Talk:Racism/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Explanation of cuts

Originally, all I did was delete unsubstsantiated and likely wrong claims, e.g. this:
Racism may have originated as an extension of feelings of loyalty to family. People may see a race as an extended family, and have loyalties to their own as they would to their own family, tribe, clan, or nation. This often translates to a distrust and dislike of "out-groups".
Although normaly I just get pissed-off at such right-wing neo-fascist propeganda, I think it is unwise to bring this level of politics into Wikipedia. The only reason I deleted it is because it is unsusbtsnatiated speculation that has no basis in any research. I really do not think this is the right way to go about writing an encuyclopedia article. This view in academc circles is called "primordialism" (itself a misinterpretationof an argument made by the sociologist Edward Shils and anthropologist Clifford Geertz) andit is just embarassing to include it in an encyclopedia. There is as much psychological evidence for intrafamilial forces that lead to conflict and dispersion as to closeness and identification; the history of "race" and "family" as social institutions and ideas are quite distinct; the passage uses words "clan, tribe" and so on anachronistically, the way ournalists used them in the 19th century and not the way social scientists use them today. Look, I didn't mean to piss off someone's political agenda, I was just deleting non-scientific and non-empirical crap. But I respect those who argue that one should add and not cut, so I drew on two of the most well-established and well-regarded theorists of national identity and ethnic segmentation (Anderson and Wolf); I am not so expert on Gellner but of course he should be broughtin. The crucial issue here is to distinguish conceptually between ethnonational identities and racial ones. The bodies of research are different (although I admit some overlap) and clearly racial and national discources become salient and operate at differet times in different places. My main pint is that contributors to an encyclopedia should do research and draw on resaearch and not just scribble down their personal reflections on a Discovery channel documentary. There are people who research this stuff for a living.
I did not delete any previous factual claims. I am just not sure what to make of your remarks -- historians are pretty clear on the rise of modern races in the 17th-19th centuries, I certainly see no basis for explaining "racism" based on anything prior to that. (by the way, there is no political axe being grinded here; the colonial origins of race and racism explain hatred by non-European races against European races; I simply do not get your comment about "Europe colonial villains;" what I added says nothing about "european colonial villains." Similarly, all important scholarship today dwells on the iportance of distinguishing between 'ancient ethnic hatred" (whateve that means) and racism; an encyclopdia article should not be sloppy when dozzens of first-race scholars are going over documentary evidence and oral history quite carefully to sort out what is going on tiday. In any event you need to be clear as to what you mean by "racism" which you are trying to explain.
As for more recent racial conflicts (e.g. over bussing and affirmative action in the United States) I certainly agree with you that the explanation you asked me to put in is inadequate (I only insist that it not be "explained" the same way as "ancient ethnic hatreds!"). What is needed is less speculation and more concrete historical and socail research. But this was my objection all along, that the earlier paragraph was pure speculation that was utterly ignroant of any research. If you are suggesting a need to add more detail to explain more recent forms of racial conflict, I simply agree with you. I do not think that what I put in needs to be deleted, since it reflects recent scholarship and is relevant -=- but I wholehartedly agree with you that more recent scholarship should be added. Slrubenstein
By the way, I agree with you that my claim that Darwinian theory ws misconstrued is POV but only in the catholic sense that ALL statements in Wikipedia express some POV. Are you asking that if be rephrased in some way like, "The notion of evolution, currentlypopular and increasingly legitimate through the work of naturalists such as Charles Darwin, was intepreted and put to political uses that virutally all historialns of science and biologists today consider a thorough miconstrual?" A admit that his is more accurate and precise, but isn't it rather overwroguht for a simple point?Slrubenstein

Foo Tribe

There is much to disagree with here. I don't know what is trendy in this branch of academia, and forgive me if I'm skeptical. "Right-wing neo-fascist propaganda" seems quite a pile to lay on these ideas. But I will take immediate issue with the racism/ethnic hatred divide. Is someone from the Foo tribe who in 800 AD considered the Bar tribe members to be filthy animals not racist?
This is a fair question and an empirical question. What evidence do you have that someone from the Foo tribe who considered members of he Bar tribe "filthy animals" to be racist? Slrubenstein

The normal use of the word would I believe say that is (was) racism.

