Does RACE exist?

[Jaguar]

Yea, that will be true eventually.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are no colors. Whatever division you choose between red and orange is arbitrary, and how come you don't allow for reddish orange, and if you do, how come you don't allow for reddish orange erring more on the red side,

Look at true colour, and tell me whether you can demarcate between Red and Orange, at their closest shades?

There really are no 'colours', just different shades.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by Azazel
there are different features, but it doesn't really matter.

Tell that to the black person who's just been hit by a racist attack.

[Az]

the fact that some people think (wrongly) that it matters, and commit criminal acts because of it, doesn't mean that it does.

people are inherently very similar, and the only fair thing is to treat them all the same.

[Buck Birdseed]

The distinctions exist because society is set up in a way as to make them exist. Ignoring them is disagreeing that there is a problem.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Look at true colour, and tell me whether you can demarcate between Red and Orange, at their closest shades?

There really are no 'colours', just different shades.

Jep, In a physical Sense there are no Colours, just different wavelengths.

It´s because of the processing by our visual System that we perceive them as different Colors (as there are 3 different kinds of Cones each which his preferred Range of Wavelengths and within the visual pathway the inputs from the cones inhibit the Inputs from the other Cones (i.e. Red inhibits Green, Blue inhibits Yellow and vice versa [there are btw. only Red, Green and Blue Cones, Yellow is already a Result of Visual Processing])

[Az]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
The distinctions exist because society is set up in a way as to make them exist. Ignoring them is disagreeing that there is a problem.

erm, no. noone is ignoring the different upbringings, that why things such as culture and subculture exist. Saying that people are born similar to each other, and must be treated equally is giving you the blueprint for the right society. Therefore, the society which upholds those distinctions is the one that has to be changed.

[Buck Birdseed]

**** the different upbringings. Society is full of structural, psychological and active racism that makes distinctions between different races. You're unwilling to fight this because you think the ideal is just putting your hands over your ears and loudly babbling empty marxist phrases about all differences dissapearing if you remove material inequality.

[Jaguar]

@argument!

[Proteus_MST]

Racism is a Problem of Education.

AFAIK you wouldn´t see small children making a Distinction between Skin Colour.
It´s only later in Life that conscious or subconscious aversions against other Races develop. Be it because the Parents have such aversions or be it because the children observe other people in their vicinity having those aversions.

So, yes, I also think that, if you change society you could eleminate Racism.

[SpencerH]

Race does exist, but there's no reliable way to determine what race someone belongs to because the definitions are subjective.

[East Street Trader]

Originally posted by Azazel
people are inherently very similar, and the only fair thing is to treat them all the same.

Azazel, there are certainly many ways in which one human being will necessarily be similar to the next. But taking that sort of starting point and using it as a basis to decide in advance how you will treat people is precisely the thing which is called prejudice. By latching on to the general idea "people are similar" you judge how to behave in advance, you let yourself off weighing the actual situation affecting you and some actual person.

And it turns out, when you do not use a generalisation to pre-judge how you will deal with people, that in fact the generalisation would work fine for you much of the time but it would lead you astray sometimes. That is the nature of mere generalisation.

In your case you would be led astray by your prejudice whenever it turned out that the particular person did not fit the pattern which the similarities you have observed have led you to expect.

Your conclusion also does not work. If you look about you will notice very many situations in which treating people in the same way is great for one but lousy for another. To take a trivial illustration, steps up to a front door are fine for those with legs, not so great for those without.

So the wisdom which we have been trying to build up is not quite to aim to treat everyone the same. Rather that wisdom suggests that everyone should be afforded equality of opportunity.

Achieving which often involves treating people very differently.

And always on the basis of their actual characteristics, not on some preconceived notion.

Sorry that the tone of that is a bit didactic. Old geezers often get that way - this one has, anyway.

[Az]

02-03-2004 13:56
link
Support Apolyton

**** the different upbringings. Society is full of structural, psychological and active racism that makes distinctions between different races. You're unwilling to fight this because you think the ideal is just putting your hands over your ears and loudly babbling empty marxist phrases about all differences dissapearing if you remove material inequality.

