Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
> 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.
No, we would not pre-judge blacks as being de facto posessors of
characteristics which predominate a racial culture. We would say they
have a given probability, if no other factors are taken into account, of
having those characteristics typical of the culture (not race) to which
they belong. Since most people never make a judgement about an
individual solely on a single prejudicial factor like that (and they
never make any decision without SOME prejudicial factors occuring,
racial or not in nature) we would merely adjust or weight a prejudicial
factor by how close to the norm the individual is.
For example, take someone like Colin Powell. While a few racist people
would be completely prejudicial about his blackness defining his total
character, most people who are normally less trustful of blacks than
whites (even most blacks) tend to trust someone like Powell because of
one or more of the following individual characteristics he has:
a) he is a military veteran, decorated and high ranking
b) he speaks like an average american, with no slang or accent more
typical of an 'average' stereotypical American black person, and is
highly educated.
c) his exposure in the media to the public, as an individual
personality, engenders trust.
Thus, despite the cultural probabilities, he has mitigated those by his
own individual actions and characteristics, just as ANY individual does
to attain personal achievement in life.
>
> 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?
No. As I said before, if you were paying attention, is that
acknowledging actual cultural differences is a completely separate issue
from the moral/ethical aspect of taking action based on those
differences.
This is EXACTLY like the issue of genetic screening by health insurers.
Does an insurer have the right to be biased against you in charging you
more for health insurace just because you have a genetic predisposition
toward certain ailments? In my opinion, they don't. Similarly, you
should not take actions to discriminate actively against a person solely
on the basis of the racial culture they belong to to one degree or
another. Acknowledging cultural difference is okay. Acting in a way to
help positively mitigate negative differences, without negatively
impacting others, is okay. Acting in an unequal negative manner toward
someone due to cultural differences is not.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:07 MDT