Will racism ever be over?

[Consul]

QUOTE>
"racialism—belief that there are human races or that humankind is divided into races.
racism—negative assessment of some human races and their members, compared to others."
(p. 20)

"Racism is unjustified bias about people and groups because of their racial identities.
Racialism is thought or action based on the belief that human races are real and the differences among races are important."
(p. 52)

"racialism—thought or action based on the belief that human races are real and the differences among races are important."
(p. 65)

"racism—prejudice and discrimination practiced by individuals or embedded in institutional practices."
(p. 169)

(Zack, Naomi. Philosophy of Race: An Introduction. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.)
<QUOTE

[Consul]

The options in the philosophy of race:

Ontological:
1. realism: There are (human) races. (Human) Races exist.
1.1 naturalism: (Human) Races are natural entities.
1.2 antinaturalism, social constructivism: (Human) Races are non-natural, social entities.
2. antirealism: There are no (human) races. (Human) Races don't exist.

Terminological:
1. conceptual eliminativism: We should stop using the concept of (human) race, the word "(human) race" (for some reason or other).
2. conceptual conservatism: We should continue to use the concept of (human) race, the word "(human) race" (for some reason or other).

Note that racial naturalism is compatible with different views of what kind of natural entities human races are:
* subspecies
* ecotypes ("a subgroup of a species that has characteristic genetically determined adaptations to its local environment" – Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
* other kinds of natural populations (characterized in terms of geographical, geneaological/genetic, and morphological/phenotypical similarities and dissimilarities).

The belief that there are human races qua biological subspecies of homo sapiens is scientifically falsified and no longer tenable; but there is a scientifically non-falsified racial naturalism which doesn't regard human races as subspecies of homo sapiens (as discrete subspecies with an essence):

QUOTE>
"The third school of thought regarding the ontology of race is racial population naturalism. This camp suggests that, although racial naturalism falsely attributed cultural, mental, and physical characters to discrete racial groups, it is possible that genetically significant biological groupings could exist that would merit the term races. Importantly, these biological racial groupings would not be essentialist or discrete: there is no set of genetic or other biological traits that all and only all members of a racial group share that would then provide a natural biological boundary between racial groups. Thus, these thinkers confirm the strong scientific consensus that discrete, essentialist races do not exist. However, the criteria of discreteness and essentialism would also invalidate distinctions between non-human species, such as lions and tigers. As Philip Kitcher puts it, “there is no…genetic feature…that separates one species of mosquito or mushroom from another” (…). Rather, biological species are differentiated by reproductive isolation, which is relative, not absolute (since hybrids sometimes appear in nature); which may have non-genetic causes (e.g., geographic separation and incompatible reproduction periods or rituals); which may generate statistically significant if not uniform genetic differences; and which may express distinct phenotypes. In effect, if the failure to satisfy the condition of discreteness and essentialism requires jettisoning the concept of race, then it also requires jettisoning the concept of biological species. But because the biological species concept remains epistemologically useful, some biologists and philosophers use it to defend a racial ontology that is “biologically informed but non-essentialist,” one that is vague, non-discrete, and related to genetics, genealogy, geography, and phenotype (…).

There are three versions of racial population naturalism: cladistic race; socially isolated race; and genetically clustered race. Cladistic races are “ancestor-descendant sequences of breeding populations that share a common origin” (…). They emerged during human evolution, as different groups of humans became geographically isolated from each other, and may be dying out, if they have not already, due to more recent human reproductive intermingling (…). Socially isolated race refers to the fact that legal sanctions against miscegenation might have created a genetically isolated African American race in the USA (Kitcher 1999). Finally, defenders of genetically clustered race argue that although only 7% of the differences between any two individuals regarding any one specific gene can be attributed to their membership in one of the commonly recognized racial categories, the aggregation of several genes is statistically related to a small number of racial categories associated with major geographic regions and phenotypes (…)."

Race: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/race/
<QUOTE

[GE Morton]

The belief that there are human races qua biological subspecies of homo sapiens is scientifically falsified and no longer tenable; but there is a scientifically non-falsified racial naturalism which doesn't regard human races as subspecies of homo sapiens (as discrete subspecies with an essence): . . .

