Yup. I always wondered why there wasn’t a race of big eared people, or why don’t we have a race for only blue-eyed people? A race for red haired folk? A race for short, tall, fat, skinny, strong, and weak? A set of gene’s set your skin color, your eye color, your physical nature in general. Why the arbitrary assignment to skin color?
At some point people will learn that there is only the individual. This black brown blue green crap is stupid.
You’re right that most people don’t care who makes their clothing etc. Most market operations aren’t as intimate as marriage, but employment is the one that comes closest. Its obviously not affected by people’s racial bias to the degree that marriage is, and the profit incentive might eliminate it completely, but its still an undertone. The supposition is that capitalists will repress their irrational urges to make better profits, but those urges are still there and may be acted on if given the opportunity.
If for example, the owner of a bakery KNOWS he will lose money if he hires a white kid over a black kid, and then does it anyway just to avoid the discomfort of interacting with a black person. And instead of translating that extra cost onto the consumer, he himself chooses to bear it in order to maintain a competitive price level.
Idk what the point of this analysis is. Just that people can be racist if they really really want to. I think it should be pointed out that there’s no good solution to a problem like this when large numbers of people would rather just discriminate and exclude others.
Weekee. 58% of african americans are 1/8th white. It is very common. There’s a huge difference in skin color and bone structure between the foreign blacks in my class and the american blacks.
Yeah the only sort of check we have on the statistics presented in the wikipedia article on race and intelligence is our own personal experience. I can say that the minorities in my math classes were noticeably below average.
Nature nurture who knows…
Let the liberals debate that.
Why?
Race is just a genetic clustering. Human beings inherit their genetics from their parents and reproductive success is not independent of the environment, especially climate. Distinct traits are bound to develop among different groups depending on their geographical location.
Race is obviously more than just a social construct. It is very much a realist classification of individuals. Also, since the frequencies of some characteristics of individuals from different racial groups occur more frequently than for other racial groups, it is possible to use race as a probabilistic causal factor when making judgments about individuals.
The very thing commonly referred to as racial prejudice is actually empirical racial postjudice. IMO, racial discrimination is perfectly rational and reasonable. No other racial group than whites have any qualms about it. And in my experience, most non-whites hold whites in contempt for it (and rightly so).
BTW:
I liked your point about the anti-racists having to discriminate between races to be able to tell if a racist is doing so. Performative contradiction anyone?
Also, I think you need to clearly define what you mean by racist. The term used to be shorthand for racial supremacist. There are two tenets to this doctrine.
Nowadays, it seems to just refers to the first tenet.
What about the issues of classism and culturalism?
I can’t agree with this particular sentence. I believe stereotypes have been formed, just like common law and language, by a freely functioning society, and have not been imposed top-down. They serve a purpose as they tend, on average to be truer than a mental carte blanche. Hence, when people stereotype Jews as being “cheap”, what they mean is that, if you act on the belief that a Jew is cheap (ex. try not to bargain to long on wages), you will gain more often than you will loose, in the long run, if the rule is consistently applied, as opposed to assuming nothing ex ante about the guy,.
Stereotypes have not been created to cast everyone in the same category, but to give a general idea and minimize the time needed (and the costs incurred) to really know someone. Stereotypes change in time, if they no longer hold true (an example would be first-generation emigrants being supplanted by second and third generation ones).
So, I really don’t see how we could say that in a free market the tendency is to assume everyone is a carte blanche: people will act, on stereotypes, to minimize the time needed to know their employee. I believe this to be true of races, as of any other group one could conceive of.
I’m not exactly sure what ‘classism’ and ‘culturalism’ are.
I’ll just say that ‘social stratification’ in general is entirely natural and desirable. Some individuals will tend to be more productive and accumulate more wealth than others. They will in turn have more children and pass on these productive traits to them.
I see nothing wrong with making judgments about people based on their background if I know nothing else about them.
My overall point is that a very very small number of people believe in the superiority of a particular race, i.e. that there are very few people who fit the strict definition of racist. There are a lot more people who make judgments based upon preconceived notions based on class and culture than on race. Most racism in the US isn’t racism strictly speaking.
My challenge to this is that you can’t be sure whether or not someone’s judgment is a preconception or a post-conception, a prejudice or a postjudice.
edit: How do you know whether or not someone’s attitudes towards members of one race is based entirely on ignorance or upon past experience with members of that race? It seems to me that you are just assuming that all instances of racial judgments are the former and that none are the latter.
BTW, I’m one of the ppl who thinks that there is an unequal distribution of traits such as intelligence, athletic ability, immunity to certain diseases, ect. between the races. So in some respects, some races are superior to others. Ditto for cultures and classes.
This is basically what I was thinking too. The word “racism” has come to mean not just racism proper (violence, racial supremacy), but also prejudice, discrimination (even non-violent discrimination) and bias.
Also, @ Stephen, I think that before we start throwing the word “superior” around we should probably define it. Not because I don’t get what you’re saying but because the words “superior” and “race” in a sentence can become irrationally inflammatory very quickly if one isn’t careful. Just saying.
