On Ayn Rand on Racism

SW: Michael, I'm not going to play definition games with you. If you are clueless as to what people are referring to when they mention a race, like the the white race, that will have to remain your problem. If you do have a sense of what they are talking about then you are just playing word games.

Lord, let his ears hear what his mouth is saying.

Are Arabs "White"? Is Barack Obama in any way part "Negro"? These common misconceptions are floating abstractions and stolen concepts. They are as meaningless as the intentions of "capitalism" found in the mainstream media.

Post 21

Friday, December 2, 2011 - 6:51am

Calm down, Steve. To be is to be something. Every is implies an ought. To make race a defining attribute is to give it moral significance.

Post 22

Friday, December 2, 2011 - 9:16am

I'm going to put this one in the water and see if it floats ...

:-)

Race is not a metaphysical concept, but an epistemological one.

What is metaphysical is genetic variation. When man looks at genetic variations and lumps them together with regard to phenotypes which present the naked eye with variations of skin tone -- or nose morphology, etc. -- then "races" spring into existence. Thinking makes it so. Race is a concept that is used in order to categorize people based on unimportant -- but identifiable -- conglomerations of physical traits.

Whaddaya think?

Ed

Post 23

Friday, December 2, 2011 - 12:04pm

Teresa,

"Every is implies an ought." I don't think that is so. Can you make an 'ought' out of the 'is' in this statement: "That is a rock."

"To make race a defining attribute is to give it moral significance." Defining what? Individuals aren't 'defined' by their race - it is an accidental characteristic - like the color of their eyes. How does that become moral? You keep making these statements that you imply represent my thinking and you are totally wrong.
-----------

Ed,

I think you are very close to how I see this issue, but not quite.

"What is metaphysical is genetic variation."

True.
----------

"When man looks at genetic variations and lumps them together with regard to phenotypes which present the naked eye with variations of skin tone -- or nose morphology, etc. -- then 'races' spring into existence."

Sort of.... The mind recognizes patterns of these variations that are genetic. But your statement distances 'race' too far from existence and makes it float.

We form concepts - like we do with 'tables' and then subdividing tables into different categories like 'kitchen table,' coffee table,' etc. It isn't so much that 'kitchen tables' springs into existence (as if it had no existing referenents), but that a concept springs into existence that we use to categorize some aspect of reality.
-----------

I'm astounded that there is so much fuss about a such a simple thing.

Race has been one of the identifiers by which men have tormented and abused one another for all of history. And the problem is a simple one - they attached moral judgment to racial differences. It is a form of collectivism, or tribalism. The psychology is simple as well - find a difference between your group and others, then demonize those that are different. In Marxism, it is called class warfare. In Nazi Germany it was the jews. In Po Pot's Cambodia it was those who were educated.

How anyone can get from there (and I assume we all agree on the truths in the preceeding paragraph) to the position that there is no such thing as race is what is bizarre. Probably, at some distant point in the future, there will no longer be phenotypes that represent a given race - we will have happily mixed our genes enough to all be slightly different shades of tan and 'race' will be something that is relegated to the history books. But that isn't the way it is now.

So, for now, we should not pretend that race doesn't exist, and instead, fight all attempts to make moral judgments of individuals based upon race (or any other characteristics that don't arise out of choice).

Post 24

Friday, December 2, 2011 - 12:11pm

Steve: "Race has been one of the identifiers by which men have tormented and abused one another for all of history. And the problem is a simple one - they attached moral judgment to racial differences. It is a form of collectivism, or tribalism. The psychology is simple as well - find a difference between your group and others, then demonize those that are different. In Marxism, it is called class warfare. In Nazi Germany it was the jews. In Po Pot's Cambodia it was those who were educated."

Hell, even hair color...look at not only the stereotypes, but the animosity, especially towards redheads...

Post 25

Friday, December 2, 2011 - 12:30pm

Joe,

It seems to be psychological.