Erm, no. You're the one that is closing his ears. I certainly DON'T think that we must close our ears. We must actively change our society in order to fight any disparity based on ethnicity. Not only material, but ethical, as well. As you create a cohesive society, the racial argument will fall away VERY fast. I know it myself. Whenever the society is cohesive, race plays no part.

[Buck Birdseed]

Back in more familiar territory now.

We've been over this before, Az. You can't possibly build a society based on universal principles because they always will be someone's universal principles - the "individual" is the white, male, middle-class individual, the "collective" is the one which conforms to one standard that some groups have an unfair competetive advantage to achieve. If you want any semblance of equality you're going to have to accept differences and try to even them out by redistributing power between the groups.

[Az]

We've been over this before, Az. You can't possibly build a society based on universal principles because they always will be someone's universal principles - the "individual" is the white, male, middle-class individual, the "collective" is the one which conforms to one standard that some groups have an unfair competetive advantage to achieve. If you want any semblance of equality you're going to have to accept differences and try to even them out by redistributing power between the groups.

we've been over this before, indeed.

The fact that the principles were invented by white males doesn't mean that they're wrong, or are only in the interest of the white males. one certainly can claim them to be superior to the principles invented by brown males, white females, purple hermaphrodites, etc. The correctness of such arguement is to be decide through a honest debate. When we've established who's correct, we must follow these principles, and while these principles should always under scrutiny, and repeatedly checked in strengh against other such principles in more debates, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't follow them.

"conformity" is a non-issue. after all, we ARE all born pretty much the same ( I hope you don't disagree with that), and in the process of growing up, can fit into those shoes.

Those groups you talk about shouldn't get respect for their arguments only because they exist. They should get respect if, and only if they measure up in an honest debate. and if they win, through an honest debate, and not propoganda, majoritarianism, or anything else, then they're right.

EST:

Azazel, there are certainly many ways in which one human being will necessarily be similar to the next. But taking that sort of starting point and using it as a basis to decide in advance how you will treat people is precisely the thing which is called prejudice. By latching on to the general idea "people are similar" you judge how to behave in advance, you let yourself off weighing the actual situation affecting you and some actual person.

You've misunderstood my point. I never said that people in general are the same, or very similar. many similarities exist, yes, but they're quite different, actually. I said that they are born similar, the biggest difference being men, and women, and that ain't that big, in itself.

And it turns out, when you do not use a generalisation to pre-judge how you will deal with people, that in fact the generalisation would work fine for you much of the time but it would lead you astray sometimes. That is the nature of mere generalisation.

You've misunderstood my first point, and then inadvertedly attacked a strawman. I never said that one must use generalisation to pre-judge how you deal with people. IMO, future generations, if treated equally from day 1, will grow up to be people that are similar . Some might say that this is an evil plan to create an army of thinkalike zombies, but that's obviously not true. similar doesn't mean the same, equal doesn't mean the same, either. People, through their life expriences, will be shaped differently. You can't avoid that. What I ask is that they won't meet categorizations along the way.

In your case you would be led astray by your prejudice whenever it turned out that the particular person did not fit the pattern which the similarities you have observed have led you to expect.

Your conclusion also does not work. If you look about you will notice very many situations in which treating people in the same way is great for one but lousy for another. To take a trivial illustration, steps up to a front door are fine for those with legs, not so great for those without.

duh. see first point.

So the wisdom which we have been trying to build up is not quite to aim to treat everyone the same. Rather that wisdom suggests that everyone should be afforded equality of opportunity.

Achieving which often involves treating people very differently.

Not if you stick to treating people equally from beginning to end.

And always on the basis of their actual characteristics, not on some preconceived notion.

again, see first point.

Sorry that the tone of that is a bit didactic. Old geezers often get that way - this one has, anyway.

What, are you kidding? I live for this stuff!