Q&A: Racism
Racism
Question
Almost everyone would agree that there are physical differences between races, but if it’s something offensive then suddenly it becomes “prejudice.” For example, saying “X are stupid” is of course a nasty thing to say, but isn’t it false to deny that this is even a possibility? Similar to how certain African groups are tall and strong.
I used “stupidity” as an example because it very likely has a physical basis (decline resulting from physical injury would prove that).
But it doesn’t sound far-fetched to me to say that character traits also have some genetic component (this connects to the famous debate between Chomsky and Foucault). And if so, isn’t it a violation of truth to claim there is no basis for statements like “X are stingy,” “Y are thieves,” “Z are liars,” “Jews are cunning”?
Even on the far right (in Israel regarding Arabs, and in the U.S. regarding Blacks), everyone is careful to say that these are traits whose source is culture and education. Even though one could bring strong arguments against that hypothesis. And saying the source is race sounds absurd and is reserved for delusional neo-Nazis.
Practically speaking, there isn’t much difference, because of course it’s forbidden to make offensive statements, and certainly not ones that fools will interpret as applying to each and every individual. But don’t we need to preserve common sense among ourselves?
P.S. I don’t prefer a theory that says the source of bad traits is race rather than culture. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to adopt a methodology that takes feelings into account when prioritizing theories.
Answer
I’ve written about this several times, in columns and in questions. Search here on the site for “racism.” Here I’ll just add a few comments.
1. Clearly, you are right. There is not the slightest trace of racism in this. Even if it is factually incorrect, that would be an error, not racism.
2. I don’t see why attributing it to culture is better than attributing it to race. In my view it’s the opposite. Attributing it to culture means attributing it to something for which you bear some blame, unlike race.
3. There is a flaw in applying such generalizations to specific individuals without checking their particular case. That perhaps could be called racism, although even here the terminology is not very good (but as I explained, it is doubtful whether there is anything that truly deserves the label “racism” in a satisfactory sense. In my opinion, not really). And even that is only if there is no justification for not checking (for example, if the checking is very expensive and difficult, or simply impossible).
Discussion on Answer
I had a commander in the army who tended to soften criticism and rejection by telling people that in any case it was clear they had tried hard and invested effort, etc. And I told him that sometimes it’s better for a person to think he really does have the ability in terms of talent and that “only” effort is lacking, or the talent for applying effort, than to think that even though he did everything he could, he is hopeless in this world. And by way of wordplay, this could be called “a diligent failure” — diligent, diligent, but still a failure.
Thank you very much!
An interesting point: somewhat strangely, people would be flattered if told, “You’re very talented; it’s a shame you’re ruining everything for yourself,” and would be very offended if told, “You’re not all that talented, and through hard work you achieved extremely impressive results. Well done! Keep going and succeed!”
So it’s obvious to everyone that heaven forbid you should tell someone he is genetically stupid, but everyone is totally fine with “You behave stupidly on a regular basis.”