People experiencing shame, or fear, or anger, or guilt, group together on some unstated premise that together they can somehow get relief. The group adopts some rationalization that does two things: It says it isn't their fault but rather it is the fault of some group that is different, and it says that attacking and blaming the different group will make things better. They get a sense of moral justification out of group solidarity as if individual responsibility somehow dissolves when they allow the group-think to wash over them.

All of this is greatly aided by the fact that shame, fear, and guilt are easily converted into anger which feels more empowering and less painful. Just as mysticism is a thin shroud to hide the foolishness of belief based upon faith, the cheap and dirty motives of converting personal fears and shame into the demonizing of others gets shrouded by the political rationalizations the mob comes up with.

Then they get to detach themselves from the recognition of the harm they do to innocent individuals by never seeing them as individuals, as people whose essential natures are made up of the choices they have made, the dreams they hold, and the beliefs they accept - instead they just see the group difference they have chosen as their symbol of hatred. The irrational prejudice that they started with, becomes the way they choose to keep themselves blind to their cruelty.

Post 26

Friday, December 2, 2011 - 4:10pm

Steve, I apologise. I'm not trying to make you look one way or the other, I'm just trying to understand what you mean based on things you've said in the past.  I'm just trying to stay consistent.

You say race exists but is morally neutral.

Michael denies race exists (due to being conceptually vague,) which appears to be a moral failing in your view.   Why is your assertion that race exists (metaphysically, I assume) morally superior to Mike's denial (based on conceptual vagueness,) when you both clearly accept the idea that genetic makeup is morally neutral?

I really don't understand the insulting criticism you threw at Mike when he's fundamentally in agreement with you. Can you explain, because I really don't get it at all.

I remember you wrote some time ago that you accepted Obama's race as "black" because that's how he chose to identify himself.  Do you still accept that definition of race? That its volitional? Subjective? Emotional? If so, then you're in 100% agreement with Mike and he's owed an apology.

Post 27

Friday, December 2, 2011 - 5:02pm

Hi Teresa,

I'm not sure what else I can say.

Let's take Obama as an example. His father was black. His mother was white. But if someone says that race doesn't exist, then those two sentences don't make any sense. If, in your mind, those two sentences are meaningless, then you might as well stop reading because we are at an impasse.

Obama is of mixed race but he chooses to call himself an African-American or a Black. A person could say, "No, you are of mixed race," but why bother - I think it is more a matter of civility to let him choose which race he identifies with. Because I don't see ANY moral significance to one's race, it really doesn't matter to me. I'm not here to argue about what race is, or what race someone is, but to argue that people should not be judged by things they have no control over. Race exists, but it doesn't have a moral dimension.
-------------------

There are many things where exact measurement is difficult, or hasn't been done, or is even impossible - but that doesn't mean the things don't exist. The concept isn't vague - it is the borders between races that are vague. Should we say that there are no dog breeds - just dogs? How do you measure the difference between two dogs with mixed pedigrees? Professional breeders, or the market place might come up with measurements, and they might be subjective, or they might be based upon context, but it doesn't mean that patterns of genetic variations don't exist.
-------------

I believe that Michael is ignoring reality and engaging in word games. I wasn't thinking of that as a "moral failing" as you labeled it - to me it is just something I see Michael do on occasion.

My claim that race exists is not "morally superior" to Michael's claim that race doesn't exit. It is factually superior, logically superior, but I don't see the disagreement as having any significant moral dimension.
---------------

You wrote, "I really don't understand the insulting criticism you threw at Mike when he's fundamentally in agreement with you."

I consider this academic position that has been acquiring popularity in recent years, this idea that there is no such thing as race, as worthy of insulting criticism. It deserves no respect. Race has been a major factor in tribalism, collectivism, and just plain day-to-day misery. You don't get rid of that problem by pretending that race doesn't exist. What a person can't accept or acknowledge, they can't correct. You can't leave a place you've never been or won't go to.
----------------

You wrote, "Do you still accept that definition of race? That its volitional? Subjective? Emotional?"

