On Ayn Rand on Racism

The notion that race is observable in all organs of the body...except the brain...is an irrational one, especially in light of the fact that modern skull measurements show clearly identifiable racial traits on virtually every major feature of the skull, from eye orbits to teeth (Gould and others who attempted to defend egalitarian views of cranial capacity have long since been exposed as frauds by modern science, which you again must reject in order to deny the existence of racial variations).

Seriously, are you simply saying that average differences across racial groups are observable? If so, that may be true, but again, it says nothing about any given individual. So what is the payoff in making these racial distinctions? What are the implications for moral judgment, philosophy or politics? None that I can see, since everyone must be judged on his or her individual merits, has the same rights regardless of race or ethnicity, and can be held to the same moral and political standards.

In a free-market economy, racial variations will express themselves in predictable racial orderings in terms of athletic and academic achievement and income levels. These inequalities are symptoms of freedom. Equality is artificial, and its pursuit is always and everywhere the enemy of freedom. Embracing inequality because it is natural requires an understanding of from where inequalities derive. That's what this is about.

In the quest for absolute equality, no distinctions (between groups of people) can be made.

One that comes immediately to mind is the preservation of a groups' rights. If distinctions are avoided, and all people are viewed as the same, people will view each other as having the same rights. However, if distinctions come into play, some people may use this as grounds to violate another groups' rights.

WD:"How about the claim that "white men can't jump"? How would he feel about that? Nobody seems to find that objectionable. Nor do they object to blonde jokes on the grounds that they stereotype the fair-haired unfairly."

Sam, I owe you an apology; I'm sorry I never clarified what I meant in my post 151. It is not my intention to reopen this thread; I just wanted to clear a few things up.

In the quest for absolute equality, no distinctions (between groups of people) can be made.

If there are no distinctions between groups then there can be no groups, as groups are characterized by their differences. I'm really trying to get my head around this. Are you arguing that I should ignore that there are elderly people, young people, handicapped people? Are you suggesting that I ignore that certain people have traits in common? There are laws protecting juveniles because they can't be fully responsible for their actions. Are all the data miners out there immoral because they have certain target groups? 

My above statement is not my position, rather, it is my speculation as to the motives of others. Many people quest for equality, and the quest to eliminate racism, by blurring distinctions between groups and individuals. Their reasoning is "If I can prove that everyone is the same, no one will try to oppress anyone (by using racial characteristics), since we are all the same." Though this is well meaning, it doesn't account for reality, and is unnecessary if individual rights are secured.

Personally, I recognize the distinction between groups and individuals, both genetic and otherwise.

One that comes immediately to mind is the preservation of a groups' rights. If distinctions are avoided, and all people are viewed as the same, people will view each other as having the same rights. However, if distinctions come into play, some people may use this as grounds to violate another groups' rights.

I'm surprised that you are using an argument of "group's rights." I firmly believed that members of this forum rejected out-of-hand the concept that groups have rights ... only individuals have rights.

To distinguish groups of people from groups of other kinds, such as trees or animals, makes no sense to me. It's an inhibition not to observe that "blacks have good teeth" or "white guys get sunburned easily." I reject the idea that one should censor one's thoughts or speech because someone else might violate another "group's" rights when the expression is factual and non-confrontational. Would you have the same argument if a black guy observed, to me, that white guys get sunburned easily? (I'm white.) The idea of me being offended is absurd.