Peak: Yes, we understand that many people today might call things like you describe as racist (though perhaps your particular example, as Slr suggests, is not very persuasive), but what about the people at the time? If they did not have a word for "racism", how would we know that they thought of it as what we call "racism"? Here is an example of where someone writing in the first century AD might well have chosen to include something to do with "racism" but did not. The text is from Colossians 3:11. "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free...." The relevant distinctions being made here have to do with ethnicity (language/culture/religion), cultural practices, and so on.
Peak If you look at Chinese sources, you will probably find much the same thing. (If you don't, then let us know!) Take a look at [1] Topics in Premodern Chinese History (Gregory James Smits). Here's a sample:
When, in modern times, Europeans brought their obsession with "colors" and "races" to China (where these notions took root and flourished), Chinese intellectuals began to regard the Yellow Emperor as the biological progenitor of "the Chinese people" and thus the founder of "the Chinese race."
Peak 21:47, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
what you call "the normal" use of the word I consider anachronistic and sloppy scholarship. I will give an analogy. People today get married (let's make things simple and say "in a Catholic Church"). 1500 years ago people also got married (again, in a Catholic Church). It would be the worst kind of scholarship to assume that they are getting married for the same reasons, and that the institution of marriage has the same meanings and functions. It may, but it may not andin fact much evidence suggests that it doesn't. This is an encyclopedia, a serious endeavor. You give the example of the Foo tribe. Now please give your evidence for your interpretation. Prove it is "racism." Slrubenstein
I guess I don't understand the question. What kind of "evidence" or "proof" would you accept? As a native English speaker, this screams "racism" to me. I think most other native speakers would feel similarly. This alone should resolve the question, at least about the colloquial use, which deserves coverage. I'm also not sure what your marriage example proves. I would say Odysseus and Penelope were married, even if the function of marriage then was somewhat different, just as I would say Achilleus was angry, even if the things likely to get people angry have changed. -- VV 21:28, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you mean racism in some technical sense used by scholars, that definition should be given in parallel with the colloquial one.

PeakYes, but what is missing in the current version?
Agreed. But we can certainly agree that an encyclopedia should at least include scholarly views.Slrubenstein

Also see my comments to Peak above; human evolution into races occured tens of thousands of years ago, not last week.

Peak: When do you think the "white race" (I think you used the term "Caucasian") first came into existence? Please give at least one recent scientific source.
I'm not concerned about the hyperboly. But I think POM and many other contributors to this project would disagree with you. There has been an extensive debate on the race page as well. Most scientists disagre with your view, although some agree. Slrubenstein

(note: that's hyperbole, like the villains comment; I know you said 17th century). -- VV 03:55, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

However, regarding this: A famous experiment of this nature in cognitive psychology showed that the majority of Americans would remember a lower-status "black" man as having a knife in his hand, after viewing a picture which in fact showed a "white" man in a suit with a knife facing this lower status man. This suggests that the way memory is organized may actually help create racism in human beings. I think that this actually suggests racism affects perceptions, and therefore memories we store -- not the other way around. -- BCorr € Брайен 22:42, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

For more recent explanations this seems valuable -- will you add it? I think by the way that if we are going to develop the section on explanations we need to rorganize it. I suggest at least two crude divisions: explanations from the Mercantilist period, when modern notions of race and racism were being developed, versus explanations from the late 19th century (e.g. after the decline of the slave conomy); alos, sociological (by which I inlude politiocal and economic explanations, and psychological explanations. What do you think, Bcorr?

The Fray, part N + 1

Part of the problem of writing this article is that no one wants to admit to being a "racist". See Zionism is racism, for example.

It's hard to define terms like racial profiling, racial discrimination, racial prejudice and so on except in terms of injustice. And who's going to allow a charge of unjustice to go unanswered? Only a dead man. --Uncle Ed 22:25, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

P0M: So true.
P0M: A moment ago the first sentence said: "Racism refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions that negatively discriminate against people based on their perceived 'race'." I think we've been by that sentence once before and somebody objected to "perceived". I would like to urge that we retain this formulation as close enough. English does not seem to have a better word, and "perception" can be interpreted more broadly than just the reports of our sense organs. It is the old question of why people perceive a black cord to be a black snake. Perception almost always involves a component of interpretation. The other way would be to work at it the other way around, speaking of what a person believes the race of another person to be.
"Race" is only perception. There's no objective definition for it, certainly not in genetics, and the perception has been closely studied in social psychology and even cognitive psychology in some very famous experiments - "race perception" is a form of stereotyping and categorizing like any other that goes on in the human mind. Ann Kyslowski 22:54, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
P0M: I agree. The problem is to get other people to let what you have said be said clearly, so clearly that people don't get snowed.

