The Fallacies of Racism

EGarrett

Illuminator
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
3,086
I want to talk about racism.

Mainly because I just feel like I need to get this information off my chest, and explain my personal findings that it appears to be one giant Causation-Correlation fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_implies_causation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Whenever I try to discuss racism with people, I end up trying to make this point to them. It is not easy to make or explain, nor have I gotten it from anywhere else. I came to it entirely from my own knowledge of logic and what I've observed about racism.

Anyway, racism is, of course, the belief that a certain ethnic group is naturally better (or worse) than others. And, very often, the desire to separate yourself from people of that group or to separate the ethnic groups as a whole.

It's a hard issue, because when you take a quick look at the world around you...it SEEMS like some groups are less capable than others.

The problem of course, is when you assume these differences are BECAUSE of the ethnic make-up of people and not because of other factors. They assume that the race itself has some better or worse genetic characteristic instead of looking at other factors. This leads to the desire to "get away" from those people or "purify" your own ethnic group by keeping them away from you.

This is of course, damaging and barbaric, and equally importantly, logically wrong.

That's because whenever you look deeper into the apparent differences among ethnic groups, you will always, in my experience, find other causes for those differences that are not based on race, ethnicity, or their genetic characteristics. But for various reasons, like the way we've treated each other for centuries, based on our ethnic differences, they happen to be found alongside ethnic characteristics in many places. But it's those outside causes, the more specific groups that are defined by things other than race, that we need to control, "stop" or "separate" ourselves from.

__________________________
Let me use some common examples. Ignoring for a moment, that the idea of "black," or "white" is hard to define in the first place.

1. Black people seem more athletic than white people. White people seem more intelligent than Black people.

While it CERTAINLY SEEMS to be the case, to say that "black men are more athletic" than white men is not really a correct statement.

The correct statement would be "a group of people who perform hard physical labor for centuries" will tend to be more athletic than a group of people that does not. Regardless of ethnicity.

If we take ANY group of people, make it illegal to educate them, separate families, and force them and their children to perform hard manual labor, what do you expect the results to be in that group after 30 generations of this?

Easy. They'll be uncommonly good at physical activity, not as good at mental activity, and they won't have as good a family structure.

If we look at descendants of slaves as a group (in America or wherever else it has happened), you'll notice that those characteristics describe their current situation very well.

But if we look at 'black' or African people as a group. Those characteristics do not match up. Modern African people do not dominate strength-and-speed sports to near the same level as African-American (note that I'm saying this to differentiate Africans from Africans who are descendants of American slaves, not necessarily to be politically correct) people. Likewise, African-American people do not dominate Endurance sports to the same level that Kenyans or any other people from high mountainous areas do.

You must also consider that sports where African-American people predominate are a common part of the culture. Basketball is a common activity among African-American people in the same way that Hockey is a national pasttime among Canadians, and Soccer is a national pasttime among Brazilians. And Canadians dominate hockey and Brazilians dominate soccer in the same way despite never showing any apparent genetic special abilities.
_______________________________________

Another example...

2. Black people get diseases like Sickle-Cell Anemia, White people get diseases like Skin Cancer...and there are many other "race-specific diseases."

People love to tell me that if race doesn't have these strong genetic advantages, then why are black people commonly victims of Sickle-Cell, and white people common victims of Skin Cancer and so on.

I checked into this myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_anemia

What I found is that Sickle-Cell is a disease common in descendants of West Africans. Not East Africans or South Africans, though they are of course also 'black.' That makes it a regional genetic disorder that is also commonly linked with Malaria.

Diseases do occur commonly based on region. After all, if you've been to a foreign country, you know not to drink the water there because the bacteria in it are different.

But it would be wrong and idiotic not to drink your water because it's from the house of your black or Mexican neighbor. Region is common for dividing people and people are segregated or quarantined due to region very often. Race is not appropriate for this, which is why we do not accept segregating people by race and it is a stupid idea.

