iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Jan 07, 2023 6:48 pm
Okay, that's one frame of mind, of course. What's crucial here however is the extent to which others insist it's a manifestation of human biology. Such that other races are said to be "naturally"/"genetically" inferior.
AJ wrote: My review of the evidence, or of the arguments, points to some IQ differences between the large racial groups. So according to those studies the East Asians have a slightly higher average IQ than, say, the average European. They also say that on average the *sub-saharan Africans* have an even lower one than the Europeans.
Iambiguous: How much lower? Enough, say, to prompt you to suggest that it is best that white women avoid becoming pregnant through intercourse with black or brown men? Enough to suggest that schools ought to be segregated? Enough to suggest that it is perfectly reasonable to reject affirmative action in the workplace because blacks are "naturally" inferior to whites given jobs that required a greater intelligence?
Why does the exact number matter to you? I report to you that when those interested in this issue (Arthur Jenson is one) conduct their studies they conclude an average that is lower. So what? If some group is higher (some Asians and Ashekenazi Jews) does it seem illogical or simply unfair that some communities have lesser IQs?
If the white women did not become pregnant through intercourse -- what other means do you propose? Artificial insemination by the State?
My own
opinion, based to some degree on aesthetics, is that European women make a
better choice when they choose a mate from among their own *racial stock*. But I say the same about Africans, Japanese, Chinese.
When you ask about segregated schools you are I gather referring to US schools? And to the forced integration (by the federal government) of schools in the South? My research has indicated that it would have been better for African Americans to take charge of their own education. I am not certain if forced integration has been a benefit for African Americans.
You keep attempting to mire me within the moral questions which, as someone without any morality and for whom morality is a situational issue based on what you refer to as 'dasein', you cannot really have any position on. Yet you seem to have a position or 'feelings' in any case.
It is certainly the better choice to reject affirmative action completely. For a number of reasons. One is that the State should never be given the power that it has been given. Two is that it leads to questionable benefits to Blacks themselves.
In the best of all possible worlds, obviously, the best qualified should get the job.
Iambiguous: Again, back to what, if you were in power in any particular community, you would embrace in regard to social, political and economy policies in regard to race.
We do not live in communities where one person has power of that sort. You seem to be asking me to place myself in the position of an absolute dictator who could make absolute decisions.
In the course of my researches (when I was researching these issues) I was drawn to consider the immigration laws of 1924 (The Immigration Act of 1924, or Johnson–Reed Act). It was restrictive and favored, through percentages, immigrants from nations that had a presence already. And mostly from Northern Europe. In my own opinion this immigration law was a good one, not a bad one, though it was fought against tooth and claw for ideological reasons. The 1930s were extremely contentious ideologically.
“AMERICA OF THE MELTING POT COMES TO END,” the New York Times headline blared in late April 1924. The opinion piece that followed, penned by Senator David Reed of Pennsylvania, claimed recent immigrants from southern and Eastern European countries had failed to satisfactorily assimilate and championed his recently passed legislation to severely restrict immigration to the United States. He proudly proclaimed, “The racial composition of America at the present time thus is made permanent.”
The 1924 Johnson-Reed Act, which Congress had overwhelmingly passed just weeks before and which President Coolidge would sign into law the following month, marked the start of a dark chapter in the nation’s immigration history. It drastically cut the total number of immigrants allowed in each year and effectively cut off all immigration from Asia. It made permanent strict quotas—defined as “two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census”—in order to favor immigrants from northern and Western Europe and preserve the homogeneity of the nation. The new system also required immigrants to apply for and receive visas before arriving and established the U.S. Border Patrol.
Note the reference to 'dark chapters' and the sense of encroaching moral evil. If you ask me for my opinion I will start by asking you (and anyone) if you and we are capable of free thought. Free thought as distinct from through coerced and determined by manipulative moral arguments based in assigning moral shame. I went through a process of dealing with *moral shame* and I overcame it. This does not mean that I do not have morality. It means I can reason my way though apparent moral conflicts.
So if this is something you wish to talk about I have no problem doing so. But we will have to establish a ground for such a conversation.
What I can tell you is that the US is entering into a demographic crisis. Shall I assume that you do not read contemporary titles? When a nation like the US, with a traditional supermajority of European descent, is transformed extremely rapidly into another sort of nation, with another sort of demographic, social conflict arises. Social conflict of this sort has arisen. It is as visible to you as it is to me. You seem to be emotionally involved in moral issues around this. What are those concerns of yours?
Iambiguous: Me? Well, again, I recognize the complexity of the issue. But what I focus more on is not the conflicting arguments themselves so much as the role that dasein plays in predisposing some existentially to become racist, and others not to.
Your use of this glossary term dasein at every juncture leads me to believe that you enjoy fuzzy definitions. I can suggest that you introduce a sentence that defines what it is you mean when you use that word -- but I will not insist.
To say "the role that dasein plays in predisposing some existentially to become racist, and others not to" is evidence of really fuzzy thinking. The language seems to determine whatever your conclusion is.