All in all a pretty good summary of the "ontological" options. I was about to point out, with respect to the paragraph above, that the concepts of species and subspecies are every bit as arbitrary (biologically speaking) as race, and often not as empirically useful. Then I noticed your quote made the same observation:

"However, the criteria of discreteness and essentialism would also invalidate distinctions between non-human species, such as lions and tigers. As Philip Kitcher puts it, “there is no…genetic feature…that separates one species of mosquito or mushroom from another” (…). Rather, biological species are differentiated by reproductive isolation, which is relative, not absolute (since hybrids sometimes appear in nature); which may have non-genetic causes (e.g., geographic separation and incompatible reproduction periods or rituals); which may generate statistically significant if not uniform genetic differences; and which may express distinct phenotypes. In effect, if the failure to satisfy the condition of discreteness and essentialism requires jettisoning the concept of race, then it also requires jettisoning the concept of biological species. But because the biological species concept remains epistemologically useful, some biologists and philosophers use it to defend a racial ontology that is “biologically informed but non-essentialist,” one that is vague, non-discrete, and related to genetics, genealogy, geography, and phenotype (…)."

The differences between the major human races are at least as great as those between, say, African wildcats (Felis lybica) and European wildcats (Felis silvestris), which are now regarded (by some taxonomists) as different species, and by others as different subspecies. Either would be taken for a housecat (Felis catus) if encountered on a city street.

Finally, defenders of genetically clustered race argue that although only 7% of the differences between any two individuals regarding any one specific gene can be attributed to their membership in one of the commonly recognized racial categories, the aggregation of several genes is statistically related to a small number of racial categories associated with major geographic regions and phenotypes (…)."

Indeed. And humans differ genetically from chimpanzees by only 4%.

[GE Morton]

This is nonsense. The concept of "breeds" of dogs may have originated with dogs being bred to perform certain functions. It is now defined by pedigrees and morphological "standards".

Irrelevant. The question is not how breeds arose or whether there are prescriptive "standards," but whether the terms denote empirical differences and are descriptively useful.

Of course it's reasonable to describe a lost dog (or lost person) based on its physical characteristics. It may even be reasonable to say that collies tend to be skilled at herding sheep.

Then breeds and races are real and use of the terms commonly used to denote them are justified. Quod erat demonstrandum.

It's not a non sequitur at all. Descriptive terms may not be judgemental, but theories about genetic racial inferiority or superiority can be falisfied if the genetic basis for the theories is falisfied. What's so hard to understand about that? It seems pretty obvious. You're simply trying to change the subject, instead of arguing against what is clearly my point.

Again, racial classifications are not genetic theories. They are empirical classifications, based on observable traits and an associated geographic origin. We can conclude that there is some genetic basis for those observable differences, because they are hereditary. Whether there are other, non-physiological genetic differences associated as well is an open, and also empirical, question. Someone who wishes to claim that one race is "inferior" to another is obliged to specify in what respect it is inferior and produce some evidence supporting his claim. Critics may then examine that evidence and test the claim, just as with any other scientific claim. But whether or not the "inferiority" claim is validated, the classification itself is still sound and useful. It cannot be "falsified" by genetic evidence, because it does not rely on genetic evidence.

That depends what we mean by "led to". Of course labels are not the sole cause of pernicious beliefs. But they may be involved. Why wouldn't they be? Europeans enslaved Africans. To justifiy their perfidy, they made claims about the genetic and racial inferiority of Africans. If the genetic similarity among "negroids" on which these claims are based is falsified some of the less moronic of these Europeans may concede they were wrong.

Again, the belief that Africans are "genetically inferior" to Europeans is a distinct claim that requires specific evidence. That Africans are different from Europeans in several obvious ways is a different claim, for which the evidence is beyond question. Racial classifications mark only those manifest differences, and entail no inferior/superior baggage.

None of this, by the way, has anything to do with post-modernism, so why you act as if it does is a mystery. Genetics is a modernist science.

Genetics is a modern science, but some geneticists have been bamboozled by PM rhetoric. When a scientist proposes to alter his terminology, not because it is no longer useful but because he fears it will be "socially damaging," he is no longer doing science.

