wants to try and survey the vast scientific literature debunking their racial "theories" is free to do so.

The main problem faced by racists is that the differences WITHIN any race are far greater than the differences between the races.

Studies done with feral children, i.e., children grossly deprived of environmental stimulation (who provide the perfect example of genetics sans environment), prove that environment plays a far greater role in impacting "cerebral differences" than anyone ever imagined. Besides, when it is not possible to even get a consensus on what "intelligence" is, or how to measure it, there sure won't be any way to accurately measure some possible difference between races.

Psychologists are continually finding new examples of "intelligence", and just how qualitative instead of quantitative it is.

I think we can reach agreement that anyone stupid enough to buy into the theories of Social Darwinian bigotry (refuted by Darwin himself, btw), i.e., Nazism, is woefully lacking in intelligence, no matter how it is defined.

with replies that begin with "So, To Sum It All Up..." you've got it dead wrong.

Kindly point out where you feel I am saying "EVERYBODY is a racist EXCEPT for Pamela Troy, etc." What passage conveys this? What paragraph?

I've made it quite clear what I think racism is. Do you have a problem with the definition that begins the piece? Why? How do you think it is wrong?

Your entire article is a litany of thought crimes which everybody has committed to some degree or other at some time or other, yet there are no qualifiers admitting your own occasional culpability.

Therefore, you are at least implying that everybody other than yourself is a racist, or at least, a "racist".

And I suspect that you yourself have no idea what real discrimination feels like. Try being a Hispanic with epilepsy and Parkinson's disease. One of the reasons that I'm self-employed is the fact that I can be freely and openly fired for having neurological disorders, and nobody has to worry about being sued. OTOH, if somebody told me I was being fired because I was Hispanic, I could sue their asses off.

That is precisely the point I was trying to make, but apparently you were one of the few on this thread to get the point.

Pamela, I have no problem with you using the "R word", if that is what you prefer. You must not have read my comments very carefully if you thought I was trying to sanitise the discussion. All I was doing was trying to offer a perspective that would help you admit YOUR OWN culpability in the problem. And from my perspective, this is where discussions of racism break down, in the US. Because everyone wants other people to admit their sins, but nobody wants to admit their own. And it doesnt take much logical brilliance to see why that wont ever work.

Until you start your discussion by saying without any caveats or qualifications: "I -- Pamela Troy -- am guilty of harboring racist attitudes and feelings . . . . now lets discuss what we can do to address the problem"

. . . I guarantee you that you wont make a single step of progress beyond what has already been made. The reason why the discussion of racism is deadlocked in the US, right now, is that nobody is a racist (in their own mind). If nobody is racist, then there isnt a problem. The debate is over. Move along.

"The reason why the discussion of racism is deadlocked in the US, right now, is that nobody is a racist (in their own mind). If nobody is racist, then there isnt a problem."

Profoundly stupid, since racism doesn't require admission by the guilty in order to exist or be punished, just like any other wrongful act or omission.

"The debate is over. Move along."

Here we are in total agreement. Scientists know that humans have two, maybe three instincts (for your homework assignment - guess what they are), everything else they do or say is a learned behavior.

Since racism is not an instinct it must be, by definition, a learned behavior. That means that your whole spiel about "tribalism" being an innate feature common to everyone is a crock of shit.

Checkmate.

But your only "accomplishment" was to thoroughly disgust someone who essentially is already "on your side". Well done.

Of course, you wont see why this applies to the dead-end that your sick society is in. Youll blame someone else. Maybe the person who wrote "the Arawaks were dead AS A CULTURE by the mid 1500s" (nope, I may have written it but I was only quoting).

And so it will continue. Generation after generation.

Checkmate? fine ... if you say so. But by "WINNING", you lost.

Perhaps one day you will wake up and realise it.

Your animosity to SmokingMans premise really proves his point, SnoopDopeyDogg. Everyone has at least a bit of "us versus them" in our make-up. Whether it is learned or inate is sort of irrelevant. "It" exists, and if we can't recognize it in ourselves, how do we expect those who we would identify as unadmitted racists ever to get the point?

If I understand your point of view correctly you contend that racism is learned behaviour, and you are probably right. How do we get through to the people who are teaching racism to their children (even if they aren't aware that is what they are doing)?

