Re: Is white racism nec. all bad?

mellow mike (
2 Apr 1995 07:02:22 GMT

In article <3lkid3$>, (Frank
Forman) wrote:
[sarcasm noted]

: So if I have made an at all thorough study of anthropology and
: psychology and come to the conclusion that blacks are inferior to
: whites, at least as far intelligence goes (and possibly in other areas),
: on average and as a result (in good measure) of divergent biological
: histories, then I am not thereby a racist, by his definition. I am
: guilty only if I stereotype, that is, suppose that persons with dark
: skins ("outward appearances") are uniformly of lesser intelligence
: (though not necessarily because of their biological history).

well this should clarify:

the belief that there *are* differences between human beings
which are inherited such that it they can be ordered into separate *races*
in such a way that each race shares traits and tendencies which *are not
shared my members of any other race*. each race has an 'essence'.

all forms of racism build from the premise of racialism. notice that
racialism is not saying anything 'good' or 'bad' about races just that
mutually exclusive races absolutely exist and divide the species.

extrinsic racism:
the extrinsic racist says that there is a *moral* component to the
'essence' of a race which *warrants* differential treatment. these
differences are, to the extrinsic racist, not particularly controversial.

intrinsic racism:
the intrinsic racist says that the moral 'essence' of a race establishes an
incontrovertable *status* for the race. no matter what an individual
member of a race *does* he should be treated just like the rest of his


so you would be a racialist. clear?
the next question would be do you think this inherent racial difference in
intelligence warrants differential treatment. you make the call.

: The case against Paul's conception of racism (not made by Paul
: himself, at least as yet) would seem to be the case against any sort of
: premature jumping to conclusions. Well, I should not automatically
: suppose that a given black is not very bright any more than I should not
: try out some kind of fish I have never eaten before, merely on the basis
: of my not liking seafood generally. The seriousness of the two cases
: differs, but the principle of not jumping to conclusions is the same.

not only that but the very question of your ability to identify a racial
member comes into question.

: Nor should I come to conclusions too slowly, as I have learned
: to my shame in a few cases where I trusted someone who turned out to be
: a rotter and which, in retrospect, should have been obvious. Whether
: this is also as a neurotic disorder that "requires compassion and
: treatment like any disorder," I shall leave to Lane, as I will generally
: the issue of my being too slow in coming to agree with her about various
: matters.

it's not. i already said so.

: Back to the drawing boards, folks! I don't think you are putting
: out very much in the way of intellectual energy to deal with the
: question this thread is supposed to be about. So far, and in a country
: that is supposedly wallowing in racism, there has not been anyone in
: this group arguing on behalf of racism. What are the arguments on
: behalf of racism? Is anyone accepting them suffering from a neurotic
: disorder?

most americans, including yourself, are far too lazy to deal with the
principles involved and thus are not very well informed about whether or
not they are truly racist. the question of basic definitions that i have
given is easily 10th grade reading material, but the majority of americans
couldn't put it into their own words. in short, racisms are easier done
than said.

since it is not fair for me to presume people have a working understanding
of significantly disciplined definitions, i regularly post 'racism - what
it is' in this peculiar crossposted set of newsgroups. above is the new
short version.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- harambee!
keeper of the cool zone