[net.politics.theory] defining racism

carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/01/86)

>The  *opposite*  kind of racial screening is
>widely practiced (the affirmative action). I agree that this is a
>racist  practice;  but  it  does not proceed from a racist *atti-
>tude*. I don't believe, though,  that  this  is  "most"  or  most
>dangerous form of, racism. 

"Racism" does not mean the mere belief that one racial or ethnic
group is inferior in some way to another; the proper terms for this
are racial prejudice or ethnocentrism.  Nor does "racism" mean
differential behavior based on race; the proper term for this is
discrimination.  Affirmative action programs are a form of
discrimination, and it is matter for debate whether such
discrimination is justifiable or not, but to call affirmative action
"racism" shows a stronger attachment to emotion-clouded rhetoric than
to clear thinking.  I have often been surprised by the way many
netters sling around terms like "racism" to score debaters' points
without, apparently, understanding what the terms mean.

A good way to learn what "racism" means is to look it up in a
dictionary or encyclopedia.  The excellent article on racism in the
*Encyclopaedia Britannica*, 15th edition, vol. 15, says:

  Racism is the theory or idea that there is a causal link
  between inherited physical traits and certain traits of per-
  sonality, intellect, or culture and, combined with it, the
  notion that some races are inherently superior to others.

Thus neither a white who despises all blacks nor a black who despises
all whites is necessarily racist; he is racist only to the extent
that he believes that the despicable qualities of the other group are
INNATE (inborn).  If he believes that the alleged inferiority,
disabilities, and negative traits of the outgroup are only culturally
determined, then he is an ethnocentrist and a bigot but not a racist.
In practice, however, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish
between the two, as often with anti-Semitism.  Racism is a much rarer
phenomenon than ethnocentrism.  To quote from the *Britannica*
article (which I recommend highly -- it is a very thorough
discussion):  [emphasis added]

"In nearly all the world's societies, men have apparently developed
pride in the cultural accomplishments of their own groups and a
corresponding derogation of those of their neighbours.  Notably,
however, the idea that certain groups of people are superior to
others BECAUSE OF THEIR GENETIC MAKEUP does not appear to have been
widespread.  Where it now exists, it is mostly an outgrowth of the
rationalizations of slavery and colonial expansion in the vast
territories dominated by European settlers.... Even the devastation
brought about by the Arab slave trade in East Africa in the middle of
the 19th century does not appear to have been rationalized on racial
terms as European slavery was.... Despite narcissistic canons of
physical beauty and highly ethnocentric judgments of other cultures,
East Asian civilizations do not exhibit what might properly be called
racism.... [Racism was virtually nonexistent in classical antiquity.]
On balance, the evidence that the Indian caste system is racial in
origin and that India is or was a racist society is unconvincing.... 

"As a well-developed theory, racism is a fairly recent phenomenon,
even in Western history.  The 18th century was predominantly
environmentalist in its outlook.... Racism as a widely accepted
`scientific' theory of behavior did not appear until the 19th
century, which was the age of racism *par excellence*.... By the
second half of the 19th century, RACISM WAS ACCEPTED AS FACT BY THE
VAST MAJORITY OF WESTERN SCIENTISTS.... 

"The `frustration-aggression' theory holds that frustration
frequently leads to aggression and that this aggression becomes
`displaced' onto scapegoats that are quite unrelated to the source of
the frustration.... The `authoritarian personality' approach
[originated by T. Adorno] holds that persons who exhibit certain
attitudes and personality traits such as respect for power,
submission toward superiors, aggression toward subordinates, lack of
self-insight, superstitiousness, and contempt for weakness are
predisposed to be generally prejudiced against all ethnic and racial
outgroups...."  [Encyclop. Brit.]
-- 
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes

berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (01/06/86)

>   Racism is the theory or idea that there is a causal link
>   between inherited physical traits and certain traits of per-
>   sonality, intellect, or culture and, combined with it, the
>   notion that some races are inherently superior to others.