When you use the word *racism* and *racist* you are resorting to hot terms that have been defined by others. These terms have become to hot to have much use for us.
So I try to clarify things by saying: any person, in any culture, has a right to define themselves at a somatic level. Just as they can define themselves on all other levels. If they decide that valuing their somatic type is relevant to them, on what basis could I oppose them? Therefore, a Japanese man or woman has my blessing if they choose to produce children from their own stock, following their cultural and ethnic line. It is not *immoral* to do so.
Are they racists according to your definitions if they do? Yes. Because you use a hot word that has been ideologically intensified. The word "racist" and "racism" are more often than not (highly frequency) words in the service of Progressive, Socialist and Marxian agendas. They propose to *value* racial difference but what their policies result in is the destruction of those categories.
In rejecting Progressivism, Socialism and Marxian philosophy and praxis, I must work to clarify language and concepts that have become "occupied". I wonder if this makes much sense to you? Despite your use of such loose and flexible terms like dasein and your rejection of a defined moral system, you definitely seem to be Left-Progressive. Thus, according to me, you cannot think straight. And 3/4s of my efforts will then, necessarily, be devoted to disentangling your terms.
As a starting point I
REJECT a great deal of what has been determined to be *right & good*. Each item has to be carefully gone through. I have the freedom to do this. I am
uncertain if you (and others) do. It is a more interesting starting point.
That's the part that is "problematic" to me. How far will those convinced that black and brown people are inherently/biologically inferior to white -- and yellow? -- people go when they are in a position of power.
They are very far from having the 'power' you talk about.
Then back to how far you would go given particular contexts.
Once again I reveal my position: I am a theorist, not an activist. You seem to want to move me from a theoretical plane to an active one. Why?
Now, what I suspect of course is that most here, in having, existentially, acquired political prejudices regarding race given their indoctrination as children and the uniquely personal experiences they accumulated as adults, will sift through all of the conflicting assessments from the links above and find ways to confirm their own subjective assumptions.
Perhaps they will dance an
Irish jig while preparing a soufflé? You just never know these days!
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:39 pmMyself, I resolved the problem very differently in respect to African-Americans. My view is that *White man's culture* is an enormous imposition on a people who did not arrive in it voluntarily. It has all been forced on them. Even when a supposed freedom was granted them even that was just another form of imposition. That is, "OK now you are free. Now you will be expected to 'become white'." There is no point at which the imposition was not operative. The same was true (perhaps to a lesser extend) in European imperial projects.
Iambiguous: Still, the bottom line here [yours] is that however history itself played out, it doesn't make the white race any less superior to the black, brown and red races. Though perhaps "slightly" inferior to the yellow race.
You will have to clearly define your views on *superiority*. What do you mean by that?
And given that this is a thread revolving around Christianity, one has to take into account the narratives that many Christians embrace in regard to race. Christians rationalizing slavery for example.
I doubt you will find, except among very fringe Christian groups, very much racialist concern at all. But there are some in the Protestant camp who define 'kinism' and in the Catholic camp there are some with ethnic/racialist (and religious) concerns.
Where's the objective science rather than the hopelessly subjective political prejudices rooted in dasein to back that up?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:39 pmWell, I will admit that something like *objective science* does exist but it is especially proficient in non-contentious areas. When
certain studies about IQ have been published (see Roger Pearson and Arthur R. Jenson for examples) they are met with
fierce resistance. Is the resistance *science based* or is it based on feeling and sentiment? My
impression has been that of feeling and sentiment. That it is 'wrong' to have any idea except the politically correct one.
Imabiguous: Right. And you would insist there actually is a politically correct frame of mind here. One that revolves around the belief that the white race is superior to black, brown and red races. Why? Because that conclusion is based on the scientifically correct assumptions of those like Shockley.
Shockley asserted he was correct within a limited area. But beyond that he did not make recommendations.
It appears that she [Coulter] might be [racist]. And what does it mean to be assimilated? Give us some specific examples of what it means [to you] to be in sync with the occidental -- white? -- culture. In terms of what?
Again, you need to work through your terms. Your use of the term racist is purposed to be condemnatory. Anyone with a preference for their own culture and 'somatic heritage' is a racist according to your usage. What ideological assertions and predicates stand behind this? Are you sure that you are aware? Have you thought these things through?
Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:39 pmGoogle, Wiki -- these are completely contaminated. Don't you know this? They construct algorhythms to produce specific results and not others.
Imabiguous: Sure they are. That is, unless the articles and the links are in sync with your own political prejudices. Come on, left or right, hypocrisy will always be around, one suspects.
No, there is actually a way to describe things fairly, accurately and better. And what works against that is the intrusion of ideological positions. Especially this is so when Progressive and Egalitarian ideology are operative.
Your statements reveal your link with those things.
Besides, as a racialist yourself, wouldn't you applaud the fact that she is "one of us"?
One of us? I thought your were Samoan?
I admire Coulter quite a bit.
