Racism, Induction, Democracy

[Received]

Racism is, essentially (and I'm open to revision), the belief that race -- and race only -- determines some inherent superiority with regards others. What I have a problem with (myself not a racist) is that the use of induction to conclude that certain members of certain races tend behaviorally to act in certain negative ways is considered racism, usually as a peceived means to support equality -- for democracy. A few years ago, before I used my mind, I remember watching an episode of The Real World where one person, caucasion, had a candid and intentially friendly conversation with two of his black roomates. The subject, loosely, was set on society, and it drifted unintentionally to a question of race; the caucasion was found making statements over certain findings regarding what he felt to be evidence that blacks acted in certain negative or less-than-perfect ways than whites. The response was not surprising, but still somewhat disturbing. He was treated badly -- minimally badly, yes --, only for reporting what he considered scientific findings. It was evident from his demeanor that he was not a racist; there was no reason to conclude, and he consistently begged this to be realized, that he had racist intentions. He shared a meal with them, talked openly with them, made no condescending gestures, no involuntary acts that could even be conceived as presuppositions against african americans. But he was still concluded a racist -- or at the very least someone to avoid. The problem here is that the findings weren't reporting on race alone -- they weren't making the unsupportable statement that race caused such things (which, if stated, would clearly be evidence of racism).

I think this is a very important question, and a very missed one. The problem is that judgements by induction are necessary; they essentially lead to expedience, thus to happiness. We use induction daily. But by democracy we must treat all individuals equally; and it is a genrally agreed on premise that equality means not having presuppositions towards groups of people. More: if we allow these inductive conclusions to dictate our actions, even if we attempt to root out with absolute retribution anyone who emits superfluous, negative behavior where it doesn't belong, it is still arguable that by nature such inductive conclusions will breed a sense of power in those races that aren't considered to be of such perceived faults or insufficiencies, thus potentially breeding racism all over again. Thus the problem of racism, induction, and democracy.

At heart, inductive conclusions do not mean justification of racism, unless one considers racism to be the belief, supported or not by evidence, that certain races fare quantitatively better than others in relation to environment*. But the problem here is: a lot of people seem to reveal that this is what racism means, and it seems necessary to make the aforementioned conclusions.

What is to be done?

*It's always arguable that environment determines behavior as much as genetics, or that behavior is a synthesis of environment and genetics; it's also arguable, stemming from this, that other races might in fact be responsible for the perceived "inferior" characteristics of the races in question, through the way they treat them, for instance.

 

[The-Doctor]

Speaking as someone who understands some of the mechanics of racism there are many different reasons why racism exists in what ever form. Generally it can be born out of prejudice and ignorance. The ignorance of a race or group of people or a percived slight by the group (for example immigrants coming into the country and taking jobs away from the native population) can be passed from one generation to the next continuing the prejudice.

The prejudice is what a person believes about the race or group of people, the discrimination is where you start to act on your prejudice such as refusing to serve a particular race of people at a shop or refuse to employ them.

This is just a simplistic view as I say the reasons for racism existing are many.

 

[billwald]

Nothing needs to be done. The old social barriers are disappearing and I predict that the next generation will mate on the basis of ambition, intelligence, education, and physical attractiveness, producing a leadership caste and a worker caste - voluntary segregation producing a voluntary Brave New World.

 

[David Gould]

It is interesting. If we have inductive evidence that being in a certain neighbourhood is dangerous, and we avoid that neighbourhood, we are not treating all neighbourhoods (all groups of people) equally. And if the neighbourhood that we avoid contains people of one race, are we then being racist by avoiding said neighbourhood?

By induction, we can build an argument that some races are better than others at some things. And some races are also more vulnerable to some things than other things. Are these conclusions racist? Or is it that only unjustifiable claims based on race alone are racist?

There is also a problem with sexism. Based on induction, tt seems clear to me that, on average, men are better spatially and women are better verbally. If I claim that men are better than women in a particular area, is that claim sexist? Or is it only sexist if it is unjustifiable? And how much justification is sufficient?

 

[crimsondeath]

i think every is a little bit sextist and racist. If you need somone to help you lift a heavy load, who would you rather want, a girl or a guy?

 

[David Gould]

But the question is, is that sexism? In other words, if you have inductive reasons to believe that your generalisation is more likely to be true than false, is it poor behaviour to act on that generalisation?

 

[Received]

David, thank you for getting me. According to the society, such reasoning is no different than, say, a person playing football (the stupid American kind) who chooses a black teammate over a white one without even seeing each play, or a white teacher who chooses a refined-looking white kid over a mischevous looking african american to answer a question so that the class could learn something through such an interaction. I mean, when you think about it, with relation to intelligence, doesn't the general look of a person reveal with relative sureness, his intelligence, at least in relation to others? Would choosing on the basis of such inductive conclusions be considered racism? I don't think so. Then again, I don't think it's racist to say that whites typically have the upper hand in education over blacks, or that blacks (so so clearly) own whites when it comes to physical education and athletics. I don't think it's racist to be inductive; I think it's opening oneself up to being wrong in possibility (induction always leaves the possibility for being wrong), but so long as the general equality that stems from, to use the words of Harry Ward Beecher, "the soul's right to breathe," is still upheld -- liberty, in short -- there can be no racism so long as the inductive conclusions have good reason to be where they are.

The problem can be insanely difficult -- because we think democracy should mean everyone having equality in characteristics. On one hand, racism isn't an inductive conclusion about a person in a particular environment; these conclusions are necessary for our happiness, if not (in some places) our survival. Racism is the massive generalization that something genetic causes something that by necessity causes a person to be less than equal than others. Or something like that. The problem is that people consider necessary inductive judgements based on location that involve a person's race as racism, when this simply isn't the case. It just isn't.

Equality might easily be based in potentiality, and if there hasn't been a philosopher to elucidate this point, I would wonder why. Clearly, qualitatively speaking, there isn't equality; people have an infinite number of ways to be viewed according to the superior/inferior division, thus to say that one person has power over another based on a single quality is in fact complete silliness. What I find so very fascinating about the psychology of power is that when there are two persons involved in it, the one superior, the other inferior, both, through their subjectivity, perpetuate this very process -- because both are focusing on a single quality. It's arguable that in the moment such an individual does have such a quality, but even if so, so what? The moment dissolves into the next. Living by power just ain't smart because it is chasing one's own tail. Getting back, there isn't equality -- in actuality! Everyone is potentially equal, because there's no telling who, with the right learning, the right discipline, or even (we're close to saying this with conviction) the right science (treatment), and time, could be better than the person across from him. Equality is potential equality; equality qualified in actuality is a misnomer.

And to deviate a little, what about the question of separatism? Nietzsche pointed, and pointed well: races tend to flourish and be more happy, less ambivalent, when they are homogenous; with heterogenity there's too much competition, too much delusion with regards to racism, as we have here; too much being-for-others (which is of all forms of being, the weakest, for it fosters dependency). That is going out on a limb. And it's impossible really because nobody should have reason to deny someone to freely choose to join a democratic society that accepts racial differences. And heck, it would probably even feed a stronger sense of racism -- such as international racism. It's easier to go to war when you're fighting someone at least minimally foreign. Race is such foreignness. Who knows.

 

[Received]

Bump.