On Ayn Rand on Racism

Thanks, Terry. I too am surprised.

Post 41

Monday, December 5, 2011 - 12:16pm

As an off-the-cuff comment, not much surprises me here, anymore. I've seen some terribly poor behavior from just about everybody, and I've seen some terribly praiseworthy behavior ... from just about everybody. People will surprise you. It's like a forgotten 4th axiom, or something:

1) Existence exists.
2) Existence is identity.
3) Consciousness is identification.
4) People will surprise you.

:-)

Ed

Post 42

Monday, December 5, 2011 - 3:51pm

TSI asked rhetorically: "You agree that mixed race is a "race," Peters?
Whatever.

Red hair is known among Africans, Asians, and Europeans. My mother (Hungarian) had red hair and green eyes, typically called a "Celtic" or "Irish" combination. The "Aryan" (Indo-European) fairy tales collected by Jakob Grimm and Wilhelm Grimm tell us that Snowhite had black hair. It was straight. But curly black hair is known among the English Racialists in the tradition of Houston Stewart Chamblerain (from whom the Nazis absorbed their pseudo-science) could say that this black curly hair among the English is the result of "race mixing" by the Minoans in search of tin. But that is exactly the point: the so-called "Britannic phenotype" has included this "African" trait for 3000 years, or 100 generations. What, then, is the "White" race?

"Race" is only a social construct. Like "greed" or astrological sun sign, it has no objective reality.

As such, though, it has social reality. Nominally "Black" people can "pass for White" but we do not see nominally "White" people making the other claim. It is a deeply telling joke that the difference between MLK Day and St. Patrick's Day is that on St. Patrick's Day, everyone wants to be Irish.

Racism is perpetuated by racialists who subscribe to the social construct of race.

Post 43

Wednesday, December 7, 2011 - 11:40pm

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/#The Campaign to Undermine Darwinism

http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/Templer%20&%20Rushton%202011%20Intelligence.pdf

Post 44

Friday, December 9, 2011 - 7:28am

TSI in Post 39: "You agree that mixed race is a "race," Peters?
Whatever.

Tress, a light went on and I understand your point now: if "Africans" are a "race" then what about "African-Americans"?

Post 45

Friday, December 9, 2011 - 7:59am

To get socialized here in my new town, I joined the local coin club (elected v.p. for 2012), the Macintosh Users, the "Tech Republicans" luncheon club, and now play D&D Encounters at Dragon's Lair Comics on Wednesday nights. I meet a lot of nerds. Are nerds a race?

I work in security and more than once at some gathering, I thought I saw my brother-in-law who is a fireman. His brother was in the USAF Air Police. Undercover work requires some special skill in disguise and demeanor because cops look like cops, no matter what clothes they wear. Are guardians a race?

It would be pretty easy to claim that the police or nerds in Tokyo, Nairobi, Moscow, and Chicago have more in common with each other than they do with their neighbors. But the racialist and racists do not test for that or for much of anything except skin color, hair texture, and other shallow attributes, which they claim are connected to intelligence.

I could also assert easily that nerds have higher IQs than cops. Would it make sense to have an "immigration policy" that only allows in people who play D&D, program computers, or collect stamps?

Clifford Mishler was President of the American Numismatic Association 2009-2011. Before that, he was president of Krause Publishers, well known to collectors of coins, cars, rock 'n' roll, and much more. He had a stump speech he gave about the growth and extension these pastimes and he called collecting "a gene you do not inherit." He meant that a collector is a "type" of person and if you are, you know it, and if you are not, no one's passion for old pens or buttons or movie posters is going to interest you, and certainly not excite you. We know from "epigenetics" that traits can be inherited while skipping generations, caused by environmental factors that turn certain genes off or on. Are collectors a hidden race?

Racialists and racists lack the intelligence to ask such cogent questions. Perhaps racialism is a racial inheritance. They just cannot help it.

Post 46

Friday, December 9, 2011 - 9:42am

Michael wrote, "But the racialist and racists do not test for that or for much of anything except skin color, hair texture, and other shallow attributes, which they claim are connected to intelligence."

