Can We Please Define “Racism”?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

[Nessa 23]

share with me baby

[NavarreMan 10]

I think it is very reasonable question. But I also think it is nearly impossible to define. I saw a story on the news last night about a woman who had hung a "corpse" with a noose for Halloween. Usually very acceptable. But it made national news because of the "Race Card". Was she a racist? I don't think so. Some one brought it to her attention that it could be construed as such and she removed it before all hell broke loose.

I guess racism may be defined by the person or group that an action or words may be directed at. I'm sure that I do a lot of things that some might consider racist but I certainly don't. If I did I would not do them. But some may be offended by my actions. Maybe racism is not the first mistake but the second? Like sexual harassment. The first time you ask a co-worker out is just a question but repeated requests constitute harassment.

Is it racism if a scientist discovers a gene that makes one race smarter than another and announces this discovery? I don't think so but others probably will. It would be nice to have a clear cut answer but I don't think one exists. It's more like one of those "I'll know it when I see it" kind of deals.

The Golden Rule has always worked well for me. I try very hard to stop and ask myself if what I am about to do or say would be well received by me if I were in different shoes. I try, I am not always successful.

Just my opinion. Take it or chuck it.

[Reba 2]

James Watson’s foot-in-mouth gene

Geneticist proves even geniuses can’t get away with some things

COMMENTARY

By David Ewing Duncan

MSNBC contributor

Updated: 11:39 a.m. ET Oct 24, 2007

“I know many people, at least when I was young, who thought I was quite unbearable,” James Watson once said. Last week, this outspoken icon of genetics for the past 50 years found out that little has changed for him at the age of 79. A Nobel Laureate and the legendary co-discoverer of DNA’s double-helix shape, Watson told a British newspaper that there is scientific proof that Africans are genetically inferior.

In a half-hearted retraction last Friday, Watson backpedaled, saying: “There is no scientific basis for such a belief.”

The reaction was swift as disgusted colleagues and weighty institutions around the world condemned his comments. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, New York, which Watson headed for three decades and had built into a world-class research facility, suspended him from his administrative duties as chancellor. Cold Springs President Bruce Stillman declared that the administration, trustees and faculty “vehemently disagree” with his statement in the UK.

This comes a few weeks after Watson released his complete DNA – virtually all 3 billion base pairs and nearly all of his genes – as one of the first named humans to have their entire genome mapped.

Scanning the results, which he publicly released, I find no foot-in-mouth gene – at least, none that has yet been discovered – but scanning Watson’s genes does reveal he has one of the “novelty-seeking genes,” a variation of the DRD3 gene associated with risk-taking and outlandish behavior. No surprise there where Watson is concerned.

I was unable to find out if Watson has a gene associated with people who sometimes say inappropriate things and exhibit anti-social behavior, but in my interview with him he said that he has a quick temper, and suspects he has this gene. ”I want to test myself because I bet I have a root form of the gene but you keep it in the background where you don’t say things too outrageous.” Ahem.

One caveat: these genes are not fully understood, and no one should assume that just because a person has a gene variation for a disease or trait such as novelty-seeking gene that they have or will have that disease or trait. As Watson recently told me when I interviewed him about his genome, he also has a gene that in some carriers causes blindness by age 50. “I’m 79, and my eyesight is still quite good,” he said.

Watson talks in sputters and clicks, and delights in being outrageous, as I discovered when I visited him in Cold Springs Harbor for my book, “Masterminds: Genius, DNA and Quest to Rewrite Life.” Ushered into an office where his Nobel prize hung close by a girly calendar featuring a buxom woman that looked more appropriate for a mechanics shop, he was soon informing me that some people are born with less intelligence than others – and that those people should have their genes altered, if such a thing becomes possible. At the same meeting he called surreal painter Salvador Dali (he painted “Homage to Watson and Crick” in 1963) a fascist, denigrated women scientists as being more “difficult” than men and refused yet again to acknowledge that a long dead geneticist named Rosalind Franklin made a crucial discovery leading to Watson and Crick’s famous discovery.

Anyone who has worked with him has a Watson story about his imperiousness. Yet he also was a major player in a number of scientific efforts over the decades, not the least of which was his crucial backing of the Human Genome Project in the early 1990s. He was appointed as the first head of the project in 1990 – only to be fired in 1992 after he insulted then director of the National Institutes of Health, Bernadine Healy, and refused to follow her directions and those of Congress.

Even by the standards of our celebrity-drenched culture, top scientists stand tall as iconographic characters venerated right up there with our most revered sports stars, statesmen, and artists. We have an unwritten pact with these people that if they keep providing us with cures, gadgets, and great discoveries, we will lavish them with praise, awards, celebrity, book contracts and even these days money. Indeed, the story of James Watson suggests that even repeated bad behavior and outlandish remarks is indulged if they keep producing.

[maya62 7]

Hmmm... a couple of thoughts (and FWIW I didn't read the entire original post)...

I don't think it is the noticing of differences between people that is necessarily the problem... it is attaching value to those differences. What difference, for example, does it make if someone has red hair or brown hair? Not a hill of beans until someone decides that red hair is BETTER than brown hair.

For every generalization someone may make about any given group of people, there are bound to be many exceptions to that generalization. They're dangerous (generalizations) and frequently offensive, especially considering the above.