As an American, I can say flatly that there has been racism in the United States of America since 1676. Whoever has been editing this article is in serious denial. Try reading some Howard Zinn or anything by anyone darker than a brown paper bag, folks. What's wrong with this picture? Ann Kyslowski

A number of people have been working on this -- often at cross-purposes and in conflict. So it would help if you give specific examples (of recent edits you think are bad) Slrubenstein
P0M: Again, I agree, at least about the reality of racism and the irreality of race. Some of us are trying to say these things the right way, which means starting with fundamentals and nailing down every plank in the structure.
Racism is real. Race isn't. I can't say it any clearer than that. Ann Kyslowski 23:11, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
P0M: As Chip Delaney says, "Race is a myth." But it is a powerful myth, and some of us want to hold onto it. We need to discuss clearly what is real and what is a social construct. Some people want to maintain that there is something real out there that is sufficiently close to what people have meant by "race" that it makes sense to talk about "race" -- or something like that. I'm not always good at reproducing points of view that I have trouble with in a way that satisfies the other person.
Well, this is of course the challenge of NPOV -- you are right, and know you are right, and have good criticms of the other view that must be included in n encyclopedia. Yet, you cannot say you are right, and you cannotsay the other view is wrong. We have been struggling with this for years and there has been a lot written on it -- but for now, my briefest advice is -- when looking for advice on NPOV process -- ask Ed Poor! Slrubenstein
P0M: And how refreshing to have a person with a real name!
We'll see if I regret using it. I hear from people who edit here that there are serious issues with libel, and other games like "outing", which would get your balls or breasts cut off where I come from, and rightfully so. I'm tough so I don't mind people lying about me. We'll see how it all works out. Ann Kyslowski 23:11, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Obviously you are not the only one to use her real neame (if it is your real neame!) Welcome to Wikipedia. In my experience, you will get tired of some people real quick, but very very seldom does it reach a point where libel is a real issue (mostly because people judge accusations of libel based on who is making the accusation) Slrubenstein
In my experience, libel doesn't become a "real issue" only because those most seriously libelled often lack the legal resources or expertise or contacts to make it one. If "people judge" based on reputations of who makes the accusation, usually the abused person, then, that will always favour powerful people abusing less powerful people and using "the system" to get away with it. I don't think you would like the words I use to describe people who do this. As a libertarian I think exploiting complex legal systems and systemic racism to keep certain people "down", is the most reprehensible thing someone can do, especially someone with the priveleges of a full Western legal education. Where I come from, we don't report crimes of person against this kind of lawyer who aligns himself to power. Clear? That's kind of a "tribal" attitude, but it's what we are about. Talk to anyone in South Central LA about OJ if you still don't get it. Ann Kyslowski 00:14, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Too much to respond to now! Quickly -- as Ann said, "Racism is real. Race isn't" But this is a hard one for people -- my first melee at Wikipedia was with RK over the Race and intelligence article. This is going to take some time... -- BCorr € Брайен 23:14, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Truth is always hard for people. There really shouldn't be articles like race and intelligence that assume "Race is real" in their very title. Also the proposed rewrite above uses "race" as a noun way too much.
Without getting into me personally, I just don't fit any racial category. The image of me you get from my name is wrong. That causes me endless problems. It's pretty hard not to imagine that if someone gives you an interview thinking you are "white", and then tells you the job is filled when you arrive, that this is not racism. If there are racists editing, and a lot of comments in the logs suggest there are, I suggest you drive them off. They have no right to exist, let alone to be writing anything impressionable people may read. You don't have to be nice to racists. Quite the opposite. You have to cost them opportunities, and turn the other way when bad things happen to them. It's really that simple. That's all that they understand. Ann Kyslowski 00:14, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Peak: Over on the "Race" page, the point you make about the existence of race has been a topic of contention for some time, and I speak as a victim of many reversions to changes that I thought were necessary to eliminate the assumption that "race exists".
Given the way Wikipedia currently works, the best I think one can hope for is that changes to favor NPOV and the inclusion of the descriptions of different POVs from a NPOV will not be reverted. (If they are, one can call in the Sysop police.) In the present case, since it is a fact that words like "race" and "racism" have several different meanings, I think it is simplest to list them, so that one can be quite specific about which referent one has in mind. (See my December 14 draft above, for example.) As for "race", some contemporary botanists do use the word "race" in a specific scientific sense (much like bacteriologists use the word "strain"). This has nothing to do with "racism", but it is relevant on the "race" page.Peak 00:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)


P0M: I believe that, like vampires, it is better to treat the [existence] of ideas like this as a phenomenon, to explore how the phenomenon arose, how it came into question (with scholars like Boas who still used the word while pointing out what was wrong with the concept), how the social construct has been picked apart, how some have attempted to patch it back together again, etc.
P0M: If you do not carefully dissect an idea like this, then it is much easier for people with an agenda to introduce naive people to the "truth" (said sarcastically) about various [races]. I'm putting ungrounded words in square brackets. Sorry to be phenomenological about it. People hate it, I know.
FYI, Ann Kyslowski turned out to be a banned user, so we can take "her" words however we wish, but know that this user loves to stir up the pot and cause trouble. Cheers, BCorr € Брайен 03:12, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Too bad, because EoT or Ann was making some very good points. I wish banned users would show their "toughness" and send that humble-pie-eating e-mail to Jimbo that would get them re-instated. Lir managed to do it (with a little coaching and cheerleading from me), why not EoT? Tip: if you do decide to come back, try to pick a nicer name -- I never liked the way you packed Ents and Trolls into the same name: Ents are the good guys, and Trolls are irredeemably bad. If you want to talk about irredeemably bad racists, it might make it easier for everyone here if you chose a name that didn't carry a connotation of badness mixed in with the good (at least as far as Tolkien fans are concerned). --Uncle Ed 17:02, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I must greatly disagree. "Her" turning out to be a banned user (and troll) explains a lot. Her rhetoric was way over the top, hinting at violence and saying "racists" (presumably whoever fits her definition of such) should be "driven off" (and their POVs presumably not accommodated), and that violence etc. is all they understand. Did you catch all those comments? This is the work of either a lunatic or a troll. -- VV 21:15, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I took out the sentence I mentioned before: This suggests that the way memory is organized may actually help create racism in human beings. It seems like a supposition, etc., etc. -- BCorr € Брайен 17:53, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Fray, part N + 2