I have never claimed there is link between intelligence and skin color, hair texture, etc.
--------------------

All of those clever bits that Michal wrote about police, collectors and nerds... He seems to have missed the "inheritable" requirement. Michael, you are missing a gene.
--------------------

Michael wrote, "Racialists and racists lack the intelligence to ask such cogent questions. Perhaps racialism is a racial inheritance."

Michael, you can be such an ass. You lump racialism together with racism as if they were the same. Maybe you really don't know the difference, is that it? You call me a racialist (which I am not). A racialist believes in the existence of inheritable patterns of phenotypical characteristics (which I do) AND they emphasize race as important and might subscribe to some beliefs in racial superiority - which I don't.

So, if you are an honorable man, you can apologize for your defamation.

Post 47

Friday, December 9, 2011 - 5:48pm

Tress, a light went on and I understand your point now: if "Africans" are a "race" then what about "African-Americans"?

lol, ya'know, there's a whole bunch of people who resent the label now, i.e. "I've never been to Africa! My parents and grand parents have never been to Africa! I'm just 'black!' A black American!"
Similarly, I recently read a reply from an individual in another forum who wondered if blond, blue eyed "Africans" who move to America are more "African American" then they are? The question shows how silly the conversation is. Geographic labeling is a mistake, in my view. But without geographic labeling, "race" becomes nothing more than a social construct, as you say, Mike, a way of seeing "groups" instead of individuals. I actually agree with you on this. I'm uncomfortable with using superficial distinctions to put people in any kind of "class," or "category," as if that could be as predictive of their character and ability as the Zodiac. I can't see anything productive or value driven in the concept of "race." The idea that anyone could find enough value in the concept of race to insult someone who doesn't is very disturbing to me.

CBS's Lara Logan is "African American."

I was watching the news some months ago and there was a story about a study focusing on race and race relations in Detroit. Some youngsters were being interviewed, but I'm not sure if the children were part of a program, or if they were just random school children, but the reporter asked one little girl (about 8 years old) about her race, "I..I'm African American," the girl said. The reporter then asked, "How do you know if someone is African American?" The child replied, "Ummm...if they were born in Detroit?"

Post 48

Friday, December 9, 2011 - 6:13pm

Teresa,

You wrote, "I'm uncomfortable with using superficial distinctions to put people in any kind of "class," or "category," as if that could be as predictive of their character and ability as the Zodiac."

Please be very clear... I have NEVER said that race is predictive of character or ability! Do NOT put that on me.
------------------------------------

You wrote, "The idea that anyone could find enough value in the concept of race to insult someone who doesn't is very disturbing to me."

I hope you are NOT talking about me. I have not put "value in the concept of race". I've just said that it is obvious that there are heritable characteristics - patterns of which are visible in some people. Saying that race exists is not the same as saying it is a value.

Post 49

Saturday, December 10, 2011 - 4:47am

SW - "there are heritable characteristics - patterns of which are visible in some people. "

You have been dodging this for several weeks now. I pointed out that there are many heritable characteristics and I cited here and in another thread the existence of epigenetic factors in inheritance of acquired characteristics. You keep carping on genetics alone and speaking as if you are not a racialist, which you are. You not a racist. You accept the existence of race, but claim that it has no moral value, i.e., we can grant that you do not personally discriminate on the basis of race. Racism ascribes moral status to geographic origin. You are not a racist. "Racialism is the basic epistemological position that not only do races exist, but also that there are significant differences between them. This is to be contrasted with racism, which also assumes that some races are superior to others; or, in an altered meaning, refers to discrimination based on the concept of race." -- Wikipedia on "Racialism." That also agrees with about 40,000 other hits when I googled "racialism versus racism."

I cited apparently inherited tendencies to nerds and guardians. You insist that Steve Urkel is Black but you refuse to acknowledge his true "race."

If you have never seen a fireman who looks like a fireman - and they do come in several shapes and sizes, but in a limited number of them - then you have eyes but do not see.

We have here on RoR apparently conflicting - or at least complicated - experimental results suggesting that intelligence is inherited. Are smart people a separate race?

You might deny that intelligence, guardianship, and nerdiness are heritable. How about diabetes? That is known to be inherited. Are diabetics a race?