[Mounce574]

Races exist- and they describe a lot of cultural groups involving similar physical outward traits. However, racism is for one race to consider another race inferior. No race is inferior to another. The only reason one considers itself superior is that they do not agree with cultural differences. They form a judgment and lump everyone on one trait of their appearance to support their false narrative.

[Ecurb]

Irrelevant. The question is not how breeds arose or whether there are prescriptive "standards," but whether the terms denote empirical differences and are descriptively useful.....

Then breeds and races are real and use of the terms commonly used to denote them are justified. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Nobody objects to descriptive terms. But are racial descriptions accurately descriptive? Don't "black male" perpetrators come in all different colors? Why is lumping them together particularly useful? It's as if the "lost dog" poster merely said "labrador retriever", but failed to clarify whether it was a black lab or a golden lab. The Sapir/Whorf hypothesis states that "language has a tyranny on thought." We tend to think in linguistic terms. When we see people as members of a (minority) race, we may fail to notice properties that identify them more clearly. Hence the adage, "All black people look alike." Wear a uniform, and nobody will see your face.

Again, racial classifications are not genetic theories. They are empirical classifications, based on observable traits and an associated geographic origin. We can conclude that there is some genetic basis for those observable differences, because they are hereditary. Whether there are other, non-physiological genetic differences associated as well is an open, and also empirical, question. Someone who wishes to claim that one race is "inferior" to another is obliged to specify in what respect it is inferior and produce some evidence supporting his claim. Critics may then examine that evidence and test the claim, just as with any other scientific claim. But whether or not the "inferiority" claim is validated, the classification itself is still sound and useful. It cannot be "falsified" by genetic evidence, because it does not rely on genetic evidence.

Oh. Thanks for the lecture. But if this is the case, why do we identify light-sknned individuals as "black" when they share as many visually identifiable traits with their caucasion relatives as they do with their African ones? The answer -- it appears -- is political, not morphological. In addition, the article Consul quoted with claimed anti-miscegenation laws have maintained racial purity is nonsense. It's well known that almost all American black people have caucasion ancestors. Look at Thomas Jefferson's children. Half of them disappeared into the white community. The "mixed-race" children emerged from black vaginas, and were classified as "negro" on that principle, not on the principle of either genetics or phenotype (unless they were so white they could "pass").

Again, the belief that Africans are "genetically inferior" to Europeans is a distinct claim that requires specific evidence. That Africans are different from Europeans in several obvious ways is a different claim, for which the evidence is beyond question. Racial classifications mark only those manifest differences, and entail no inferior/superior baggage.

Perhaps. But they don't mark them very well, as I argued above. They often obfuscate differences instead of marking them.

Genetics is a modern science, but some geneticists have been bamboozled by PM rhetoric. When a scientist proposes to alter his terminology, not because it is no longer useful but because he fears it will be "socially damaging," he is no longer doing science.

Now you've gone off the deep end, GE. There are two groups obsessed with race: conservative bigots, and postmodern liberals. Race (and sexual orientation and gender) have replaced economic class in the neo-Marxist class-conflict theories of today's PM theorists. Postmodernists (over?)emphasize race as much as Donald Trump does. In addition,the postmodern notion that truth is relative to point of view has now been co-opted by the truth-denying Trump supporters. Perhaps the PM liberals can recognize what they have wrought, and will learn to be wary of unintended consequences.

Obviously, when scientists decide which terms to use in describing their research,they are "no longer doing science." They are "doing" literature. However, they are doing literature whether they decide to use old-fashioned terms or modern ones. It's ridiculous to suggest that old-fashioned terms are inevitably more "scientific" than modern ones.

[Pattern-chaser]

[Oriental] is a geographical term, but geography has racial implications.

No, I don't think so. It's true that local/localised populations of any/all creatures gradually develop (genetically-based) variations, as so we can see local geographic differences between separated populations. Darwin documented all this some time ago. But this has nothing (directly) to do with the myth of 'race'.

If "local/localised populations of any/all creatures gradually develop (genetically-based) variations, as so we can see local geographic differences between separated populations," then we have "races," don't we?

No, we see differences. These differences could be almost too small to notice — maybe eye colour that is a less common shade of blue — or quite significant — such as the prevalence of short-sightedness in many Jewish communities.

There is no such thing as 'race'.