P0M 16:40, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC):Peak asked a question a while back, and nobody has answered it. It really has two parts, I think. How would you know whether the Ainu, the Hunza, etc. are [races], and how would you know whether somebody was truly a member of one of those groups? Or, as he put it himself, "By the way, what do *you* mean by race? Would it enable me to determine if there is a Japanese race? What about the Ainu? The Hunza people? "

Simple Editing Problems

P0M: Right after the "external links" section begins, there is quoted text that begins: "who study the concept". It should presumably begin: "Those who study..." Moreover, since the line begins with a space, it appears on-screen as a single line that marches off the screen to the right. Could somebody who knows what is going on with that quotation (?) please fix it appropriately? Thanks.

P0M 15:00, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC): If nobody says anything about this intrusive line of text I will probably just move to this talk page to see whether anybody claims this orphan or wants to rehabilitate it.

Race as a social -- not genetic -- construct

I'm working on this for something else, but I think it adresses a number of items raised above by everyone. Specifically, I think this speaks to VV's comment on my race not being really about biology.

Although there are dissenters, nearly all scientists agree that there is no single trait, characteristic, or gene that distinguishes all members of one race from all the members of another race. And most scientists reject the common perception that these differences are grouped around clearly defined characteristics that can be identified as races.

P0M: The question that one faces in this "fray" is how to adopt a NPOV to those who maintain that "race is real" and yet not end up using the word "race" in such a way as to assume its validity.

In spite of the surface appearances that we tend to be very attuned to, humans are one of the most similar of species. In fact, most genetic variation occurs within -- not between -- races. Of the remaining genetic variation in humans, 85 percent exists within any given local population -- Russian, Inuit, Kenyan, Thai, or Canadian. Approximately 94 percent of that genetic variation can be found on any continent – so that two random Japanese people may be as genetically different as a Japanese and an Brazilian.

P0M: I think nobody here (or on the Race:talk page) would deny that, but there are those that try to argue that there are clusters of genetic characteristic the possession of which selects groups that "closely correspond" to traditional racial characteristics -- as though we didn't already know that, e.g., the Chinese population has a high level of agenesis, shovel-shaped incisors, epicanthic folds, lactose intolerance, etc. And they seem to me to avoid talking about whether the occasional Chinese person without shovel-shaped incisors is "not really Chinese". I think you are preaching both to the choir and also to the incorrigible free thinkers.

So in short, the visual differences which tell how to perceive someone's race – and which we are attuned to -- do not tell us anything significant about a person's biological makeup or intellect, as variation between humans is highly non-concordant. Most human traits are influenced by different genes, and are therefore inherited independently. They are not bundled into the same groupings that are defined as races -- which one would expect if they were concordant – and the presence of one trait does not guarantee or suggest the presence of another.

P0M: Of course that is true. But you will find people arguing that a high percentage of people who are around two meters tall are either from somewhere in northern Europe or are from among the Tutsi, Nuer, and Shilluks of Africa, and that "therefore" Africans and Lithuanians are genetically privileged when it comes to playing basketball. The trick is to separate prediction in probabalistic terms ("If I'm only given a one hour window in which to find fifteen people over 6' 6" tall, I've got a better shot at it in Lithuania than in Okinawa.") from statements about [races]. -- and do it all in a way that does not make a POV characterization regarding anyone who might claim that, e.g., "All Estonians are over 6 feet tall."

For example, few would argue that you can identify or even guess a person's eye color from their height, or their blood type from the size of their head -- or from the color of their skin. And when examining more complex and subtle and issues – for example, how someone's mathematical skills or their athletic ability are related to their facial features or skin color, most scientists agree that one cannot talk about that racial characteristics, whether internal or external.

P0M: I think what you say is true. (You may need to define "few". ;-) Again, is there a way that one can talk about the fact that racism is a reality, that people look at a little kid's skin color and decide on that basis whether to follow him around their store to prevent shoplifting, without departing from an entirely objective point of view? When we are talking about racism, our focus is not likely to be on people who systematically avoid subjective biases.