That has never been my definition of race. I have NOT claimed that race is volitional, subjective, or or a product of emotions.
---------------

Post 28

Saturday, December 3, 2011 - 7:11am

Steve wrote: "I consider this academic position that has been acquiring popularity in recent years, this idea that there is no such thing as race, as worthy of insulting criticism. It deserves no respect. Race has been a major factor in tribalism, collectivism, and just plain day-to-day misery. You don't get rid of that problem by pretending that race doesn't exist. What a person can't accept or acknowledge, they can't correct. You can't leave a place you've never been or won't go to."

Steve, God does not exist. In another topic, Fred Bartlett denied the existence of ghosts -- even though so many people believe in them that we can discuss their attributes at length. A "fair tax" does not exist. The Hegelian Idea does not exist. The Kantian categorical imperative ("duty") does not exist.

Race has no objective existence. No empirical evidence explained by a rational, i.e., consistent, theory can offer tests (falsifications) to show that this person belongs to that race, but this other person does not.

In the case of President Barack Obama, indeed, his father came from Africa, but his father was not a Negro, if that word has any meaning ... which it probably does not as no one ever has offered an objective definition.

The apparent attributes of skin, hair, lips, and eyes are inconsistent across and within groups. Read the Aryan fairy tales of the Brothers Grimm: Snowhite had black hair, not blonde. Some people from sub-Saharan Africa have hair as red as any blue tattooed Gaelic warrior. These problems are epsitemologically equivalent to the contradictions in claims that God is omniscient and/or omnipotent, or that we need government to level the playing field in business by breaking up monopolies. They are crude social constructs, not objective facts. Race exists only in the minds of racists and racialists.

Even as scientists over the last century have mapped genes and the human genome, no genetic markers for "race" have been found. Racist and racialist theories are no more advanced now than they were 100 years ago. And despite the fine work of the Yerkes, Palomar, and Hubble Telescopes, neither has astrology made any advances.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/03, 7:14am)

Post 29

Saturday, December 3, 2011 - 10:04am

Michael,

You point out that God doesn't exist. That's true. He is just like your concept of race-is-nothing-more-than-a-social-construct - a product of imagination that flies in the face of logic.

Race is a classification of humans using patterns of heritable phenotypic characteristics. As such it refers to geographic ancestry. If you want to argue that there are no phenotypic differences, or that they are not heritable, or that there are no recognizable patterns, or that they do not represent geographic ancestry... Hey, go for it. You are free to express whatever opinions you want.

Forensic anthropology and biomedical research use race. Modern medicine pays attention to race since a number of medical conditions follow racial lines.

Here is an example of published work where genetic research is being used to trace human evolution and migration. From the introduction:
"The distribution of genetic variation within and among human populations has long been an important tool for inferring the evolutionary history of modern humans. Dramatic improvements in genotyping technologies over the past 15 years have facilitated the development of many types of DNA markers. Considerable attention has been devoted to both uniparental and autosomal genetic markers. Because of their lack of recombination, uniparental markers�mtDNA and the nonrecombining region of the Y chromosome (e.g., see R. L. Cann et al. 1987; Ingman et al. 2000; Underhill et al. 2000)�and their genealogical histories are perhaps easier to study than are recombining markers." From Features of Evolution and Expansion of Modern Humans, Inferred from Genomewide Microsatellite Markers, by Lev A. Zhivotovsky, Noah A. Rosenberg, and Marcus W. Feldman published in The American Journal Human Genetics.

The sole reason for the collection of rationalizations that make up the race as a social construct theory is political. People argue that continued use of race leads to stereotyping and discrimination so they decide to pretend that it doesn't exist. This is an example of psuedo-science being used to support political ends.

Post 30

Saturday, December 3, 2011 - 10:09am

I have to agree with Mike on a whole lot of this. Genetic markers only suggest geographical lineage, not racial makeup.

I'm even willing to think that race, to the extent that it might exist, will be completely extinguished in a few dozen generations due to the ease of travel and free trade in the world. There's barely a fraction of the isolated populations in the world today then there were just 100 years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=ybji0axp6s0

I really enjoyed this series with Spencer Wells. His discovery that the San Bushman are direct direct descendants of the small band that populated the entire planet is quite fascinating.