[GE Morton]

Nobody objects to descriptive terms. But are racial descriptions accurately descriptive? Don't "black male" perpetrators come in all different colors? Why is lumping them together particularly useful?

Ecurb, you know the answer to that as well as I do. "Black" (and "white") in contemporary usage does not denote color; it denotes a person of recent (sub-Saharan) African origin. It is just a shorthand term for the Negroid race (one chosen and preferred, incidentally, by members of that group).

We tend to think in linguistic terms. When we see people as members of a (minority) race, we may fail to notice properties that identify them more clearly.

That's true. But it doesn't cancel the utility of the term. And it's trivial; classification always moves from the general to the specific. We usually don't look beyond the general unless we have some reason to so do. Prejudices sometimes block that closer look, even when there is a reason to do so, such as when an employer refuses to interview a black applicant without considering his qualifications and work history.

Oh. Thanks for the lecture. But if this is the case, why do we identify light-sknned individuals as "black" when they share as many visually identifiable traits with their caucasion relatives as they do with their African ones?

Already answered.

In addition, the article Consul quoted with claimed anti-miscegenation laws have maintained racial purity is nonsense. It's well known that almost all American black people have caucasion ancestors.

Those laws tend to do that. But, as you say, since they were often ignored, that "purity" was not maintained. We're all the same species. Animals will interbreed with any other compatible animal, even if they're not the same species. The cats I mentioned above interbreed wherever their ranges overlap, and with domestic cats, though all are classified as different species, producing healthy, fertile kittens. They don't care about the superficial differences.

Look at Thomas Jefferson's children. Half of them disappeared into the white community. The "mixed-race" children emerged from black vaginas, and were classified as "negro" on that principle, not on the principle of either genetics or phenotype (unless they were so white they could "pass").

Those who did not manifest the characteristic phenotype may have been initially classified as "black" --- because the core meaning of the term is "having an African origin," not color --- but because the phenotype is the chief clue to that origin, they probably were not regarded as "black" once way from their home community.

Obviously, when scientists decide which terms to use in describing their research,they are "no longer doing science." They are "doing" literature. However, they are doing literature whether they decide to use old-fashioned terms or modern ones. It's ridiculous to suggest that old-fashioned terms are inevitably more "scientific" than modern ones.

There is nothing "old-fashioned" about racial classifications, any more than there is species or subspecies classifications. Scientists compromise science when they abandon a well-defined and descriptively accurate and useful term, not because what is denoted by it is no longer thought to exist (such as the "luminiferous ether"), but because it has become politically incorrect, or because some think it "offensive" or "damaging." Such considerations have no place in choosing scientific terminology.

[GE Morton]

If "local/localised populations of any/all creatures gradually develop (genetically-based) variations, as so we can see local geographic differences between separated populations," then we have "races," don't we?

No, we see differences. These differences could be almost too small to notice — maybe eye colour that is a less common shade of blue — or quite significant — such as the prevalence of short-sightedness in many Jewish communities.

There is no such thing as 'race'.

PC, your emotional commitment to political correctness is forcing you to ignore the obvious. "Race" just is "local/localised populations of any/all creatures [who] gradually develop (genetically-based) variations, as so we can see local geographic differences between separated populations."

If you admit the latter, you acknowledges races, even if your emotional commitments cause you to balk at the term. You may call those geography-linked subpopulations "races," "breeds," "subspecies," "varietals" (among grapes), or whatever you want, but they obviously exist.

[Ecurb]

Ecurb, you know the answer to that as well as I do. "Black" (and "white") in contemporary usage does not denote color; it denotes a person of recent (sub-Saharan) African origin. It is just a shorthand term for the Negroid race (one chosen and preferred, incidentally, by members of that group).

Of course. But we could use other descriptions. Obviously, racial categories based on phenotype are somewhat useful as descriptions. The question is whether they are over-used. Is our (and the postmodernist's) obsession with race useful? Or is it harmful? By using racial descriptions less often, perhaps we may move away from this obsession.

There is nothing "old-fashioned" about racial classifications, any more than there is species or subspecies classifications. Scientists compromise science when they abandon a well-defined and descriptively accurate and useful term, not because what is denoted by it is no longer thought to exist (such as the "luminiferous ether"), but because it has become politically incorrect, or because some think it "offensive" or "damaging." Such considerations have no place in choosing scientific terminology.