You know the famous Twin Studies. Two men raised separately find similar work, marry women of the same name, even smoke the same brand of cigarettes. Are twins "micro races"?

Heritable characteristics exist; but race has no objective existence. Race is a social construct.

Post 50

Saturday, December 10, 2011 - 5:02am

You know..if you keep beating a dead horse he still can't feel it.
Find something else to argue about this thread sucks.

Except post 47... :)
(Edited by Jules Troy on 12/10, 5:05am)

Post 51

Saturday, December 10, 2011 - 9:12am

Marotta, you don't have the decency to apologize for the ugly, defamatory remarks you made, and yet you expect to be treated with respect?

Post 52

Saturday, December 10, 2011 - 9:31am

I'm still pretty floored by his remark about asking me if I want my children and grandchildren to be slaves ..oh and him criticizing me for using "facts and numbers" on that war on drugs thread..what else was I supposed to use to present a rational arguement? Emotions and non sequiters?
Be that as it may it is now water under the bridge.

Perhaps in the interests of civilized constructive future debates mike should apologize to steve and then let this dumb ass thread started by brad trun an obvious racist go the way of the dinosaurs.

Forgive me if I ramble I just finished an 18 hour shift and need to load up on caffiene before I drive home.

Jules

Post 53

Saturday, December 10, 2011 - 11:12am

I'm trying to find Michael's ugly defamatory remarks...(ellipse infinitum)

Steve from Post 23:

Can you make an 'ought' out of the 'is' in this statement: "That is a rock."

Yes, I can: It ought to make a good paperweight, doorstop, foundation block, counter weight, etc.

Steve from Post 27:

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.

The point is that they're not measured, because they're mixed. Line up 20 pure breed German Shepherds, and there won't be much variation or distinction between them. You can't even tell the difference between males and females by looking at them. They could all be clones as far as you can tell. Can you say that if you line up 20 human beings?

People from very isolated areas will be less varied, less distinct, but they're still universes more varied than any group of pure breed German Shepherds.

Discovering what is true can be very difficult, but that doesn't mean we aren't on the same team. No one here (other than Brad) thinks that superficial, heritable traits are morally viable.

Post 54

Saturday, December 10, 2011 - 11:56am

Can you make an 'ought' out of the 'is' in this statement: "That is a rock."

Yes, I can: It ought to make a good paperweight, doorstop, foundation block, counter weight, etc.

Equivocation. The "ought" that figures here - I expect that this will turn out to be the case - is not the "ought" that ethics talks about. In any case, you need extra premises to get even that conclusion.

I suspect that this whole is/ought question is misconceived. A more interesting one is: can ethical "ought" statements be matters of fact as "is" statements are? Rand is one who thought they could. Phillippa Foot, a philosopher who shares some ground with Rand, observed that when you ask a non-naturalist (one who says they can't) what an "is" - a claim of natural fact - is, you'll see that he has defined these claims to be the ones that don't contain any evaluative terms. Saying that you can't get "ought" from "is" then becomes a tautology.

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 12/10, 11:59am)

Post 55

Saturday, December 10, 2011 - 12:57pm

Great insight, Peter.

There are so many things that we take for granted, such as that scientists don't lie (e.g., Climate Gate), or that philosophers have thought it all out and haven't made a mistake (e.g., is-ought dichotomy), or that politicians are these super-virtuous beings who wouldn't -- as is found in the book: "Throw Them All Out" -- who wouldn't deliberately and personally bet against the market (by short-selling stocks), only to use their political power to make sure that the market crashes and everybody else suffers (just so that they could double their personal investment).

The is-ought dichotomy seems to be one of those things that's been accepted or found acceptable for nothing other than it's age. It seems like a stupid or misconceived idea -- such as the is-ought dichotomy -- appears to get some kind of philosophical "tenure" if it can last for at least a half-century. Half-century old ideas or memes, as well as those spanning longer, seem to be just accepted outright.

In the Bad Science thread, I mentioned how Karl Mannheim said he is a relationist, not a relativist (even though there is no actual difference). Karl is trying to cash-in on the aspect of philosophy outlined above -- i.e.,that you can just say something new, and if it is accepted by enough people for long enough, it will ceased to be questioned. You will have gained ground without having to have had any substance behind your words.