Likewise, skin cancer is common with people who don't have much Melanin in their skin. That might correlate to black and white people because black people tend to have more melanin, but being 'black' or 'white' doesn't cause it. There are black people without much melanin in their skin who are susceptible to skin cancer, and darker-skinned 'white' people who aren't.
______________________________________________

Second to Last one.

3. Black people are scary and dangerous.

I'm sure it seems that way to a lot of people. A lot of people lock their doors when in a bad part of town. Believe it or not, I'll let you off the hook and tell you that that doesn't make you a racist.

Ask yourself this:

If Oprah Winfrey or Michael Jordan drove past you in a limousine, would you lock your doors? Would you be afraid? Of course not.

If a white person dressed in gang-attire walked up to you in the middle of the night, would you get worried? Probably yes.

Because it is generally not the skin that is bothering you. Unfortunately, due to lingering effects of lack of education and other factors, a lot (not all by any stretch of the imagination) of black people live in 'bad parts' of the country. It is because of the lack of education or trouble (or their own fault) not finding a job that they are there, not because of their ethnicity or characteristics caused by their ethnicity.

It's being in a bad part of town and seeing a person who might be dangerous that bothers you. Unfortunately, 'race' happens to correlate to this for right now in society, so we pick up a tendency to get worried about that as well. But if Oprah Winfrey wouldn't scare you, then 'race' isn't the cause.
_______________________________

4. White people have to feel guilty about slavery.

While the lingering effects of slavery cause most of the correlation between race and negative things in America, I don't think that if you're a 'white' person you need to feel guilty about it.

Slavery was of course barbaric and stupid and horrible. It is one of many things in history that we all should be embarrassed about, and the people who participated in it at the time should be ashamed.

But slavery is not the only thing barbaric and stupid and shameful and horrible that people have done. Every group of people, racial or otherwise, does stupid and bad things. African leaders enslaved each other and sold some of their own 'prisoners' from other tribes into slavery. Europeans tortured each other to death in the Inquisition. South American people made human sacrifices out of little girls.

And let me add that fear of the "new" person is a common cause of this. Irish and Italian people were both refused service and made victims of stereotyping when they first immigrated to America in large numbers. But as the cultures merge and people adapt and learn about each other, the reasons for these stereotypes disappear...and thus the stereotypes themselves fade out. Black and Hispanic people on average LOOK physically different, so the assimilation process takes longer, but rest assured it is happening. Why do you think "black" music and culture are mixing so much with "white" culture...especially among young white people who listen to rap and young black people who skateboard?

Anyway, the point on this one is that everyone is their own person. While what our great-great-great grandfathers did DOES have a BIG effect on our circumstances today, if we do what we can to learn from it, and try and make-up for it, even in small ways...we shouldn't feel ashamed.

And the more we look at racism with an honest eye and a knowledge of logic, the more I think we can see just why society has deemed it wrong. It's not just because it makes people feel good, it's logically and scientifically unsound.

Alright, I'm done. Flame away.
 
I want to talk about racism.

Alright, I'm done. Flame away.
Shelby Steele wrote a fine book on this topic called "The Content of our Character." (the title line was borrowed from ML King's famous speech.)

If you have not read it, it is worth a look.

DR
 
Anyway, racism is, of course, the belief that a certain ethnic group is naturally better (or worse) than others.
__________________________
L

That is a symptom of racism, but I don't think of it as what racism IS. I think racism is the acceptance of the essentially meaningless paradigm of "race". As long as people choose to define themselves by such arbitrary distinctions as physical characteristics or ethnic background they will continue to be inclined to use these things as justifications for their conceits and prejudices. It is no different than those blue eye/brown eyes experiments with school children where the kids develop genuine animosity toward each other based on eye color (at least I think it was eye color - it was something arbitrary.) The problem isn't that people might be inclined not to like people of other ethnic backgrounds. It's that those differences in racial backgrounds are not recognized as the completely arbitrary and contrived distinctions they really are. Racial conciousness is a bad thing, whatever it's intention.
 
