Re: Definition of Racism (without rent-a-riot)
From: Joe Dees (joedees@addall.com)
Date: Fri Aug 10 2001 - 11:24:41 MDT
('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 10:37:31 -0400
> Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> extropians@extropy.org Re: Definition of Racism (without rent-a-riot)Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>
>Joe Dees wrote:
>>
>> >Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 18:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
>> > Party of Citizens <citizens@vcn.bc.ca>:
>> >
>> >How about simply observing scientifically verifiable race differences? Is
>> >that racism?
>> >
>> "Jimmy the Greek" Snyder probably thought his opinion on physical differences in athletes was scientifically based (he even gave his reason - forced plantation eugenics), and the baseball guy who said black "didn't have the prerequisites" (intelligence)
> to manage sports teams - a claim also made by bigoted football coaches as to why they didn't permit blacks to try out for quarterback - most likely thought that there was a test for that sort of thing. Of course, blacks have now successfully managed man
>y teams, now that they've been given the chance, just as black quarterbacks have played well now that they're allowed to try (Doug Williams won a Super Bowl), which proves that anecdotes and preconceptions are a poor substitute for genuine science. It is
> not racist to observe that a greater percentage of blacks have the genes for sickle cell anemia, or that a greater percentage of Semites (both Jews and Palestinians) have the genes for Tay-Sachs syndrome, or that a greater percentage of caucasians posses
>s t
>he genes for hemophilia, than in the general population, or that differing racial groups possess differing complexional spectra, eye color spectra, and hair texture spectra. These distinctions have good hard science behind them.
>
>Yes they do, and good points, Joe. However, this doesn't address the
>idea in academia that specifically looking for genetic differences
>between races for anything other than diseases is itself a racist
>practice. I think that being so PC about it is itself racist. If you
>refuse to look for differences, you are guaranteed to never find them.
>
Certain nonphysical attributes, for instance intelligence, are so culture and education bound that it seems impossible to normalize these variables; physical differences, OTOH, may be more objectively distinguished.
>
>How do you KNOW that what Jimmy the Greek was saying was not, in fact,
>true? His reasoning certainly applies to breeding farm animals and race
>horses. Why then would similar methodologies not also apply to a
>historically documentable program of breeding humans for physical
>performance?
>
>I understand the moral issues about treating humans like farm animals,
>but why deny the facts completely? Why not just acknowledge that the
>facts are in fact, true, but stating that performing eugenics on humans
>outside of parental discretion is wrong, despite its proven scientific
>advantages?
>
This is a question (whether or not it in fact happened) to which I do not have an answer, so I throw it to the floor: Does anyone know or can anyone find out if plantation slaves were indeed selectively bred for size, strength, speed and/or endurance?
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:42 MST