There is no doubt that it is valid to pre-judge races re having certain
characteristics because of their genetic makeup.
On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > Frankly, I don't care what *current* dictionaries say a word means.
> OK, I guess this discussion is over. You made a lot of good points in your
> post (which I conveniently snipped :-). I don't have time or inclination to
> discard the dictionary and debate new meanings for words.
> I think we are agreed on what your definition is, what my definition is, and
> what the dictionary's dictionary is. I don't think there is much value in
> going further on that track.
> I think we have wasted too much time on this. Let's assume that I concede
> your definition for the sake of argument.
> Now, what is the point of trying to define racism as genetic? If I were to
> concede to your definition, what purpose would it serve? Under your
> definition, we can now pre-judge blacks as having characteristics because of
> their race. It would not be racist under your definition because it is not
> genetically based. Under your definition, we can no discriminate blacks by
> reference to their race. It would not be racist under your definition
> because it is not genetically based.
> Where does this lead us? Are we now free to practice racial prejudice,
> discrimination and profiling because it is not racist? Should we start
> evaluating people on the basis of racial groupings instead of individual
> merits? Should any policy, strategy, law, or philosophy treat people of
> different races differently? Ignoring the terminology of whether these
> actions are "racist" or not, are you arguing that they represent good
> science, good politics, good strategy?
> Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:07 MDT