While there are indeed genetic differences between people, a more accurate description is ancestry, as opposed to "race," when looking at the roots of inherited diseases or conditions. Obviously, not everyone who appears to look alike or who lives in the same nation or region shares a common ancestry, so more often than not, using race as shorthand for ancestry is also misleading.

P0M: I would prefer "genetic heritage". It would seem good policy to me that if you have a grant for a few million to be spent on skin cancer in Africa, and an equivalent amount to be spent on skin cancer in Europe and North America, you probably will want to direct most of the African money toward treatment of the rare courses of skin cancer that turn up, and part of the Europe/NA money toward educational efforts aimed at teaching high risk (light-skinned)people to recognize the signs of skin cancer and get themselves to their family doctor if they see something suspicious-looking, while reserving some money for treatment of individuals not covered by health insurance. But the problem in an article on racism is to show how what you are saying, and what I am agreeing with, does not make sense to people who practice racism.

For example, sickle-cell disease is often thought of as a racial disease that afflicts Africans and African-Americans. But it is one result of a gene that increases resistance to malaria, and sickle-cell disease is found in areas where malaria is or was endemic -- such as western and central western Africa, around the Mediterranean, and in Arabia -- and not in southern Africa. And while most people agree that racial profiling is wrong when done by the police, doctors are still trained to immediately categorize all patients by age, race, and gender: "a 62-year-old Hispanic woman is complaining of..." or "the patient is a eight-year-old Caucasian male with a fever of 102. These deeply rooted ideas and practices concerning race are generally considered "a given," "obvious," or "just common sense," and are part of everyday life in many societies.

P0M: Again, you are correctly characterizing realities. The question that needs to be addressed is how people are influenced to jump from what makes sense to what doesn't make sense.

At the same time, the societal effects of race -- and the reality of living one's life as a member of a given race in society -- do have actual biological consequences. For example, African American males die of heart disease at a rate five times higher than white American men, and Native Americans have the highest rates of diabetes in the United States.

P0M: The fear that one will be pistol-whipped for "driving while black" must have health consequences. I suspect that lab animals raised in trick cages, the bottoms of which would drop out from under them on a random schedule, would display blood pressure abnormalities, immune system dysfunction, etc. And if a certain human population has a high incidence of inability to clear the body of alcohol in an efficient way, and alcoholism is viewed as a moral failing and therefore not treated by public health authorities, then I would expect high mortality in that population due to the sequelae of alcoholism. The failures of reason, the lack of objectivity, the hatreds, etc., behind these ills all need to be explicated.


And while it is important to look at whether this is a result of genetic makeup or social conditions, it is difficult to identify how to measure this relationship. How would a scientific experiment determine who is Native American or African American on a "genetic level?" So while access to medical care, health insurance, and living conditions affect individuals' overall, so does the stress that comes from living with racism -- but these items are not determined by a person's genetic makeup.

P0M: It is ironic that what were originally adaptations become problematical due to the deficiencies of other people. Occasionally useful adaptations protect some people against certain hazards, and those who do not share the adaptations are demonized for being morally lax when they can't handle the alcohol (or whatever) that the well-adapted ones have made a part of their daily lives and even urge on other people. ("Come on, have a drink. Why won't you drink with me, you uppity SOB?")

That's it for now... -- BCorr € Брайен 04:43, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nature-Nurture controversy

I haven't studied the article carefully. It keeps changing too fast, and there's so much argument about whether "race" exists or not that I get lost.

But the racism and race articles should complement each other. And maybe both articles would benefit from an attempt to separate:

  • biological aspects (like susceptibility to sickle-cell disease or sunburn); from
  • social or psychological aspects (like average SAT scores, or success in business or politics)
P0M: We need to keep our eyes crossed. One eye looks at the realities (such as were restated in the section immediately above), and the other eye needs to look at the ungrounded assertions that buzz around them like the fruit flies that come after the vapors rising from my glass of wine.
P0M: If we fail to establish a properly grounded methodology in inquiry, then we will keep raising and re-raising these questions. In my attempt to understand some of what I regard as problematical areas in the Race and the Racism articles, I have gone back over the archives fairly thoroughly. It is rather shocking to see how much good stuff has been consigned to oblivion.
P0M: I learned a rather brutal lesson while residing in a country where, shall we say, freedom on inquiry in certain subjects was frowned upon. It is essential to explore very carefully what the realities are first, and name the realities second. Otherwise, people with 50 different ideas on what "race" is will fight forever.

Some aspects cross the line I just proposed, or blur the distinction I'm trying to make. Do black people have more "soul"? And can that account for their success as popular entertainers?

