"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social, or political significance to a man's genetic lineage--the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced...by his internal body chemistry...
"This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of ... inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men."
~ Ayn Rand, from her article 'Racism'
.
Monday, 23 July 2018
QotD: "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Racism is nothing to be afraid of it is a used up word.
It means nothing other than a meaningless slur.
Its good to be white.
"Racism is meaningless. And I define myself by my race." Well done, sir. Now kindly piss off, whoever you are.
The word "racist" is increasingly used to as a slur against anyone who doesn't subscribe to hyper-sensitivity and identity politics. As a result it's losing it's original meaning. That last sentence aside, I think that's what your correspondent was getting at. It's been so overused, that few kids today have a concept of the real racism that Ayn Rand was describing. Even my own kids, who have more general and historical knowledge than most adults, use the term "racist" as a bit of joke. For example last night, we were flicking between channels and came across a travel show set in an unkempt looking Balinese village. When I said I had no interest in learning about that place, one of them jokingly chortled "that's a bit racist isn't it".
Indeed -- the identitarians are achieving the opposite of their alleged goals.
But that doesn't mean we who know better should lose the real meaning, nor be giving a free pass to anyone who does fit the definition. 'Cos that would be gay. ;^)
No. Race matters. As Rand understood in her more lucid moments when she discussed Arabs and Native Americans.
She was discussing culture, not race.
And yet if you change your internal body chemistry via drugs and other chemicals you can change your intellectual and characterological traits.
Something doesn't add up.
No fake news here, Ryan. Take it elsewhere, if you must.
What doesn't add up? Differences in race generally are not associated with as significant a difference in body chemistry as those experienced via differences in environment. What biochemical changes are related to race are different from those associated with environmental factors. (Note that I'm using "environment" here in its legitimate term--the biotic and abiotic factors affecting the organism.) Third, the biological concept of race is vastly different from the sociological concept of race. Biologically speaking there are more races in sub-Saharan Africa than in the rest of the world combined. Sociologically speaking, they're all "black".
The claim made was one's intellect and character are not produced by internal body chemistry.
This is clearly false since altering body chemistry can alter both intellect and character... alcohol, ritalin, marijuana, psychotics, antipsychotics, etc etc.
You could argue intellect and character are not produced through body chemistry via gene expression but you're going to have a hard time showing why people with Down's or similar conditions tend to have the intellectual differences they do.
So what doesn't add up is the notion that intellect and character is not produced from internal body chemistry.
The quote was obviously in the context of discussing race. Drug use is a matter of choice PRIOR TO using the drug; ergo the effects are, from a philosophical perspective, NOT a factor of the drug use. As for disorders, they can place limits on what one is capable of, but DO NOT dictate one's lot in life.
Given that this is a discussion in context of race, however, none of that really maters. Unless you can prove that the difference in races has a substantive impact the intellect and character of each individual in that race, her argument holds. Pointing out exceptions outside of this system is a dishonest tactic, as it relies on stripping the sentence from its context.
Nope the statement is wrong. Who you are at base derives from your genes and hence your chemistry. Unless you want to chuck out evolution and go with a mystical soul or a blank slate we are all born with.
The reason racism is wrong is because it denies the humanity of people. A humanity they possess regardless of their intellect, character or ability.
If racial variations based on genes/chemistry are ever acknowledged it would still make racism wrong.
Claiming that there is no basis in genetics/chemistry for significant difference just leaves the racists a door to kick open in the future and never acknowledge that all people are equally human.
It's not like there hasn't been a ton of research on this Dinwar.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-IQ-of-people-by-country-Which-country-has-the-highest-average-IQ
Somebody picked at random from a population of 60-70 IQ would need to be two standard deviations from the mean just to be in the normal range of the higher countries. This has obvious implications for immigration.
Pretending that none of this matters because an individual from such countries might be 2-3-4 deviations from their population mean, is being disingenuous for the sake of being politically correct.
Rand's statement is not wrong in the context she was discussing. It's only wrong when it's applied to the context Anonymous has superimposed.
Dave - The correlation I see in that link is between IQ and a combination of political system/level of economic development/culture - not IQ and race. Take for instance the disparity between nations that are racially similar, but significantly different on IQ ranking. Examples include the Hong Kong/Taiwan versus Phillipines, Greece versus Italy, China versus Nepal, Argentina versus Ecuador, UK versus Ireland, etc.
There's a great deal of research, yes. Most of which is deeply flawed. First, there is no coherent definition of IQ, much less "character" or the rest. Second, the task of disentangling the confounding factors is beyond our capacity at this time. Even if we assume IQ has something significant to say (and that's a HUGE assumption, in contradiction to the data), you can't ascribe it to race. Look at lead, for example, and its effects on people. That's all removed from second-generation immigrants, because our sanitation and industrial hygiene is superior.
If you want race itself to be the cause, you need to establish SPECIFIC genetic factors that have SPECIFIC consequences. This can be done. In medicine, certain races react differently to certain medicines. That is the level of detail necessary for your and Anon's arguments to be taken seriously in a scientific context (and this is a scientific question, so it is a scientific context).
"Who you are at base derives from your genes and hence your chemistry."
Okay, hot shot--show me the genes that made me love paleontology. Until you do that, this statement is absolute nonsense. NO scientist studying genetics, evolution, or any other field related to this question takes such nonsense seriously.
That's right, you love plaeontology just as the archaic ooze we descend from loves it. No wait, ooze doesn't love paleontology. Or have an intellect. Now if only there was some fundamental difference between us and oozee.
I am a professional paleontologist. Like just about everything else you've said, this is factually incorrect and a pathetic attempt to disguise your racism. I'm through with you.
Lol racist card from a sjw. Maybe read what I wrote earlier...
The reason racism is wrong is because it denies the humanity of people. A humanity they possess regardless of their intellect, character or ability.
Post a Comment