> Notably,
> however, the idea that certain groups of people are superior to
> others BECAUSE OF THEIR GENETIC MAKEUP does not appear to have been
> widespread.  Where it now exists, it is mostly an outgrowth of the
> rationalizations of slavery and colonial expansion in the vast
> territories dominated by European settlers.... Even the devastation
> brought about by the Arab slave trade in East Africa in the middle of
> the 19th century does not appear to have been rationalized on racial
> terms as European slavery was.... Despite narcissistic canons of
> physical beauty and highly ethnocentric judgments of other cultures,
> East Asian civilizations do not exhibit what might properly be called
> racism.... [Racism was virtually nonexistent in classical antiquity.]
> On balance, the evidence that the Indian caste system is racial in
> origin and that India is or was a racist society is unconvincing....
>
I disagree with the statements above.  Of course, the notion of a gene
originated in 19 century.  However, the idea that characteristics
of intelligence, character etc. are inherited was always there.
Nobility in particular used to regard itself as a better race.  The
"scientific rasism" originated from this belief: French aristocracy
was supposed to be of undiluted Goth/Alemane/Viking stock, while
all other groups were either of inferior races, or diluted.

Look to an average fairy-tale: a princess, even if abandoned and raised
by peasants will be beatifull and of sweet character.

India had a proverb "beware of a black bramin".  Dark skinned bramin
was supposed to be suspect.  I think that caste system was ultimately
rasists: if you had genes of a cobbler, you were supposed to be one.

Still, it is difficult to transfer racism as existing in USA to
different societies and cultures.

Piotr B.

carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (01/15/86)

[Jan Wasilewsky]

>As for "emotion-clouded rhetoric", that would only make sense if the
>word  "racism" carried different emotional connotations than "racial
>discrimination" which you admit affirmative action is. 

More emotion-clouded r., Jan.  By stating that I "admit" that
affirmative action is racial discrimination, you imply that my
statement is a concession to opponents of AA, whereas all I have said
is that AA entails taking into account a person's race (or sex) in
deciding on one's actions w/r/t that person, which is admitted by
anyone who knows what the term "affirmative action" means.  In this
sense, I engage in racial discrimination equally whether I seek out
or avoid the society and custom of persons of another race, and
whether I hire blacks preferentially or try to keep them out of my
company.  I engage in sex discrimination (and sexual-preference
discrimination, age discrimination, in fact all sorts of
discrimination) whenever I decide whether to ask someone for a date.
However, I am unrepentant.

We all sin now and then by using loaded terms as a substitute for
thought.  Dave Hudson found that if he could apply the label
"compulsion" to seatbelt laws, people wouldn't like them as much as
if the laws were labeled "encouragement" [to wear belts].  But
evidently "compulsion" does not mean that people will be forced at
gunpoint to buckle up; it means that if you are unlucky enough to be
caught unbuckled by the police, you will be given a warning or
required to pay a fine of $10 to $50, and if you don't pay the fine
you may suffer some consequences the worst of which is going to jail
for a short while.  But this thought process can be short-circuited
by describing the seatbelt law as "compulsion". 
-- 
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes

radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (01/17/86)

> ... Dave Hudson found that if he could apply the label
> "compulsion" to seatbelt laws, people wouldn't like them as much as
> if the laws were labeled "encouragement" [to wear belts].  But
> evidently "compulsion" does not mean that people will be forced at
> gunpoint to buckle up; it means that if you are unlucky enough to be
> caught unbuckled by the police, you will be given a warning or
> required to pay a fine of $10 to $50, and if you don't pay the fine
> you may suffer some consequences the worst of which is going to jail
> for a short while.  But this thought process can be short-circuited
> by describing the seatbelt law as "compulsion". 
> -- 
> Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes

And what happens if you don't acquiesce in the state imprisoning you? The
state will kill you if necessary. Seat-belt laws ARE examples of 
"compulsion" by any reasonable definition, as are all laws. The power
of governments rests on the ability to confiscate property, imprison,
and kill, by virtue of a preponderance of physical force. Do-gooders who
advocate laws "for people's own good" don't like to think of it this way,
but they are really saying "Buckle-up or I'll kill you".

      Radford Neal