Post 31

Saturday, December 3, 2011 - 10:23am

I don't think Michael is trying to pretend that different colors and features of people don't exists, Steve.

The sole reason for the collection of rationalizations that make up the race as a social construct theory is political. People argue that continued use of race leads to stereotyping and discrimination so they decide to pretend that it doesn't exist. This is an example of psuedo-science being used to support political ends.

How does insisting race exists end stereotyping and discrimination?

Post 32

Saturday, December 3, 2011 - 1:03pm

Quite simple just install a government that holds the rights of the individual as supreme..voila no more racism

Post 33

Saturday, December 3, 2011 - 5:15pm

Teresa,

Genes code for phenotypes as well as containing geographical lineage. You can't fully separate one from the other. It was the isolation that developed differences over time.
---------------

You said, "I'm even willing to think that race, to the extent that it might exist, will be completely extinguished in a few dozen generations..."

If race doesn't exist, it makes no sense to say that it will be extinguished at some point in time (By the way, I agree that race will be extinguished at some point, but I have no idea how many generations it will take).

Isolation is not just geographical, and not just a matter of ease of transportation. Cultural restrictions acted as 'isolators' and those are barriers that are dropping - but still exist in most cultures.
-------------------

You wrote, "I don't think Michael is trying to pretend that different colors and features of people don't exists, Steve."
Michael is logically implying one of the following:
- there are no phenotypical differences
- their are differences but they are not inherited
- there are no patterns in the inherited phenotypical differences.
-----------------

You asked, "How does insisting race exists end stereotyping and discrimination?"

Start from the question of how do you fight against racism. I assume that you agree that racism exists. You can try to fight it by saying, "There are no races - that is a term that is as made-up as Santa Claus." But that won't work if there are races - it won't even work if there aren't races but people refuse to believe you because they look and see patterns of differences that are inherited. So, from that point, you have no other way to fight racism. You aren't even in the right argument with them.

You have to embrace the existence of visible patterns of genetic variation and point out that each and every variation is not one that was chosen, and therefore not one that a person can be subjected to moral judgment for. If you look at those societies where racism is very low, like Cuba and Brazil, they are very open and vocal about characteristics like skin color and about races but they have far, far less stigma or social status associated with race. You argue for judging people by the content of their character and not by racial characteristics.

Post 34

Sunday, December 4, 2011 - 7:24am

SW: Michael is logically implying one of the following:
- there are no phenotypical differences
- their are differences but they are not inherited
- there are no patterns in the inherited phenotypical differences.

No, Steve, I am not implying any of the above. This claim is another of your evasions of the challenge for you to define your terms.

* What is race?
* What are the races?
* How do you know?

In point of fact, I wrote in Post 5 above:
I know from studying blood groups for a presentation on crime scene investigation that if you look at all of the proteins in a blood sample, you can narrow down the origin. While there exist proteins that appear in 95% of Pacific Islanders and 95% of Icelanders, other proteins are known only to certain villages. Genetic groups do exist. But "race" (so-called) does not. Argue it as we do - and see above: people do argue it - no one seems willing or able to define it.

Heritable characteristics can be mapped to geography. We know that. What is pseudo-science is the claim that Negroes, Orientals, and Caucasians are the major races of mankind with Australian Aborigines and Pacific Island Negritos as the minor races. That 19th century hokum has long been discredited by the very same genetic science cited above.

I was born on November 10. Like all others born October 23-November 22, I am a Scorpio. And you are White. And Ben Bernanke manages the economy.

Post 35

Sunday, December 4, 2011 - 7:38am

You mean Ben Bernanke destroys the economy...

Post 36

Sunday, December 4, 2011 - 9:24am

Its sarcasm, Jules.

Sunday, December 4, 2011 - 10:36am

Michael agrees in post #34 that there are heritable, patterns of phenotypical differences - that ends this totally stupid argument.

Post 38

Sunday, December 4, 2011 - 2:14pm

Lurker says: surprised by the fervent disagreement here - but IMHO Steve is right. As usual...LOL.

Cheers

Post 39

Sunday, December 4, 2011 - 2:31pm