Will racism ever be over?

[GE Morton]

The racialist concept of race... ...maintains that races have intrinsic biological essences, are distinguished by normatively important features such as intelligence and moral character, and can, on the basis of these features, be objectively ranked as superior and inferior.

I suggest that the only problem with this is that it is empirically false. It describes a coherent world that is not the world we live in. In our reality there are intelligent and stupid people in all races, and morally good and bad people in all races.

Where then does the moral wrong of racism lie ? It is in pre-judging individuals as intelligent or not, or as morally deserving or not, on the basis of their race.

Whether such judgments are considered to favour minorities or favour the majority does not alter the racist character of such judgments.

Yes. The problem with the "racialist" conception (as quoted) is interjecting normative judgments into what should be a strictly empirical (and biologically grounded) classification.

[Pattern-chaser]

Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioural traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.

Discrimination is the act of making unjustified distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong.

To be a racist is to discriminate against someone on the basis of their 'race'.

I agree. But not discriminating on the basis of race does not require denying the reality of races. Also, keep in mind that if there are no races, there can be no racists either (You can't discriminate against something that doesn't exist).

No, to the latter. That is just a way of defeating racism by redefining it so that it no longer exists, (circularly) by definition. But racism persists, even if we now have to refer to the practice by a new name/word/term.

[GE Morton]

No, to the latter. That is just a way of defeating racism by redefining it so that it no longer exists, (circularly) by definition. But racism persists, even if we now have to refer to the practice by a new name/word/term.

Yep. And so do races. So what is point of discarding the term?

[Ecurb]

No, to the latter. That is just a way of defeating racism by redefining it so that it no longer exists, (circularly) by definition. But racism persists, even if we now have to refer to the practice by a new name/word/term.

Yep. And so do races. So what is point of discarding the term?

Discarding the older visions of "race" is not a panacea, but it might inch us closer to a post racial society. It's unreasonable to suggest that because such changes are not going to be VERY effective, they will not be effective at all. Also, the reason to identify as "African American" black people for whom the ancestry is 75% Caucasian is cultural and political rather than legitimately "racial".

[GE Morton]

Discarding the older visions of "race" is not a panacea, but it might inch us closer to a post racial society.

We'll only ever have a "post-racial society" when the races have become so thoroughly intermixed that all of the genetic traits now geographically localized are distributed universally, with everyone carrying them or portions of them. That is not likely in any foreseeable future. Nor do I see such a society as any sort of ideal toward which to strive. What we need instead is a tolerant society, in which those differences are both acknowledged and disregarded for most purposes.

Also, the reason to identify as "African American" black people for whom the ancestry is 75% Caucasian is cultural and political rather than legitimately "racial".

Oh, yes. There is a biological/geographical definition of "race," but also political/legal ones. The two don't necessarily align.

[Ecurb]

We'll only ever have a "post-racial society" when the races have become so thoroughly intermixed that all of the genetic traits now geographically localized are distributed universally, with everyone carrying them or portions of them. That is not likely in any foreseeable future.

Fair enough. How about a post-racially-obsessed society?

[GE Morton]

We'll only ever have a "post-racial society" when the races have become so thoroughly intermixed that all of the genetic traits now geographically localized are distributed universally, with everyone carrying them or portions of them. That is not likely in any foreseeable future.

Fair enough. How about a post-racially-obsessed society?

That is possible (though still unlikely), and I'd go for it.

[Consul]

QUOTE>
"…

1. The racialist concept of race: The familiar pernicious traditional, essentialist, and hierarchical race concept often mistakenly identified as the race concept. It maintains that races have intrinsic biological essences, are distinguished by normatively important features such as intelligence and moral character, and can, on the basis of these features, be objectively ranked as superior and inferior.
…
(pp. 2-3)

"The Racialist Race Concept Defined:
So what is the racialist concept of race? In its classical form, it is the race concept that

1. holds that each member of each race exhibits a fixed set of “heritable” physical, moral, intellectual, and cultural characteristics common and peculiar to his or her race;

2. requires a “strict” correlation between a race’s distinctive pattern of visible physical features and its constellation of moral, intellectual, and cultural characteristics;

3. demands that a race possess a hidden or under lying biological structure— a biological essence that acts on each member of the race and accounts for the correlation between a race’s distinctive pattern of visible physical features and its constellation of moral, intellectual, and cultural characteristics; and

4. insists that a race be rankable on the basis of its constellation of moral, intellectual, and cultural characteristics.

