From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 14:42:07 -0700 (PDT)
To: bryce@digicash.com
Subject: Re: [NOISE] Re: Nazis on the Net
Message-ID: <01I3X4HW9GTI8Y50EU@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"bryce@digicash.com" 24-APR-1996 06:43:13.96

>For what it's worth, Webster's defines:

>rac.ism \'ra--.siz-*m\ \-s*st\ n 1: a belief that race is 
>  the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and
>  that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of 
>  a particular race 2: RACIALISM - rac.ist n 

[...]

>Thus no two of "racists", "separatists" and "race-haters"
>would be identical sets of people.

?

>But with a high degree of overlap, I'd warrant.

     Fully agreed. I don't dispute that most people calling themselves
separatists are racists; it's just that I'd prefer not to call someone a racist
who isn't one.... just as I'd prefer not to call a liberal a Communist unless
they are one. (Communist referring to the whole dictatorship of the proletariat
business, not just state socialism - the former, which is not classical
Marxism, is where the abuses of rights other than private property come in).

>This means that Abraham Lincoln was a racist, by the way.

     Abraham Lincoln is one reason I _don't_ use the above definition; by mine,
he'd be a separatist (wanted to move Blacks to Liberia, if I recall correctly).
I trust that everyone involved in this discussion (with the exception of the
neo-Nazi) would agree that Abraham Lincoln was better than those in the South
who wanted to keep blacks enslaved?

>(That definition isn't too good, though.  "_The_ primary 
>determinant"?  I would have to classify as racist those who
>believe that race is _a_ primary determinant of those
>qualities.)

     The definition is bad enough that I checked a concise OED for comparison;
see the results and my commentary below.

>Sorry to be off-topic, but if a thing is going to be
>discussed I might as well try to add signal.  (The "[NOISE]"
>tag that I left in the subject line doesn't indicate noise,
>but off-topicness.)  Perhaps we could just drop the 
>"Cc: cypherpunks" part and continue this discussion?

     Thank you. The dropping of the cc:cypherpunks part would be rather
inconvenient. This phenomenon is one reason that I'd like to see a list
server capable of setting up mini-lists on demand, easily.

>Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8th Ed., Copyright 1991 Oxford Univ. Press

>/racism/ <<"reIsIz(@)m>> n.
>1.
>   a. a belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on
>      this.
>   b. antagonism towards other races, esp. as a result of this.
>2. the theory that human abilities etc. are determined by race.

     This has some differences from the Webster definition, specifically the
inclusion of prejudice as a definer. The latter definition is silly. It is
scientifically well-proven that different races have different physical
attributes - blacks tend to have higher blood pressures, for instance. Is this
definition saying that believing what is known is racism?
     Of course, with this definition I can see why Herrnstein and Murray keep
being called racists. (Incidentally, I don't believe they are correct regarding
the genetic component of intelligence as having a racial correlation - the
existing (and unfortunate) environmental differences are a perfectly adequate
explanation. Unfortunately, we can't tell the existence or non-existence of
such differences until the genes affecting intelligence are significantly
better understood; until then, the most pragmatic assumption is the lack of
any such difference, given the lack of any obvious evolutionary cause for it.
In other words, I call _The Bell Curve_ mistaken in its conclusions on race -
not racist. Incindentally, I also believe that such differences are
environmental for the emotional reason that I would be very uncomfortable
believing otherwise. I don't think this is biasing my evaluation of the
science, however.)

Both of these definitions involve "superior" and "superiority"; I thus also
looked this up.

>/superior/ <<su:"pI@rI@(r)>>, <<sju:->>, <<sU->> adj. & n.

>adj.
>1. in a higher position; of higher rank ("a superior officer"; "a superior
>   court").
>2.
>   a. above the average in quality etc. ("made of superior leather").
>   b. having or showing a high opinion of oneself; supercilious ("had a
>      superior air").
>3. (often foll. by "to")
>   a. better or greater in some respect ("superior to its rivals in speed").
>   b. above yielding, making concessions, paying attention, etc. ("is
>      superior to bribery"; "superior to temptation").

      I don't think anyone would disagree that blacks are currently (and
unfortunately) in a lower position in US society overall. Moreover, the 2nd
and 3rd part of the definition make "racism" as defined above a rather
over-inclusive term. For instance, it would call any scientist who does a
study and finds lower IQs among members of some race a racist. Such differences
are well-known to exist, and (as I state above) are probably environmental
in origin.
      In other words, unless one makes the "prejudice" and/or "antagonism"
parts mandatory (in which case it would be narrower than my definition of
racist, which essentially hinges on definite prejudice existing), the Webster
definition of racism is over-inclusive by any reasonable standard.
      -Allen