Did you write all that yourself just not? Kudos to you for thinking through a difficult issue carefully.

I agree with your general principle of looking beneath the surface. But I think the answers may not always conform neatly to a pc ideal: some differences in ability between some populations may be genetic, in my opinion.

Also, with black americans and athletic performance, the potential may be genetic. Black americans (and west indians) weren't just forced to do intense physical labor, they were bred for it by their wasp owners for 250 years the same way that wasps breed their dogs and horses.
 
Also, with black americans and athletic performance, the potential may be genetic. Black americans (and west indians) weren't just forced to do intense physical labor, they were bred for it by their wasp owners for 250 years the same way that wasps breed their dogs and horses.

Remember Jimmy the Greek? He was fired from CBS for saying that.

Jimmy Snyder
 
That is a symptom of racism, but I don't think of it as what racism IS. I think racism is the acceptance of the essentially meaningless paradigm of "race". As long as people choose to define themselves by such arbitrary distinctions as physical characteristics or ethnic background they will continue to be inclined to use these things as justifications for their conceits and prejudices. It is no different than those blue eye/brown eyes experiments with school children where the kids develop genuine animosity toward each other based on eye color (at least I think it was eye color - it was something arbitrary.) The problem isn't that people might be inclined not to like people of other ethnic backgrounds. It's that those differences in racial backgrounds are not recognized as the completely arbitrary and contrived distinctions they really are. Racial conciousness is a bad thing, whatever it's intention.
I agree with you that it's hard to define and simply being aware of it tends to cause problems. But I wouldn't define racism as only subscribing to the idea of race. I think there are people who define themselves as "black" or "white," however inaccurate that may be, who don't believe that it makes them better or worse than someone else. I don't want to label those people as racists.

Did you write all that yourself just not? Kudos to you for thinking through a difficult issue carefully.

I agree with your general principle of looking beneath the surface. But I think the answers may not always conform neatly to a pc ideal: some differences in ability between some populations may be genetic, in my opinion.

Also, with black americans and athletic performance, the potential may be genetic. Black americans (and west indians) weren't just forced to do intense physical labor, they were bred for it by their wasp owners for 250 years the same way that wasps breed their dogs and horses.
The question I want to ask is...is the athletic performance linked with being "black," or is it linked with the "selective breeding" or slavery? We don't have many other sources to compare it to...but to my knowledge we don't see as many Africans dominating sports as we do African-Americans.
 
Also, with black americans and athletic performance, the potential may be genetic. Black americans (and west indians) weren't just forced to do intense physical labor, they were bred for it by their wasp owners for 250 years the same way that wasps breed their dogs and horses.
Even without 'breeding' for abilities, the strongest Africans were already artificially selected for merely by surviving the journey from Africa to their final destination.
 
Did you write all that yourself just not? Kudos to you for thinking through a difficult issue carefully.

I agree with your general principle of looking beneath the surface. But I think the answers may not always conform neatly to a pc ideal: some differences in ability between some populations may be genetic, in my opinion.

Also, with black americans and athletic performance, the potential may be genetic. Black americans (and west indians) weren't just forced to do intense physical labor, they were bred for it by their wasp owners for 250 years the same way that wasps breed their dogs and horses.

I"m not sure who you were directing this toward, but I agree with you that particular genetic pools tend to have different characteristics, but the differences between genetic pools is dwarfed by the differences within them. I am certainly not going to argue that any particular person of one race is identical to another person of another race. We are not all the same, obviously enough, but we all blend into each other at the outer edges. Saying that race is an artificial construct is not the same thing as saying that all people of different heritage are identical. Certainly there are certain attributes which can be ascribed more to people from one genetic pool than to another, but they are all human attributes which every human shares.
 
I'm not exactly sure why this is made to be so complicated. All of us here value individual liberty and be able to persue their goals to the best of their appitude and we all understand that judging people based on what group isn't 100% perdictable and thus some people would be denied something their fair chance and we are all against that.