This characterization specifies the elements that make the racialist race concept a racialist race concept."
(pp. 15-6)

(Hardimon, Michael O. Rethinking Race: The Case for Deflationary Realism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017.)
<QUOTE

Note that Hardimon has built much more into the definition of "racialism" than Zack. Given Zack's definition, racialism as such is just racial realism; and a racial realist as such needn't maintain that "races have intrinsic biological essences, are distinguished by normatively important features such as intelligence and moral character, and can, on the basis of these features, be objectively ranked as superior and inferior." (Hardimon) For mere racialism qua racial realism entails neither racial essentialism nor racial supremacism.

QUOTE>
"racialism—belief that there are human races or that humankind is divided into races.
…
(p. 20)

"…
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)

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

[Consul]

…Given Zack's definition, racialism as such is just racial realism….

QUOTE>
"racialism—belief that there are human races or that humankind is divided into races.
…
(p. 20)

"…
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)

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

Well, in her second and third definition Zack adds "…and the differences among races are important"; so, strictly speaking, this is more than mere racial realism. But the importance in question is not spelled out in her definition. What is important to whom here?

[Consul]

Joshua Glasgow uses "racialism" in the sense of "(mere) racial realism":

QUOTE>
"What I am here calling ‘racial realism’ others sometimes call ‘racialism.’ Racialism, however, is often taken to be a more robust view of race (such that, say, phenotypic features are correlated with intellectual capacities). ‘Racial realism,’ which just holds that there really are races, is meant to be neutral between these more robust and other, more austere, accounts of race. I should also note that, in this way, I am also using ‘real’ in what is sometimes called its minimalist sense, according to which something is real just in case it exists. The use of the minimalist sense, which creates conceptual room for constructed or response-dependent entities, is required if we are to take constructivism seriously."

(Glasgow, Joshua. A Theory of Race. New York: Routledge, 2009. p. 5n2)
<QUOTE

Note that you are a racial realist (in the minimalist sense) even if you think that races are socially constructed, since social constructions are not nonexistent fictions. If races are part of social reality, they exist as social entities.



(Source: Joshua Glasgow. A Theory of Race. New York: Routledge, 2009. p. 5)

[Consul]

How about a post-racially-obsessed society?

Wouldn't its members still differentiate (recognize and give expression to the differences) between e.g. Europeans, Asians, and Africans?

[Consul]

The Woke (= the postmodern socialists with their critical race theory) are obsessed with race, having substituted "race struggle" for "class struggle".

[Consul]

The Woke (= the postmodern socialists with their critical race theory) are obsessed with race, having substituted "race struggle" for "class struggle".

The pre-postmodern socialists saw things differently. For example, the Black Panther Party cofounder Bobby Seale writes:

QUOTE>
"We, the Black Panther Party, see ourselves as a nation within a nation, but not for any racist reasons. We see it as a necessity for us to progress as human beings and live on the face of this earth along with other people. We do not fight racism with racism. We fight racism with solidarity. We do not fight exploitative capitalism with black capitalism. We fight capitalism with basic socialism. And we do not fight imperialism with more imperialism. We fight imperialism with proletarian internationalism. These principles are very functional for the Party. They're very practical, humanistic, and necessary. They should be understood by the masses of the people.

We don't use our guns, we have never used our guns to go into the white community to shoot up white people. We only defend ourselves against anybody, be they black, blue, green, or red, who attacks us unjustly and tries to murder us and kill us for implementing our programs. All in all, I think people can see from our past practice, that ours is not a racist organization but a very progressive revolutionary party.

Those who want to obscure the struggle with ethnic differences are the ones who are aiding and maintaining the exploitation of the masses of the people: poor whites, poor blacks, browns, red Indians, poor Chinese and Japanese, and the workers at large.

Racism and ethnic differences allow the power structure to exploit the masses of workers in this country, because that's the key by which they maintain their control. To divide the people and conquer them is the objective of the power structure. It's the ruling class, the very small minority, the few avaricious, demagogic hogs and rats who control and infest the government. The ruling class and their running dogs, their lackeys, their bootlickers, their Toms and their black racists, their cultural nationalists - they're all the running dogs of the ruling class. These are the ones who help to maintain and aid the power structure by perpetuating their racist attitudes and using racism as a means to divide the people. But it's really the small, minority ruling class that is dominating, exploiting, and oppressing the working and laboring people.

All of us are laboring-class people, employed or unemployed, and our unity has got to be based on the practical necessities of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if that means anything to anybody. It's got to be based on the practical things like the survival of people and people's right to self-determination, to iron out the problems that exist. So in essence it is not at all a race struggle. We're rapidly educating people to this. In our view it is a class struggle between the massive proletarian working class and the small, minority ruling class. Working-class people of all colors must unite against the exploitative, oppressive ruling class. So let me emphasize again-we believe our fight is a class struggle and not a race struggle."