P0M: The only way to know whether somebody has "soul" is to examine them for possession of "soul." One of the English jazz singers (sorry, I can't remember his name) went to the U.S. and met with some of the good jazz performers in Chicago or wherever it was. "I'm Beek Splavendorst," said he. "No you aren't," said the Afro-American jazz man, "He's black!" I think the English singer took that as a compliment and left it at that.
P0M: Once while living in Taiwan I rode my bicycle out to visit a friend who lived in a neighborhood that I had not visited before. While fishing out my notebook to check my friend's street number, I saw an American teenager ride his bicycle up. I suppose I thought something like, "Strange, what's an army brat doing this far away from the American ghetto?" Then the boy called out loudly, "Mama, wo hui lai le!" and my illusions were shattered. Here was a boy with an entirely American (white) appearance who was entirely Chinese in behavior. It is culture that makes the difference of "guo2 cui4" or "national character", or "ethnicity."

Why are there so many famous black basketball champions? Or, more to the point, is there a biological reason that so many recent marathon winners come from the same tribe in one small African country?

P0M: There are not many famous black basketball champions with an Ituri genetic heritage. On the other hand, having a Tutsi genetic heritage will not guarantee the ability to play basketball well -- even if the guy is tall. And being Chinese does not preclude being way tall. The pitfall lies at the landing point when you try to jump from statistical facts to absolute predictions.

We know that skin color and the shape of noses, eyes and lips are inherited. But do these physical, biological things really correlate with social and psychological things?

P0M: In a way, perhaps. I weighed 118 pounds and stood 5' 10" at age 18. Years later, after training in karate that would have probably been criminal due to its intensity had it not been entirely voluntary (Hi, sensei, I don't really mean it.) I got my weight up to 175. Two things: (1) I suffered for being the "98 pound weakling" that Charles Atlas used to sell physical development plans to. (2) I suffered to get my body up to its maximum level -- and proved to myself that I would be highly unlikely to gain another 75 pounds of muscle.
P0M: Correlation is not the same as causation.
P0M: Some psychological characteristics are probably heritable. Depression, for instance. But brains are not finished at birth. Growing up in an environment that makes you a target because of your skin color or your violet eyes or whatever may expose you to stress, to stress-produced endocrine abnormalities, and therefore may grow you a different brain. A person who has inherited risk factors for depression might make it safely through life given one family environment from infancy to maturity, and might grow a depression-prone brain given a dysfunctional family environment. It is extremely difficult to pick those factors apart, and carefully crafted twin studies are probably the only hope of our doing so.

And IF THEY DO CORRELATE, what does this mean? If American blacks score 15 points lower on IQ tests, is this because of:

  • cultural bias in the tests - controversial
  • black kids watch more TV - easily checked statistic
  • black kids more often don't have a father who is married to their mother - easily checked statistic
  • affirmative action programs (perhaps unintentionally) give them lower expectations, so they have less confidence - controversial
  • their genes biologically predispose them for lower intellingence - highly controversial
P0M: One of the must useful thinks I have learned to do is to form sentences that begin with "How would you know when..." E.g., "How would you know when you had a real Afro-American?" (Maybe it's really a person of Shan ethnic heritage or Sri Lankan ethnic heritage who has walked into a fight that has nothing to do with her on either side.) "How would I know that Joey doesn't know what a silo is because of his cultural heritage?" "How would I know whether the answer, 'A silo is a place to store grain or ICBMs,' indicates intelligence or a lamentable ignorance of what ensilage is, and the kind of building construction that is needed to produce and store it?

People treat "different-looking" people according to stereotypes. Perhaps it would help if we examine these stereotypes and try to determine what basis in fact they each have or do not have. --Uncle Ed 14:35, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

P0M: A "stereotype" is an "unvarying form or pattern" (Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language). It must take the logical form exemplified by something like this: "All swans are large, white, aquatic birds with nasty tempers." As soon as you find one counterexample for any such statement, any statement that begins with some form of "All X...", then your stereotype is proven wrong. The way around that is to change it to something like, "For some X, if X is a swan then it is large, white, aquatic, and ill tempered." You've fixed your logic but you've lost your "sure bet" stereotypical judgment. And the next thing you know somebody says, "What about swans that have been surgically or chemically neutered? Can we predict that all those things will be true of them? Maybe they won't be nasty even if they are large, black or white or black and white, and aquatic." The trick is to express the idea that stereotypes are only true of the people they fit to begin with, i.e., people who can be verified to match each and every character included in the list that defines the stereotype, and to express the idea, while retaining a neutral point of view, that people who use stereotypes correctly are wasting their time, and that people who use stereotypes wrongly can do great mischief. P0M 17:58, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I would not rely on Webster's for a deinition of stereotypes when there has been a good deal of theroetical discussion -- and empirical research -- about "stereotypes" (e.g. how people think about them, talk about them, use them). The scholarly literature is vast (but hey, isn't that the task of contributors to an encyclopedia -- to do research?) and I have only read some literature reviews bbut my sense is that the current understanding of stereotypes is probabalistic descriptions; Webster's here is defining what people in other fields (feminist theory, queer theory, critical theory) call "essentialism," again there is a huge literature but Diane Fuss's 1989 book gives a good overview. Slrubenstein