I'm reading Calli-Sforza's Genes, Peoples, and Languages and I get the idea that races are arbitarilly defined and there are no discontuities. I just don't see how it is particurally relevent. We seperate concepts without discontuities all the time. Where is the discontuity between being an adult and being a child? Obviously genetic differences between groups are meaningful or else we wouldn't able to tract are genetic heritage using them.
 
1. Black people seem more athletic than white people. White people seem more intelligent than Black people.

While it CERTAINLY SEEMS to be the case, to say that "black men are more athletic" than white men is not really a correct statement.

The correct statement would be "a group of people who perform hard physical labor for centuries" will tend to be more athletic than a group of people that does not. Regardless of ethnicity.

Er, that's not a correct statement. This is Lamarkism: the belief that if the parents worked hard, the child will be more muscular or fit. That is simply not true, or--to give an example unjustly used against black people--a descendant from a long line of slaves should enjoy slavery, and it is "unnatural" for him to despise it.

The obvious truth is that blacks do have a physical, genetical edge in many sports. What is true is that it seems that this edge is a large one, when, in reality, it is quite small. Usually, this edge will be totally swamped by differences in training, motivation, general fitness, etc.

It seems large because so many blacks are succesful in professional sports. But to be succesful in professional sports, you have to be in the top 0.1% (at least) of all sportsmen. That means that it goes without saying your motivation, training, etc., etc. must be in top form, so innate physical ability starts to play a role: the top sportsmen among those in top physical and mental form--those who become professional sportsmen--would tend to be black due to the genetic factor playing a role.
 
I"m not sure who you were directing this toward, but I agree with you that particular genetic pools tend to have different characteristics, but the differences between genetic pools is dwarfed by the differences within them.

Quite true; and usually also dwarfed by individual hard work, training, and so on. The point, however, is that at the very top, such as professional sports and nobel prize winners--where it is assumed the factors one controls (education, training, fitness, etc.) are all in top form--small genetic factors start to play a role, and if the very top of one genetic pool is better than the very top of another, you'll see a difference. But I fully agree such factors are more or less meaningless on any level below that.
 
The question I want to ask is...is the athletic performance linked with being "black," or is it linked with the "selective breeding" or slavery? We don't have many other sources to compare it to...but to my knowledge we don't see as many Africans dominating sports as we do African-Americans

You need to look a little closer at stamina events 5k 10k runs and marathons. Black African atheletes have been dominating these events for a generation.

In the case of the kenyan runners - nearly all come from one very small geographic locality in Kenya. There is a definate genetic marker here - Combined with the high altitude of the region has combined to make Keyans very feared competitiors
 
You need to look a little closer at stamina events 5k 10k runs and marathons. Black African atheletes have been dominating these events for a generation.

In the case of the kenyan runners - nearly all come from one very small geographic locality in Kenya. There is a definate genetic marker here - Combined with the high altitude of the region has combined to make Keyans very feared competitiors
You need to read my OP.

Likewise, African-American people do not dominate Endurance sports to the same level that Kenyans or any other people from high mountainous areas do.
If it was "being black" that was responsible instead of environment, African-Americans or general Africans and Kenyans would be on equal footing. They aren't.
 
Er, that's not a correct statement. This is Lamarkism: the belief that if the parents worked hard, the child will be more muscular or fit. That is simply not true, or--to give an example unjustly used against black people--a descendant from a long line of slaves should enjoy slavery, and it is "unnatural" for him to despise it.
You're misreading me.

I was referring instead to natural selection over 30 generations. The child isn't strong because the parents worked hard. The would-be parents who didn't have the physical gifts to perform well at manual labor (or survive the trip from Africa) weren't able to survive and reproduce as much. That's not Lamarkism...and I wouldn't put forward such a silly idea.

But the non-genetic negatives, on the other hand, DO come from the treatment or practices of the parents. Those would be institutionalized ignorance and a destroyed family structure...resulting from generations of it being illegal to educate slaves and the common practice of selling off family members.

Not sure if it's a good idea to respond to the rest at the moment as the initial assumption is off.
 
