Russ T. Nale wrote:
> 1. Race is a modern idea.
> Ancient societies, like the Greeks, did not divide people according to
> physical distinctions, but according to religion, status, class, even
> language. The English language didn't even have the word 'race' until
> it turns up in 1508 in a poem by William Dunbar referring to a line of
> kings.
To argue that ancient cultures did not segregate people based on their
appearance may be true. To argue that they did not RECOGNISE the
physical differences would not be. And to say that 'race' cannot or
should not be used to define those collective variations in physical
characteristics is somewhat misleading. That is how the word is
colloquially applied and understood by most people - and whether or not
it is wrong to do so in scientific terms, the concept is understood
politically.
> 2. Race has no genetic basis.
> Not one characteristic, trait or even gene distinguishes all the
> members of one so-called race from all the members of another
> so-called race.
Race, in terms of the differentiation between two or more groups by
reference to their physical variations, certainly DOES have a genetic
basis, because those variations are rooted in genetics. There is a
genetic reason why one person might be black and another white, and this
is one of the factors that lead people to recognise a white person and a
black person as belonging to distinct racial groups.
> 6. Slavery predates race.
Slavery may predate the various racial groups as we in our modern society
have defined them, of course. But it does NOT predate the variations in
human appearance between groups, nor the recognition of those variations,
nor discrimination between groups based on those differences.
> 9. Race isn't biological, but racism is still real.
Yet it is the biological differences that racists normally use to
determine whether or not they accept another person. A white racist, for
example, does not wait to see whether a black acquaintance has compatible
views on political matters before he decides whether he hates him or not.
All he needs to know is what colour he is. He will use that factor to
invent the remainder of the information he needs.
(That said, there is a tendency today for racists and other bigots to
dispense with the need for even this basic piece of information. Many
now, especially on Usenet where physical appearance is not known, simply
determine their full assessment of a person based on whether or not they
agree with what they have said. For example, I have recently argued that
Britain should not simply expel or slaughter its resident Muslim
population because of the brutality of some who claim to follow that
faith. As a result of this opinion, I have been told by several people
that I am myself a Muslim. Accepting that I am not would undermine their
prejudiced idea of who I am, and so the possibility is immediately ruled
out.)
> 10. Colorblindness will not end racism.
> Pretending race doesn't exist is not the same as creating equality.
> Race is more than stereotypes and individual prejudice. To combat
> racism, we need to identify and remedy social policies and
> institutional practices that advantage some groups at the expense of
> others.
Indeed. But what IS important is that equality of opportunity, and equal
respect, is afforded to all groups by all other groups. That means that
such abhorrent concepts as 'positive discrimination' should be rejected
as being as immoral as the problems they are imagined to counter. It
means that a country need not - must not - go out of its way to treat a
particular religion or cultural group favourably. It must not create
advantage for some over others, even on the pretence that it is righting
a former imbalance. It also means that attempting to argue that race is
simply 'not an issue', as you are apparently trying to do in this post,
is counter-productive. |