Ed

Post 56

Saturday, December 10, 2011 - 2:23pm

Teresa,

As Peter pointed out (quite eloquently), you did not make an 'ought' out of that particular 'is,' and that is as it ought to be :-)
-----------

And dog fanciers do measure dogs to see if they conform to breed standards. 'Pure breds' are not all clones, because dog fanciers find and measure differences to achieve their ends.
------------

Who cares whether the morally insignificant phenotypical differences between humans and the phenotypical differences between dog of a given breed are greater or not. I only used the example to show that patterns of heritable differences exist and be categorized.
-------------

You said, "Discovering what is true can be very difficult, but that doesn't mean we aren't on the same team. No one here (other than Brad) thinks that superficial, heritable traits are morally viable."

That's true. But it doesn't mean I'm not logically justified in pointing out the flaws in the arguments that race doesn't exist, nor does it mean that I'm not morally justified in slamming Moratta for lumping me with racists (see my comments in post #46)

As to Marotta, he cherry-picks a quote from Wikipedia to paint me as a racialist, but omits this part of the definition: "Racialists usually reject some claims of racial superiority (such as "racial supremacy"), but may explicitly or implicitly subscribe to others, such as that races have acted in morally superior or inferior ways, at least in certain instances or periods of history. [emphasis mine]

That Wikipedia article goes on to say, "The Oxford English Dictionary defined racialism as 'belief in the superiority of a particular race.' ... Additionally, the OED records racism as a synonym of racialism: 'belief in the superiority of a particular race'. "

Racists smear people with moral shortcomings based upon accidental and insignificant genetic characteristics that have no moral standing. Many Progressives smear people with accusations of being racist even when they aren't. Both are just variants of proclaiming someone to be morally deficient without reason. Marotta is smearing me with his cheap name-calling. What makes what he is doing any less odious than what those Progressives and racists do?

Post 57

Saturday, December 10, 2011 - 3:57pm

And dog fanciers do measure dogs to see if they conform to breed standards. 'Pure breds' are not all clones, because dog fanciers find and measure differences to achieve their ends.

I said that a group of 20 pure breed German Shepherds would look like clones. I didn't say that they were clones. They look exactly the same because they were bred to look exactly the same.   Breeders rely on paper trails to prove the pedigree of their animals, along with those physical standards. It wouldn't take much work, or measurement, to compare a Heinz 57 to an animal with a pedigree and long, detailed breeding record. One glance is all it takes.

For human beings, we'd need a geneticist to actually define the concept "race."   I'm not sure a group of them would agree on an exact definition, either.

Can race be defined as taking a single (physical/biological) trait, giving it a range of variables, then combining it with various other traits and their variables, then coming up with a definition?  I have to wonder because individuals from the San tribe look very different from, say, those in the Maasai tribe. Are they both considered the same race? Why? How? What is the common denominator when determining this?

Are these individuals members of the same race, or not? How do we know? Where does one race end and another begin?

(Liam is Irish, Gerard is Scottish, Sly is Italian, Omar is Egyptian, Javier is Spanish, and Benjamin is Paruvian, and yes, that was fun. ;)

Post 58

Saturday, December 10, 2011 - 5:43pm

Teresa,

Irish, Scottish, Italian, Egyptian, Spanish, and Peruvian are references to countries - not to race. If I were black as coal but born in Spain to parents who had been born in Spain, would I say I was Spanish? Maybe if I was announcing my language, cultural background, cultural ethnicity, native language, citizenship, or place of origin. Do you see race in that list?
-----------------------

====Quiz====

One, and only one of the pictures below is of a Black American - commonly referred to as an African-American even though he has never been to Africa. Which one, and how did you know? (Hint: It does NOT have anything to do with the background color, or that one photo is in black and white, or that one fellow is older, or that one fellow is smiling, or that one fellow is looking off camera and the other isn't. This is NOT a trick question!)

1.)

.... 2.)

Those who say that race does not exist are free to answer that it is impossible to tell since the pictures by themselves do not reveal enough of a social construct to tell.

Post 59

Saturday, December 10, 2011 - 8:51pm