You’re right.
For example, Chinese on average have a higher level of natural intelligence than whites or jews. That is not to say that every member of the population does, but overall as an aggregate they do. In terms of intelligence, they are superior. Blacks are overall more naturally athletic than whites. In terms of athleticism, they are superior.
I see what Stephen is getting at, and he does have a point. I think this Mises Daily article reinforces what he is saying:
“For example, Chinese on average have a higher level of natural intelligence than whites or jews.”
Where’s your proof?
And how do you scientifically quantify intelligence? Is that kind of like computing an average of disparate ordinal subjective valuations? Something like Keynesianism?
Assuming IQ measures intelligence, what is the IQ of the computer that defeated Gary Kasparov? Who is smarter, two people with IQ’s of 80 and 120, or two people with IQ’s of 100? What does it even mean for a group to be “smarter”?
How do you average two quotients x/y and z/w? Do you use arithmetic average, or geometric average? Or something else? If your mom has a BMI of 40, and a midget has a BMI of 20, are they on average as fat as a bodybuilder with BMI 30?
And do you mean the Chinese living in China or those living only in USA? If jew is also white, is he excluded from your statement? What if someone is 99% white, but 1% Chinese, will genetic testing scientifically be able to exclude them from the sampling? Or will you compare them against paint chips to tell? How do you measure the intelligence of someone like Helen Keller?
“In terms of intelligence, they are superior.”
In terms of intelligence, who is superior, von Mises, Einstein, or Obama? If Obama lacked the intelligence of the jews, how come he became president?
What is “natural” intelligence? Are you saying if you locked a Chinese and white kid in a closet, and let them out 20 years later, the Chinese one would be smarter? Do you have empirical evidence?
Tell me, are there any statistics on how much each race subscribes to loads of pseudoscientific bullocks?
I’m by and large going off of this gentleman’s work. I’m no expert myself.
Basically like this.
Both groups have the same average. A computer doesn’t have an IQ.
All that can be said is that they have the same average BMI. On average both groups are equally fat.
Mises, then Einstein, and then far behind them, Obama.
He has good advisors, tremendous oratorical ability, and he’s black which is fashionable in our politically correct age.
He probably would be.
That’s not even worthy of a response.
And how do you scientifically quantify intelligence?
Basically like this.
Per your own link,
“IQ tests are only one imperfect method of measuring certain aspects of intellectual ability. A lot of critics point out that IQ tests don’t measure creativity, social skills, wisdom, acquired abilities or a host of other things we consider to be aspects of intelligence”
And if you can quantify intelligence numerically and unscientifically, then why not also use cardinal values to describe subjective preferences? I guess we should just make up numbers for everything. Let’s go wild with econometrics and Keyensianism.
What units are IQ in anyway? Utils per second? Kiloutils per year? OK, I admit IQ is dimensionless by definition, but in computing it one must use quantities in some kind of units. Also, since the IQ definition is dependent on time (it is defined to be 100 for the average intelligence, right now), I don’t see how one can scientifically compare IQ’s from different time periods even for the same person.
Why must the correct average of 80 IQ and 120 IQ be 100? The average length of a 1-foot rod and a 2-foot rod is 1.5 feet. But the average volume of a 1-foot-sided cube and a 2-foot-sided cube is not equal to the volume of a 1.5-foot-sided cube. What are the units of knowledge or units involved in IQ and why must they vary linearly, and not cubically as with my volume example? IQ need not even vary under a power law but could have a much more complicated dependence on fundamental factors.
To glibly perform incorrect calculations with synthesized quantities is unforgivable when the quantities involved have an objective basis in physics. To do the same thing in the “soft” sciences is puerile.
Two lengths can be averaged without much argument. But if two people kick an object, what kind of kick would equal the average of the two? Should I average the velocity of their feet? The momentum? Kinetic energy? The average of the electrical impulses of their motor neurons? It’s entirely a matter of opinon what the “average” would be. How in the world do you average two minds?
I’d say this has a lot to do with actually engaging in a lot more physical activity than whites. Like you know how people say “yeah black people are naturally gifted at things like basketball”- but ignore the hours and hours and hours of time spent practicing the game since they were young as if it doesn’t mean anything.
Blacks are overall more naturally athletic than whites. In terms of athleticism, they are superior.
Yet there are some sports where they do not seem to thrive. The statement is clearly a matter of opinion and not of science. Atheletic and intellectual ability cannot be scientifically measured. How do you even measure a person who might far exceed the average in athleticism, yet simply chooses not to exercise such abilities.
What if we compared 19th century Chinese and 19th century whites?
Not if it includes black.
@ baxter
It is imperfect. It is an indirect measure. It measures an individuals ability to perform abstract mental tasks with speed and accuracy. It measures effect and not cause.
And you’re right. It’s an art, not an exact science. With that said, it seems to be highly objective given that it is a powerful predictor of income.