With all the Ron Paul racism allegations it prompted me to think would be a cogent definition of racism and its corollary sexism. dictionary reference defines racism as :
And sexism as:
Let us first take racism. Normally it is argued that if you discriminate on the basis of race this means your racist. So they give the example if you have two candidates for a job and the black one is "more highly qualified" than the white one and you choose the latter you are racist. Yet the more highly qualified statement, normally based on paper qualifications, doesn't hold since there are many other factors determining whether you'll be good at the job. So if the employer by economising information costs believes that the black man is more likely to be hard work, not fit in with the firm and more likely to go off sick then this is an entirely justified action. It is a similar mechanism that one uses of people from certain backgrounds or places do x or y. It is merely economising on information costs since information is expensive to acquire; if they make mistakes though they will be punished by the market. This also explains why when most people say " I dislike immigrants because...." it is about behaviour and what's associated with immigrant behaviour not them just being an immigrant. What this comes down to is culture; not race but is associated with it. And I think it is clear that an anarchist legal system is better than a statist one thus the former is a superior culture. But suppose the latter is associated with whites and the former with blacks and a white man says "I hate blacks because they're anarchist" is a cultural rather than race based statement. So no racism here.
Supposing though that the employer believed that the two candidates for the job were identical but chose the white man over the black. Is this racist? Well not necessarily. Is giving preferential treatment to your children and family racist? It is an inherently discriminatory act but no one ever calls this racist. But as is obvious races are merely an extrapolation of the family so it thus makes sense you will prefer the one more like you than less. So no racism here either.
Suppose that you are employing people in Saharan Africa and you have a policy of employing only blacks since they are more likely to have sickle cell anemia than whites and thus not susceptible to malaria (I think I remember this correctly but it makes the point). This is now a decision solely based on race but again is not necceasrily racist. It would be the same as appointing an able bodied man over a guy in a wheel chair to be in your rugby team because there physical attributes are going to determine how good they are. This of course leaves open to debated whether certain races are more intelligent than others in the same way that negroes are in general stronger than whites- look at athletics. So no racism here.
The only possible cogent definition of racism is that one believes that another race is morally inferior to another. So one believes that another race is ontologically inferior and deserves to live less than his own race. So examples of this would be those of the eugenics movement who saw blacks as less evolved than whites and so were not to be afforded the same (legal) rights as whites.
This is the same for sexism and you can think of the analogous reasoning from the above.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Well put. Racism (and sexism) are very much anti-concepts, used to derail debate when it isn't working out to one's favour. They're ill-defined words in the minds of most people. Personally, so long as one does not use force against another, I do not care if another person is racist or not. I think it'd be foolish to base employment policies on race when doing so offers no discernible advantage, but this is, as you said, something the market penalizes anyway (a law firm hiring incompetent whites over more competent Asians, for instance, won't last long.)
Regrettably, in this day and age, racism and sexism are just thrown around at anything you don't like, want banned, or otherwise disagree with. It's just like the term "witch" used back in the 17th Century, and has roughly the same effect. Radical, irrational hatred of the accused, even if the accusation is false. One example being a kid who called lines "racist." How that worked escapes me, but hey. When used in the political and social arena it is beyond destructive. I have seen and known people whose reputations were devestated because someone unreasonably and maliciously accused them of racism. To make matters even worse, it is also used as a projection, forcing one's own views on another because they just can't believe it of themselves. For example, a friend of mine was at a restaurant, and a group of blacks nearby approached out of nowhere and called him a racist. Why? Cause he was white, and therefore just must be a racist. This kind of thing is becoming increasingly both common and annoying.
I would personally add to that some other terms:Anarchist, Anti-Semetic, Antisocial
I could come up with more, but I'd need more time to think about it. Basically, they're overused terms that in our declaredly areligious society have replaced predominantly religious accusations such as "witch", "heretic", or "infidel".
In Australia an Indian cricketer was recently castigated for 'allegedly' refering to an Australian player, of Aboriginal decent as a monkey. This was assumed to be racist by all media. Which actually shows their own racial prejudice in assuming that Aboriginals somehow are monkey like.
I remember joking with some asian friends about who were the most monkey like. They were quite adamant that us hairy white people looked more like monkeys due to the hair on our bodies. And I think they have a point...lol
Could it not be that the cricketer in question was not resented for sharing almost the same skin color as the Indian cricketer, but instead that he is a lumbering huge player with huge locks of hair that garnered him the moniker of monkey.
In these politically correct and illogical days the later is not even considered. Instead, what we can see with logic is the prejudice of all who assume some relationship between Aboriginals and monkeys. But hey, call me a monkey if you like, just don't hate on me. Cannot individuals or collections of particular individuals have characteristics with some resemblance to certain animals. eg. Bald men and eagles. Red heads and roosters. Bare footed people and ostriches. Bodybuilders and peacocks. But we dare not to collectivize based on skin color. Things that friends can get a good laugh out of, we dare not now mention in broader society.
LBT:In Australia an Indian cricketer was recently castigated for 'allegedly' refering to an Australian player, of Aboriginal decent as a monkey. This was assumed to be racist by all media. Which actually shows their own racial prejudice in assuming that Aboriginals somehow are monkey like. I remember joking with some asian friends about who were the most monkey like. They were quite adamant that us hairy white people looked more like monkeys due to the hair on our bodies. And I think they have a point...lol Could it not be that the cricketer in question was not resented for sharing almost the same skin color as the Indian cricketer, but instead that he is a lumbering huge player with huge locks of hair that garnered him the moniker of monkey. In these politically correct and illogical days the later is not even considered. Instead, what we can see with logic is the prejudice of all who assume some relationship between Aboriginals and monkeys. But hey, call me a monkey if you like, just don't hate on me. Cannot individuals or collections of particular individuals have characteristics with some resemblance to certain animals. eg. Bald men and eagles. Red heads and roosters. Bare footed people and ostriches. Bodybuilders and peacocks. But we dare not to collectivize based on skin color. Things that friends can get a good laugh out of, we dare not now mention in broader society.
Great point.