Why not? We don't need to "abandon... accurate and useful terms", but (based on Sapir/Whorf) if we change our langage we may change the way we see and think about the world. If we stop obsessing about race, perhaps all those postmodernists you despise will stop ranting about it all the time. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

[Sculptor1]

When humans realise that they are of the same species.
When humans see their personal "identity" as a meaningless vanity.
When external physical differences are not regarded as important or significant.
When We see each other from the quality of character and not from "heritage".
And when we are all able to cut the ball and chain of nationhood, and other vanities of identity politics.
And pigs begin to fly
Then racism will end

[Good_Egg]

Europeans enslaved Africans. To justifiy their perfidy, they made claims about the genetic and racial inferiority of Africans.

At one time and place in history, North Africans enslaved Europeans. At another time and place in history, Africans enslaved each other, and Europeans traded in the commodity thus created.

But whilst your version of history may be skewed, you have a point. The American colonists of European extraction were at the same time believing of themselves that all men were created equal, and confronting the empirical fact that some Africans were slaves. One possible way of resolving the resulting cognitive dissonance was based on the notion of racial superiority. Which was therefore widely believed for reasons other than the merit of the notion.

GEM said:

Racial classifications mark only those manifest differences, and entail no inferior/superior baggage.

It's not as simple as that.

The "manifest differences" in appearance serve as a marker of cultural differences (e.g. many of those who look Chinese will tend to behave in accordance with Chinese cultural norms).

They serve as a marker of immigrant status, and are thus tied up with political issues around immigration.

And it seems that to some they serve as a marker of victim status, and the associated moral superiority (for those who believe in the cult of victimhood).

Racial superiority is a discredited idea, that belongs in the dustbin of history with the phlogiston. It remains attractive to those looking for a way to feel better about themselves. But that's a lousy reason for adopting an idea; we're called to believe what is true in preference to what makes us feel better. Which is I think what you're saying about science...

[Ecurb]

Of course. Cervantes was enslaved, as were more than a million Europeans in the 15th - 17th centuries. In Athens' Golden age, slaves constituted 80% of the population.

Still, my point was that discrimination often leads to prejudice -- as well as the other way around.

Unfortunately many people like playing victim, including whining, privileged white folk. Oh no! You didn't get into Harvard! Go to Dartmouth, instead, you poor dear.

[Pattern-chaser]

If "local/localised populations of any/all creatures gradually develop (genetically-based) variations, as so we can see local geographic differences between separated populations," then we have "races," don't we?

No, we see differences. These differences could be almost too small to notice — maybe eye colour that is a less common shade of blue — or quite significant — such as the prevalence of short-sightedness in many Jewish communities.

There is no such thing as 'race'.

PC, your emotional commitment to political correctness is forcing you to ignore the obvious. "Race" just is "local/localised populations of any/all creatures [who] gradually develop (genetically-based) variations, as so we can see local geographic differences between separated populations."

If you admit the latter, you acknowledges races, even if your emotional commitments cause you to balk at the term. You may call those geography-linked subpopulations "races," "breeds," "subspecies," "varietals" (among grapes), or whatever you want, but they obviously exist.

"Race" signifies a great deal more than just a subpopulation. In the creed of the racist, those whose 'race' is different from theirs are not even of the same species as them, which is obvious nonsense. But that is the use to which 'race' and racism has been put, and continues to be put, in our real world, by racists. And those who do not belong to the white Master Race suffer accordingly. The concept of 'race' is wrong and unhelpful; it has no useful place in our vocabulary, IMO.

[GE Morton]

"Race" signifies a great deal more than just a subpopulation. In the creed of the racist, those whose 'race' is different from theirs are not even of the same species as them, which is obvious nonsense.

*Sigh*. The concept of race does not entail racism. You need to attack the latter on its own grounds, on the claims it makes, not by denying the distinction on which it is based. You don't counter sexism by denying there are sexes, or "age-ism" by denying that people age. That is just stupid. Moreover, it is completely pointless --- racial differences won't go away because you deny them. Do you imagine the racists will be disarmed by such linguistic foolishness?