Is Everything Racist?

[seanD]

Didn't the bible tell us that?

Acts 17

God made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation

As myth inventors and not scientists, they must have just gotten lucky.

[seer]

As myth inventors and not scientists, they must have just gotten lucky.

Like the guess that the universe had a beginning...

[Ronson]

I meant it exactly as I said it, the concept of race is entirely a social construction.

Of course there are biological differences. If there was nothing aside from external differences, then how would you explain race susceptibility to different physical ailments? Sickle cell anemia isn't a social construct.

[Ronson]

I believe that he's saying that geneticists have conclusively demonstrated that race is an artificial construct and that genetically speaking we are remarkably homogeneous. IOW, genetic analysis has revealed that the vast majority of variation between humans correlates little, if at all, with any supposed racial boundaries^[1].

In short, the fact that all humans are only one biological race has led modern biologists to conclude that race isn't a valid biological classification.

1. going back at least as far as Darwin when he observed that far larger differences could be observed within a "so-called race" (a term that he often employed) than between them. In pointing out the problems with even trying to divide humanity into separate races he emphatically stated that, "they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them" as well as "It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant.”

Perhaps definition is in order. When I say "race" I mean in the colloquial sense; that there are differences within a species that can be classified and called "race". Is there another term?

[Mountain Man]

No they aren’t. That argument is not made in this article and I know of no one making that argument.

Yeah, look at the article. It says that "campgrounds and forest lands ... remain stubborn bastions of self-segregation."

"Self-segregation", meaning that, presumably, blacks are choosing not to go camping or hiking, and yet whoever wrote the article declares this racist. It's a stupid argument.

[rogue06]

Didn't the bible tell us that?

Acts 17

God made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation

Indeed

[rogue06]

Perhaps definition is in order. When I say "race" I mean in the colloquial sense; that there are differences within a species that can be classified and called "race". Is there another term?

When someone says the "human race" we generally mean the species Homo sapiens.

[MaxVel]

It depends. Diversity is in and of itself a good and worth promoting for it's own sake. Creating an environment where all are welcome is needed for that. If the lack of such an environment is what is keeping people out then that could be a problem worth dealing with.



A valuable goal if that is what is keeping some group from going there.



I'd like to see more diversity and inclusivity everywhere. You're quite right that it might simply be a cultural difference, in which case there's no racism at work.

Why is diversity of itself a good? I'm not really sure that it necessarily is, especially if it comes at the cost of removing freedoms from people, and of rewarding people for being different rather than for having some relevant experience, skill, talent or ability. Also I note that 'diversity' usually means 'people and groups favoured by the left', rather than 'a mixture of everyone, whatever their beliefs, lifestyle, or background. So I am a little cynical that 'diversity' in practice often means 'people that I like / agree with me / feel superior to and want to patronise'.

[Mountain Man]

Why is diversity of itself a good? I'm not really sure that it necessarily is, especially if it comes at the cost of removing freedoms from people, and of rewarding people for being different rather than for having some relevant experience, skill, talent or ability. Also I note that 'diversity' usually means 'people and groups favoured by the left', rather than 'a mixture of everyone, whatever their beliefs, lifestyle, or background. So I am a little cynical that 'diversity' in practice often means 'people that I like / agree with me / feel superior to and want to patronise'.

To a liberal, "diversity" means "lookng different but thinking the same."

[seer]

Why is diversity of itself a good? I'm not really sure that it necessarily is, especially if it comes at the cost of removing freedoms from people, and of rewarding people for being different rather than for having some relevant experience, skill, talent or ability. Also I note that 'diversity' usually means 'people and groups favoured by the left', rather than 'a mixture of everyone, whatever their beliefs, lifestyle, or background. So I am a little cynical that 'diversity' in practice often means 'people that I like / agree with me / feel superior to and want to patronise'.

Diversity isn't necessarily a good, it can in fact be downright bad. Undermining social cohesion.

[MaxVel]

I prefer the definitions that sociologists operate with. In particular you're looking here at structural racism. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/co...hapter/racism/

If there are systematic differences, which are social constructions, that benefits the main group and disadvantages minorities, then those differences are racist inherently.

I disagree with your last sentence. I would say that they may be racist. We would have to examine the reasons for those differences, and why they were put in place.

ISTM that the essence of racism is a belief or doctrine of superiority of one race (your own) over another, hence has a right to dominate, and behaviour or systems that arise from that belief.

Thus the key part of racism is not differences in behaviour or systems per se, but that plus a racist belief or doctrine that gives rise to the behaviour or system. The OP article is flawed at it's outset:

As millions of Americans escape home quarantine to the great outdoors this summer, they'll venture into parks, campgrounds and forest lands that remain stubborn bastions of self-segregation.

"The outdoors and public lands suffer from the same systemic racism that the rest of our society does," said Joel Pannell, associate director of the Sierra Club, which is leading an effort to boost diversity in the wilderness and access to natural spaces.

The underlined phrase gives the impression that the parks and forests themselves resist access by people from certain racial groups, which is nonsense, anthropomorphizing trees and natural areas. There doesn't seem to be any evidence given in the article that there is any actual system or policy by the park authorities that would stop people of any race from visiting - apart from one person complaining that she felt that she was asked more often than other people if she was obeying the park rules. Despite this lack of actual evidence of discrimination by anybody, the article presents these areas (and implies the Park Service (and white visitors ?)) as fighting to maintain their racism.