Last edited:
Should we define ‘race-ism’ as simply subscribing to the notion of race or should we define it as a doctrine that subscribes to the notion of race in a particular way? The ‘–ism’ here is confusing because it certainly implies there’s a distinction to/between something/someone else, somewhere.

I see three possibilities here: One, one can reject the notion of race where the notion of racism equals nonsense. Two, one can accepts the notion of race and thus must accept that there’s differences (by some standard) between them (within the species), albeit not necessarily making value judgements about supremacy. Three, one can accept the notion of race, obviously accepting the differences, and subscribe to a value judgement by terms of supremacy.

However, I don’t see the term racism as a take-it-or-leave-it concept, more like a question of degrees. And somewhere along the “degree ladder” it becomes a negative enclosed concept – basically dependent on what standards are used for classifying. I.e. there is always the danger of adopting a few standards as more important than others (nullifying other qualities), thus creating an environment of ‘standard-ism’ that can lead to extreme racism. This basically means that simply rejecting the notion of race will not necessarily help here; the term is easily substituted by other terms.

Staying with broad standards and not giving a narrow standard too much value when defining people is perhaps the key?
 
I think casting too wide a net would water the concept down. If everyone is considered a racist then the skinhead-types blend in a bit easier.
 
I was referring instead to natural selection over 30 generations. The child isn't strong because the parents worked hard. The would-be parents who didn't have the physical gifts to perform well at manual labor (or survive the trip from Africa) weren't able to survive and reproduce as much.

OK, I see your point--but I doubt it is the case. For three reasons:

1). A generation is 20-30 years; 30 generations would be 600-900 years, not 300. We're talking about (at most) 15 generations, more likely something like 12 or 10. 2 generations might be enough to produce change by artificial selection, as with animals, but I doubt that it would work in natural selection.

2). As terrible as slavery was, it was not--from the point of view of natural selection--something that causes natural selection towards stronger individuals, since it did not cause selection pressure. First, Slaves in America were already "outside" natural selection in the sense that they did not have (at least) to fear predators or starvation, the two great powers of natural selection apart from sickness--and the latter was just as effective, at the time, killing off the owners as well as the slaves. Second, natural selection doesn't care if you are happy or miserable, emperor or slave; it only cares about how many offspring you have.

From this point of view, virtually every slave was more succesful than Napoleon, and being a slave might be a great coup, reproductively speaking: you found a position where breeding is positively encouraged for the owner's economic reasons, while killing off your weaker youngs is discouraged due to his religious convictions. Your children are sold off at five to others and you'll never see them again? Natural selection doesn't care. You reproduced, and that's all that matters.

So there would be no difference in selection pressure--as far as natural selection is concerned--between slaves and millionaires; ergo, the slave's harsher circumstances cannot be the explanation as to why the slaves' offsprings are stronger. (I am not saying this to minimize slavery's horrors, of course, but only to emphasize that from the point of view of natural selection, differences that mean the world to us mean nothing to it.)

3). If this was the explanation, we would also expect black people whose ancestors were slaves--e.g., in the USA--to be more agile and stronger than blacks whose ancestors were not slaves. But it seems that great athletes come from all over the black population, and there's no correlation between them having slave ancestors or not. This seems to argue againt the slave trade being the cause of the superior athletic ability of blacks, and for genetic reasons.
 
Last edited:
I want to talk about racism....snip...Alright, I'm done. Flame away.
Well, as a member of Stromfront, I am going to inflame you good and proper!

I think this is so bad that I'm nominating it so everyone will get to read what a load of old cobblers you've written here.

Excellent stuff, mate. I see a lot of racism in my job and it fair dinkum sickens me. The filth and truly evil stuff which spews out of some people's mouths when it comes to other - aspecially darker-skinned ones - people is unbelievable. I try to strenuously avoid any racial connotations by declining to fill in ethnicity questions beyond the descrition, "human". Some people doubt that, even.