P0M: O.K., we have fuzzy logic, so I guess we can have fuzzy stereotypes too. If that is the case, perhaps SLR can tell us of whom fuzzy stereotypes are true. Are they true of "fuzzy people"? (The .7 child in the family of income range X that has 2.7 children, perhaps?) And perhaps SLR can tell us how one uses a fuzzy stereotype correctly and how one uses a fuzzy stereotype incorrectly. Or perhaps fuzzy stereotypes can only be declared to be fuzzily correct with regard to fuzzy people?

If you are ignorant of the literature, just say so. I'd recommend starting with Stereotype Accuracy: Toward Appreciating Group Differences, edited by Yueh-Ting Lee, Lee J. Jussim, and Clark R. McCauley. Washington D.C.: APA Books. It came out in 1995 so it is already dated, but I believe there has been research on stereogyptes since the 1940s and this may review some of that literature. Slrubenstein

P0M: Am I to understand your point to be that this book supports racial stereotyping? Or merely that I am ignorant?
P0M: Either way, I see that you choose to avoid answering my question. If stereotypes are indeed probabilistic descriptions, then it would seem on the face of it that they can yield only probable predictions. If that is true, and if people who "think about them, talk about them, use them" are consistent in maintaining the distinction between essentialism and nominalism, and the distinction between absolute predications and probabilistic predications, then they would seem be behaving like scientists who speak of populations rather than of races. If we were to "examine these stereotypes and try to determine what basis in fact they each have or do not have", as Ed Poor suggests, we should be engaging in circular argument, because if a stereotype is a "probabilistic description" as you maintain, then it ought to be based on objective statistical analyses and we would be given the "basis in fact" for the stereotypes by those very statistics -- that would be the end of it unless we were to go out into the field ourselves and measure the real-world factors again.

The question is not whether the book "supports" racial stereotyping or not; the point is it has a collection of scientific papers based on psychological researchon what "stereotype" are. I do not see how you can consider this an inferior source to Websters -- that was my point. Slrubenstein

P0M: It is one thing to characterize me as ignorant and as one who produces BS. It is another thing to put words in my mouth.

Sorry, I do not quite see your point. The research suggests that most stereotypes do have a "basis in fact," of course what that baiss is and what it means are important questions (what I think Ed was getting at). Slrubenstein

P0M: My comment was directed toward Ed Poor's suggestion that we "we examine these stereotypes and try to determine what basis in fact they each have or do not have". An example of a stereotype and how one might examine it and its basis in fact would be more persuasive to me than your characterizing my personal attributes.

Social psychologists usually provide "objective data," but it is data bout people's perceptions, which complicates the question of where the stereotype comes from and how it operates. Thus,how stereotypes are used is another question. Slrubenstein

P0M:I think I would be in favor of a section relating to studies that show the social functions of racism.

Look, if youwant to go have an argument with the APA, go ahead. Slrubenstein

P0M:Again, you choose to put words in my mouth.

I certainly do not mind labeling any summary of discussion on stereotypes to, "According to the APA," or "According to some psychologists" in other words, poviding the "point of view." Slrubenstein

P0M: Any such summary should cite its sources.

MY point is that I have nothing to argue with you over the nature of stereotypes. This is an encyclopedia article, it is not about what you or I think.

P0M: I did not set out to argue with you. I did not address any comments to you until you jumped in with comments on how the meaning of the word "stereotype" is not given correctly by the dictionary, i.e., what you think about my use of a standard definition, and what you think about what authorities in the field have to say about a kind of "new stereotype." The validity of empirical studies of the rehabilitated stereotypes and how they are are used is one thing. The validity and/or utility of the rehabilitated stereotypes themselves is another question. My original concern was that it would not be profitable to seek to validate stereotypes as they are understood in the minds of lexicographers. Then you argued that current "stereotypes" are probabalistic, and I questioned what difference there may be between stereotypes that apply to "races" and statistical profiles that apply to populations. I also questioned whether these probabalistic stereotypes could have any meaningful application to individuals.