In short, that black and other people visit these areas in a lesser proportion than their numbers in American society does not show racism, absent clear evidence of such people wanting to visit, but being denied or hindered because of a belief or doctrine held by some people who have power over who gets to access the parks, and a system or policy put in place because of those beliefs. Higher park fees for minorities compared to the majority group, and for that reason alone, would be systemic racism.

Structural Racism

Unequal practices built into organizations or institutional systems that disproportionately benefit or disadvantage particular racial groups.

{and}

Structural racism refers to inequalities built into an organization or system. An example of structural racism can be seen in recent research on workplace discrimination. There is widespread discrimination against job applicants whose names were merely perceived as “sounding black. ” These applicants were 50 percent less likely than candidates perceived as having “white-sounding names” to receive callbacks for interviews, no matter what their level of previous experience was. The researchers view these results as strong evidence of unconscious biases rooted in the country’s long history of discrimination. This is an example of structural racism as it shows a widespread established belief system that treats people differently based upon their race.

The problem here is that this definition doesn't meet the over-arching definition of 'racism'. Structural racism is a subset, or a kind of racism. Therefore it has to come under the same essential characteristics as racism itself. I'm not sure that the definition of structural racism quite does that. Inequalities in general are not all racism - racism is a species of inequality, based on a belief or doctrine of racial superiority. So we have to separate inequalities that are not racist (i.e. not arising from a racist belief or doctrine) and inequalities that exist for other reasons.

There can be unequal practices in an organisation - say a recruitment policy - that affect different racial groups differently, and those practices might not be racist practices unless we know that the belief or doctrine that lies behind them is a belief in racial superiority. For example, I once worked in an organisation that hired a lot of recent law graduates. The reason was that the boss was a lawyer, the business involved a lot of legal work, and the boss wanted a bunch of young lawyers working for him, so he could show off to his golfing buddies. One effect was that there weren't many people from the minority racial group in those positions, probably because (a) there weren't many minority law graduates, and (b) such minority graduates chose other areas of law for their specialisation. But the policy itself - although discriminatory (against non-lawyers) and wrong (because the graduates would stay for at most two years, learning the job, and then leave for a better job once they were trained up) - was not racist. But I think that it falls under the definition given above of structural racism.


The example given in the source above also, IMHO, doesn't quite meet the definition of structural racism. There is no evidence given that the discrimination (which may well have been racist) was as a result of any policy or system, or that it was built into the organisation (implies intention or purpose). If there was evidence (say) that people chosen to make hiring decisions were chosen because of their beliefs or doctrines (racist ones) that would be structural racism.

Under that definition, a sport like basketball is structurally racist, because (due to the rules and the height of the hoop) it disadvantages unequally racial groups that are less athletic, especially in height, sprint speed, and jumping. Structurally racist in favour of African Americans, and against white Americans. We can see this because the vast majority of NBA players, and even more, top-level stars, are black and not white.


The issue I have is that people are calling things 'structural racism' - things such as simple differences in circumstances or outcomes which are not necessarily any kind of racism at all. And that means that people are seeing 'racism', and feeling they live in a world of racism where it's not necessarily the case. A lot of factors may come into why there is a difference between groups, including culture (e.g. Asians often emphasise and value education --> better rates of high school and college graduation --> better careers and salaries) and many other factors.


Leonhard, I'm not here attacking you personally, BTW. You're in my top ten Tweb posters.

It is, I don't fault immigrants who come here in not being able to pick it up. It takes a long time to become proficient with it. American children at the age of eight speak american at a higher level than danish kids speak danish at the same age. The grammar is filled to the brim with awkward exceptions, many words have to be pronounced very different than how they're written, and we generally speak with the tongue at the back of our throat.



It's not so much a language as it is a disease of the throat.

Heh. I worked with a Danish guy for a while a few years ago. His English was very good, and he was easy-going and mellow. One of my better workmates, overall. I picture you as being somewhat like him, just probably drinking and smoking less. A lot less, I hope.

[Ronson]

When someone says the "human race" we generally mean the species Homo sapiens.

What would be the the term for various groups within a race?

[Maranatha]

I mean really, who is stopping brown and black people from going to parks?

America's national parks face existential crisis over race

As millions of Americans escape home quarantine to the great outdoors this summer, they'll venture into parks, campgrounds and forest lands that remain stubborn bastions of self-segregation.

"The outdoors and public lands suffer from the same systemic racism that the rest of our society does," said Joel Pannell, associate director of the Sierra Club, which is leading an effort to boost diversity in the wilderness and access to natural spaces.

New government data, shared first with ABC News, shows the country's premier outdoor spaces -- the 419 national parks -- remain overwhelmingly white. Just 23% of visitors to the parks were people of color, the National Park Service found in its most recent 10-year survey; 77% were white. Minorities make up 42% of the U.S. population.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/amer...l_twitter_abcn

Oh my goodness.

lookin for racism
in all the wrong places
looking for campers
among all the races
that's what we're dreaming up
baby

[Roy]

What would be the the term for various groups within a race?

Font-runners, the pack, stragglers.

[Ronson]

Font-runners, the pack, stragglers.

How about "subgroups"? Would you say that human subgroups are nothing more than social constructs?