Sort of like the line "If you want to stop terrorism, don't practice it." It is so much easier to point the accusatory finger at someone else than to do some self-examination, and modify our own behaviour. Recognizing and modifying our own behaviour is usually the most positive change that anyone can effect.

Peace

No, it really doesn't prove Smoking Man's point, which (despite how often I've vehemently disagreed with him), I think Snoop did a pretty good job of making. By trying to define away racism into other channels, Smoking Man is trying to divert discussion away from just how bad America's racism really is, into something else entirely.

...and discrimination is an act, not a mindset, unlike bigotry.

“Checkmate? fine ... if you say so. But by "WINNING", you lost.”
Yes, if someone were to drop enough acid, they might concur.
And no, someone trying to diminish the wrongful act of racism by falsely attributing it to an imaginary universal defect shared by all, a bogus and impotent new whitewash called “tribalism”, is not “on my side”, but is instead on the sides of racists, who benefit from merely being part of the newly identified defect shared by all, and thus have no culpability for their actions because we are ALL guilty. Just suspending one’s beliefs long enough to consider your proposition is enough to make anyone with some modicum of a functional capacity of reasoning urp.

I understand your attempt to identify a universal tendency which seems at first glance to be so, but you err by extrapolating a mere tendency to cover those who put mistaken, or deliberately hateful, tendencies into action. My whole point is that we do not even share the tendencies you mention, let alone the responsibility for committing the wrongful act of racism. E.g., someone could harbor the mistaken belief that all disabled people are inferior, yet still treat them well. That separates ignorance from the wrongful act of discrimination. Someone could HATE the disabled, but still grudgingly treat them well. But when someone treats the disabled badly because of their disability, they have committed the equivalent of racism, i.e., they have discriminated against them.

No, it wasn’t so much your quoting of someone who was wrong about the extinction of Arawak culture (quoting someone who is wrong doesn’t suddenly make them right), but rather your implication that the Arawaks were themselves a work of fiction:
“When people start throwing around spurious, or even "mythological" references like the Arawak indians, you know its time to drop the subject.”
Which resulted in the proof posted above that your inference was a complete fabrication (prevarication, fiction, confabulation, hang dog lie, whopper, canard, complete and utter festering bullshit, etc.)

And Kanuck’s attempt at profundity also falls flat. Whether something is learned or innate is not only relevant, but determinative. For if it is learned it can be unlearned. That also means it is not learned by everyone (with the Arawaks used as the still unrefuted pristine example), hence not everyone has learned to be a racist, taking us full circle to the fact that Smoker’s proposition, and your acceptance of it, is bogus. No matter what is taught or learned, some chose to do otherwise and are thus responsible for their actions.

Kanucki: “Sort of like the line "If you want to stop terrorism, don't practice it.’"
Kanuck’s observation is every bit as stupid as the following:
“If you want to stop rape, don’t practice it.”
Racism is a wrongful act or omission. It is also usually an illegal act or omission just as are the other wrongful acts or omissions we call crimes or misdemeanors. The number of racists that would have been deterred from racist acts if probably the same percentage as that of rapists deterred from others refraining from raping others. Terrorism is either a tactic or a crime depending on who gets to do the defining. Is anyone stupid enough to think that the victims of terrorism could have avoided victimization by not being terrorists? Most state-sponsored terrorists commit terrorist acts because they are reasonably sure, and correctly so unfortunately, that they will not pay personally for their crime.

You like propositions. I have another for you. I propose that nearly 100% of Americans have been taught that racism is wrong. They may disagree, or they may agree and not give a damn. Whichever, they are still responsible for their actions and should be punished accordingly each and every time they act upon thoughts of racial bigotry.

It is simply wrong to treat others poorly based upon a harbored prejudice without giving them the chance to be an equal individual, simple as that.

Double checkmate.

"Whomever Controls your Perception of Reality Controls You"

You seem to think that this discussion is something to be won or lost. Take a few deep breaths, relax.

This is obviously a subject you feel passionate about, and believe me, so do I. I also try and be pragmatic, since I have already consumed a lot of my life raging about the large and small injustices around me.

The line "If you want to stop terrorism, don't practice it." is aimed directly at the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy and the so-called "War on Terror". All the terrorism that is and has been practiced by the U.S. should really motivate Bush to declare war on the U.S. itself (but I guess some would say that is exactly what he has done.)! I really did expect you to have the insight to pick up on that, but c'est le vie. You say virtuall