(Seale, Bobby. "What Does the Black Panther Party Stand For?" 1968.)
<QUOTE

[Moreno]

The Woke (= the postmodern socialists with their critical race theory) are obsessed with race, having substituted "race struggle" for "class struggle".

The pre-postmodern socialists saw things differently. For example, the Black Panther Party cofounder Bobby Seale writes:

I think it would be more accurate, especially when supported by quoting one socialist, to say that some socialists of that period saw things differently, rather than the pre-postmodern socialists.....

And even Bobby Seale, let alone the Black Panthers as a whole, had a simple view of such things....

Seale said, "We began to understand the unwritten law of force. They, the police, have guns, and what the law actually says ain't worth a damn. We started to think of a program that defines and offsets this physical fact of the ghetto. I view black people in America as a colonial people. Therefore we have to arm ourselves and make the colonial power give us our freedom."

Many of the Panthers' demands were similar to those of mainstream civil rights leaders, including full employment, decent housing and better schools. But other parts of the 10-point platform were far more radical. The Panthers wanted all African Americans released from jail because, they said, black people could not get fair and impartial trials in American courts. They also demanded an exemption of all black men from the draft. As Seale and Newton wrote, "We believe that Black people should not be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government that does not protect us. We will not fight and kill other people of color in the world who, like Black people, are being victimized by the White racist government of America."6

Seale: Do I have to lay out to you again the platform of the program of the Black Panther Party? Do I have to get you to understand what we mean by black liberation in this country? Do we have to get you to understand the necessity of black people taking up arms to defend themselves against racist attack in this country? Well damn it if I have to do it, we're going to do it. Here we are, alright, come on now!

Number nine: we want all people when brought to trial to be tried in a court by their peer groups or people from their black community as defined by your jive Constitution of the United States.

Hasn't it occurred to you that it's damn near time we organize ourselves in some fashion to have some ability to begin to make racists and the racist power structure act in a desired manner as we define the functional definition of what power is?

The brother hasn't been instructed on the political relationship between you whites and the peace and freedom parties, etc. So don't come down there, we'll take care of our community 'cause we want our power in our community to determine our own destiny [in] our black communities. We want our own black police force chosen by black people, controlled [applause starts] wait a minute, wait a minute, controlled by black people and we're going to make one specific rule that while he's going be a member of the police department chosen from our black community, he's going to have to live in our black community in the areas that he patrols because of this here. If he have to live there, he ain't going to be murdering and committing no police brutality 'cause he's got to come back home and sleep that night.

Bobby Seale did repeat many times that he was not advocating hate of people based on skin color, but there was no neutral vision here. There was tremendous focus on race, with some of the above policy demands even radical by today's standards and including very clear choices based on race.

None of what I say here should be taken as judging Mr. Seale or the BP - a group that was a subgroup of socialists at that time and a group with many different views of race. And then socialists being an even broader category. There were no doubt racist socialists, even, who hated blacks, without even including National Socialists in that group.

Further, I think attributing today's work to socialists is also incorrect. I think a lot of liberals and even conservatives, and then entities like corporations that cannot be classified as socialist are promoting woke policies and agendas. Certainly anarchists are out there on the streets and a lot of people in offices, meetings, colleges and so on, who are not focused at all on economic policies. Yes, I do think there are strong tendencies in the direction of socialism by people who promote wokism. But it is not necessary and some of the most influential players are quite capitalist, some extremely so.

[Pattern-chaser]

No, to the latter. That is just a way of defeating racism by redefining it so that it no longer exists, (circularly) by definition. But racism persists, even if we now have to refer to the practice by a new name/word/term.

Yep. And so do races. So what is point of discarding the term?

The point is that the term, as used here, describes something that doesn't really exist. Giving it its own descriptive label offers entirely the wrong impression, that 'race' exists, and has use and value. It does not.

The real-world differences we are referring to here have nothing to do with 'race', and everything to do with skin colour, one of the very many ways in which individual humans can (and do) differ from one another. Further, once 'race' is established as a 'thing', one can add into the mix the social (and pernicious) aspects of race that have been so damaging over the centuries, and pretend that they are as clearly and obviously a part of 'racial' differences as skin-colour is.

If we follow this path, we soon find ourselves in the position of the British Royal Family and their aides, where those whose skin is not white are less than human, and thereby subject to the dictates of their white — and fully human — Masters. And this conclusion is the reason why racism should not be dignified with its own term, because doing so enables and nurtures racism — i.e. discrimination on the basis of 'race' (skin colour).