We are suposed to research and summarize and contextualize research. Thee has been considerable research on stereogtypes. If you want to contribute to this article by adding material on stereotypes, do the research, don't just BS. Slrubenstein

P0M: You defend against many things are are not even in the pipeline. Who said that I want to contribute to this article by adding material on stereotypes?
P0M: You indicate that there is considerable research on stereotypes that could be summarized and contextualized. If it is research of the sort that says thing like, "White people are likely to get skin cancer if they spend lots of time in high UV environments," I think it is unlikely that I would find to many problems with a conscientiously crafted report on such research. If somebody somewhere has an answer to Ed Poor's question: "Do black people have more 'soul'? And can that account for their success as popular entertainers?" and that answer takes some such as the following, "Black people have more 'soul,' and, consequently they are more successful as popular entertainers," I would cast a very critical eye on how referents are discriminated for "black people," "soul," and "success as popular entertainers." I'm not saying that I would fight over any of these determinations, I would just want to check them all out.
P0M:But I would not consider the section of the article complete until it had discussed how receiving a probabilistically stereotypical identification as "a black person" and being regarded on that grounds as probably likely to have lots of soul, and probably likely on that basis to have great potential for success as a popular entertainer would then impact on the life of the individual saddled with these probabilistic determinations. If a person has 4/5 probability of being black, if people who are black have a 2/3 probability of "having soul", and if people who "have soul" have a 3/4 probability of a successful entertainment career, then that person has an overall probability of 1/5 of being a successful entertainer. In the real world examined by these researchers, then, how often is a black child steered toward a career in entertainment (be it basketball or bee-bop) rather than a career in physics?
P0M: My contribution to any section on stereotypes would likely be to attempt to keep the BSQ at a tolerable level.

As of the edit of Ann Kosłowska of 16 Dec, most of the article was included twice, starting from below External link. i did a diff on the two bits and it looks like they were identical, so (by chance) nobody edited either copy of the doubled up bit. So i fixed it simply by removing the second copy. Anyone feel free to doublecheck this in case i made an error and removed anything which was not duplicated.

In fact, this was probably what P0M wrote as Simple Editing Problems P0M: Right after the "external links" section begins,... without his realising that it was not just one sentence, but nearly the whole article that was doubled up. Maybe people working on the article have been looking at it so long that they missed the obvious? Anyway, IMHO it's fixed now. Boud 02:44, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

P0M 02:49, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC): No, there was a single long line stuck in there by accident. When I sent back to check on it, it was gone, so I didn't do anything whatsoever. I have no idea how the text got doubled unless somebody was editing when another user was editing and didn't get the merge process right. (I usually just save my own changes to an external document and come back after things have calmed down if I get into a merge situation.)

Anyway, thanks for fixing the problem.

Stereotypes and expectations

I appreciate Patrick Moran's point about stereotypes and expectations. It seems to be the old "chicken and egg" problem: which comes first? Do blacks have lower average SATs and Chinese higher average SATs because of parental and societal expectations? And do some people, observing these varying averages, develop stereotypes about blacks being 'less smart' and Chinese being 'smarter'?

Or is it that something intrinsic about black or Chinese people causes them to have lower or higher average SAT scores?

I have read extensively about education and even done some. I believe that EXPECTATIONS OF OTHERS have a significant effect on student performance. Shifting to sports for a moment, what do coaches and cheerleaders do besides tell athletes "You're the best! You can do it!" The 'home ground advantage' is not an illusion; sports teams, whether academic or professional, do better in their own arena with a supportive crowd around them.

Arthur Jensen of Harvard, and Charles Murray of The Bell Curve are each like the kid from the Emperor's New Clothes. They are daring to say out loud what everyone knows: differences exist. Our task as encyclopedia article writers is to sift through the research and present the various findings. A year from now (or three months, if we help each other!) I'd like to be able to refer my colleagues and friends to race and racism for a definitive examination of the issues.

If we simply don't know ("we" meaning scientists) why people with different skin color act or react differently, then the article should simply say so. Correlation is not causation, but if experiments ever do uncover some causes, I hope we are brave enough to reveal those causes here. --Uncle Ed 15:51, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

P0M: A great deal depends on where the teacher enters the educational process. Personal experience show me that most gym teachers were willing to relegate me to the locker room because I had no prior background in athletics. My most excellent of all karate teachers gave me special attention (a persistent shinai to the backside to motivate my hip action, among other things) when he could have ignored me to pay attention to his students who had real potential. My English teacher in 8th grade thought I committed plagiarism because she could not believe a student at that level writing that well. (I gave her my source materials and told her I'd willingly take an F if she could find one sentence I'd copied. End of story.) The point is that a good teacher of an academic subject has to be willing to treat a "bad" student with a nothing background as such, and begin the process of education from where the student stands not where the son or daughter of the college president or Harvard dean stands. I've seen students with an IQ of 140 or so who read at 4th grade level in 8th grade and couldn't tell you what 3 times 7 equals -- but for reasons of family background and other forms of educational neglect. You can't tell what is going on with some students until the student has plumbed the depths of your soul and has given you some access to less than superficial levels of his/her own personal experience.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/c/Talk%7ERacism_Archive_5_51a4.html"