(actually, I am a member at Stormfront - I'm researching white supremacy for literary accuracy. The people in there, knowing they're in public view, are mild compared to the ones in suits in the cities, in gumboots on the farms and in t-shirts in the shops.)
 
Anyway, racism is, of course, the belief that a certain ethnic group is naturally better (or worse) than others.
That's disputable.

It's a hard issue, because when you take a quick look at the world around you...it SEEMS like some groups are less capable than others.
It doesn't just "seem" that way, it's true.

The problem of course, is when you assume these differences are BECAUSE of the ethnic make-up of people and not because of other factors.
That certainly is a problem, but I think more genrally, the problem is when people decide that because someone is a member of a group that is, in general, less capable, that person is less deserving of rights. Also, because these two concepts are so often linked, there's a tendency to label someone as being "racist" simply for noting that different groups have different abilities.

This leads to the desire to "get away" from those people or "purify" your own ethnic group by keeping them away from you.

This is of course, damaging and barbaric, and equally importantly, logically wrong.
It is your position that is logically wrong. The source of the differences are of little importance to the validity of the desire for segregation. If Kallups have a rate of infectious disease that is much higher than the general population, the issue of whether that's due to genetics or some other factor doesn't really matter when it comes to deciding whether to stay away from them.

That's because whenever you look deeper into the apparent differences among ethnic groups, you will always, in my experience, find other causes for those differences that are not based on race, ethnicity, or their genetic characteristics.
Some people start with the preconception that most if all difference are inherent, and interpret all data in terms of that assumption. Other people go to the other extreme and assume that none are, and interpret data in terms of that assumption. You seem to be in the latter category.

While it CERTAINLY SEEMS to be the case, to say that "black men are more athletic" than white men is not really a correct statement.

The correct statement would be "a group of people who perform hard physical labor for centuries" will tend to be more athletic than a group of people that does not. Regardless of ethnicity.
You seem to be suffering from a major case of the false dichotomy fallacy. There's simply no reason why your second statement argues against the first. As I tried to explain to you previously, and you refused to listen to, merely because one statement is more informative does not mean that another is false.

If we take ANY group of people, make it illegal to educate them, separate families, and force them and their children to perform hard manual labor, what do you expect the results to be in that group after 30 generations of this?
What do imagine blacks had been doing prior to being enslaved? Slavery was merely a social structure surrounding labor. It had little effect on the actual nature of the labor, and after it ended, blacks were still doing manual labor. That there was selection pressure for physical ability is hardly a property unique to African Americans.

Modern African people do not dominate strength-and-speed sports to near the same level as African-American (note that I'm saying this to differentiate Africans from Africans who are descendants of American slaves, not necessarily to be politically correct) people. Likewise, African-American people do not dominate Endurance sports to the same level that Kenyans or any other people from high mountainous areas do.
I don't see what variation within blacks proves.

You must also consider that sports where African-American people predominate are a common part of the culture.
And as a result, blacks are more athletic.

People love to tell me that if race doesn't have these strong genetic advantages, then why are black people commonly victims of Sickle-Cell, and white people common victims of Skin Cancer and so on.
I don't know whether you're thinking of your exchange with me, but just in case you are, that was not my point at all.

What I found is that Sickle-Cell is a disease common in descendants of West Africans.
Therefore, it is correlated with being black.

Likewise, skin cancer is common with people who don't have much Melanin in their skin. That might correlate to black and white people because black people tend to have more melanin, but being 'black' or 'white' doesn't cause it.
Yes and no. Lack of melanin causes it, and lack of melanin is part of the conception of race.

The question I want to ask is...is the athletic performance linked with being "black," or is it linked with the "selective breeding" or slavery?
Again with the false dichotomy.

You need to read my OP.
That's a somewhat rude response.

If it was "being black" that was responsible instead of environment, African-Americans or general Africans and Kenyans would be on equal footing. They aren't.
It is true that if being black were the only factor, then all blacks would be on equal footing. But it is not true that if being black were one of the factors, all blacks would be on the same footing.
 

Back
Top Bottom