Lastly, I think it is reasonable to ask WHY someone feels it is necessary to make a remark about race. In many cases, imho, it serves no purpose other than to discriminate, whether blatantly or more subtly (sp?) and insidiously.

$.02

Maya

[NavarreMan 10]

Hmmm... a couple of thoughts (and FWIW I didn't read the entire original post)...

I don't think it is the noticing of differences between people that is necessarily the problem... it is attaching value to those differences. What difference, for example, does it make if someone has red hair or brown hair? Not a hill of beans until someone decides that red hair is BETTER than brown hair.

For every generalization someone may make about any given group of people, there are bound to be many exceptions to that generalization. They're dangerous (generalizations) and frequently offensive, especially considering the above.

Lastly, I think it is reasonable to ask WHY someone feels it is necessary to make a remark about race. In many cases, imho, it serves no purpose other than to discriminate, whether blatantly or more subtly (sp?) and insidiously.

$.02

Maya

That was the thought I could not quite get into words. Thanks. "The better than you" thing is what makes the big difference.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think the question is really very simple - the scientist who made the comments that this guy is essentially defending said "less intelligent", basing that on references to vague studies that he didn't really take the time to qualify or elaborate on. Given the author's stance it seems strange that he's slamming others for trying to cover up "the truth" but appears to lack the time or indeed - the courage to follow that chain of though to producing evidence to back up the initial claims.

Moreover, when trying to "diagnose" the condition of a particular group - how exactly are we doing that? Indeed what would the purpose of this be? We can say that one group experiences significant social problems resulting from not so ancient history, but attempting to tie social factors to biological ones seems rather problematic to me.

[Sinergy 3]

[Reba 2]

Nobel-winning DNA scientist retires from lab

Watson sparked furor with comments about intelligence levels of blacks

Updated: 2 hours, 5 minutes ago

NEW YORK - James Watson, the Nobel laureate who sparked an international furor last week with comments about intelligence levels among blacks, has retired from his post at a prestigious research institution.

Watson, 79, and the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York announced his departure Thursday. Watson was chancellor of the institution, and his retirement was effective immediately.

Watson was widely condemned last week for remarks he made in the Sunday Times Magazine of London on Oct. 14. A profile quoted him as saying that he's "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours _ whereas all the testing says not really."

He said that while he hopes everyone is equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true." He also said people should not be discriminated against on the basis of color, because "there are many people of color who are very talented."

He later apologized.

In his statement Thursday, Watson said that because of his age, his retirement was "more than overdue. The circumstances in which this transfer is occurring, however, are not those which I could ever have anticipated or desired."

[pedroh 21]

Hmmm... a couple of thoughts (and FWIW I didn't read the entire original post)...

I don't think it is the noticing of differences between people that is necessarily the problem... it is attaching value to those differences. What difference, for example, does it make if someone has red hair or brown hair? Not a hill of beans until someone decides that red hair is BETTER than brown hair.

For every generalization someone may make about any given group of people, there are bound to be many exceptions to that generalization. They're dangerous (generalizations) and frequently offensive, especially considering the above.

Lastly, I think it is reasonable to ask WHY someone feels it is necessary to make a remark about race. In many cases, imho, it serves no purpose other than to discriminate, whether blatantly or more subtly (sp?) and insidiously.

$.02

Maya

THANK YOU!!

[pedroh 21]

Race comparison I think it's only an American thing, I've never seen other countries trying to differentiate everything by race, what they do, how they do it, if they graduated high school, if they have 3 kids or 4.. at the end, all of them are Americans.. I don't know why it is so important to see if white people graduate from college or if 40% of african americans will be in jail or shot before they're 18 years old.. to be more technical, I don't think other languages than english uses races referring to humans, in spanish is to refer to animal breeds.. like dogs.. not among people.. I don't think other english speaking countries do this as much as in the USA.. I don;t think there's african-english people or hispano-canadians.. LOL

Edited October 25, 2007 by pedroh

[almaty 19]

good point hermano pedroh

[Nessa 23]

well said Pedroh

[mawilson 2,133]

I guess we'll never know. Any research that purports to test such theories will

never see the light of day in our PC society.

Intelligence is genetic and hereditary to some extent, that much is clear.

Identical twins are more likely to obtain the same IQ score than twins from

two separate eggs that have a different genetic makeup.

There are huge genetic differences between races, as well within races, and it's

not entirely a stretch to suggest that some races or groups within the same race

may be more intelligent (on average) than others due to these differences.

[AmericanGentleman 0]

By Selwyn Duke

As was the case with the reception given to The Bell Curve, critics tend to take the position that the issue should not be raised, much less debated. And this brings us to the crux of the matter. All intellectual inquiry, be it scientific or philosophical, should be a search for Truth. This search must be sincere and remain unfettered by agendas or dogmas, and we do otherwise at our own peril.

There are truths and knowledge that our society is not ready to discuss "unfettered". Racial trait superiorites are one of them. How to build a nuclear weapon is another. For those who do desire such unfettered discussion, the greatest mistake they make is attempting to unfetter the discussion by discounting the fettering.

Maybe one day we can all sit around and objectively discuss how each race is superior at one thing compared to another, how each race has certain genetic and environmental advantages over another, but we have a bit of a way to go yet. And until we each can admit our own racial shortcommings across the board, we can not celebrate others higher achievements.