The Fallacy of Racial Bias

[Winstonm]

 

These are all butterflies. Natural variations within the species accounts for their different appearances. No single variation is superior to the others. They are equally butterflies.

 

Perhaps our mirrors should be designed to reflect not ourselves but the diversity of our own species?

[yunling]

Butterflies are not social animals so don't see how it's relevant.

Wolf, lion or maybe killer whale are much more studiable but dunno the conclusion.

Colour discrimination is common among canis lupus arctos if I got it right :(

[Winstonm]

Butterflies are not social animals so don't see how it's relevant.

Wolf, lion or maybe killer whale are much more studiable but dunno the conclusion.

Colour discrimination is common among canis lupus arctos if I got it right :(

 

You don't have to be a social animal to realize there is no difference other than appearance among the butterflies.

[barmar]

You don't have to be a social animal to realize there is no difference other than appearance among the butterflies.

Racism didn't start out just based on appearance. Europeans went to Africa, and found the people there still organized in tribes, living in huts, and with less advanced technology. It's not hard to understand why they considered them to be less evolved savages. And Africans have some facial features (like the broad nose and thick lips) that resemble apes, which reinforced this conclusion.

 

We've since learned much about human genetics and evolution, which contradicts those early assumptions. But the racial stereotypes that were drawn resulted in a number of self-perpetuating conditions, which all led to the racial problems we now have.

[Winstonm]

Racism didn't start out just based on appearance. Europeans went to Africa, and found the people there still organized in tribes, living in huts, and with less advanced technology. It's not hard to understand why they considered them to be less evolved savages. And Africans have some facial features (like the broad nose and thick lips) that resemble apes, which reinforced this conclusion.

 

We've since learned much about human genetics and evolution, which contradicts those early assumptions. But the racial stereotypes that were drawn resulted in a number of self-perpetuating conditions, which all led to the racial problems we now have.

 

Living in tribes and huts as in Africa or bathing and eating seaweed like those found in Asian were shocking cultural differences exacerbated by the alien (from the European perspective) appearance. The interesting thing to me is that it takes an observer who makes a value judgement about differences in appearance to have racism. Perhaps more than anything else, the European racism that immigrated to the New World was based on religion in that a justification for the debasement of other humans was necessary to restore a sense of righteousness to the oppressors.

 

I believe that this lineage of religious necessity of justification can be traced throughout history - in one form or another as the predominant reason for the rise and continued practice of racism. Even today, those who strongly believe the rights of their white European tribe are under attack and must be defended are themselves tapping into a religious justification more so than a nationalist justification, even if they are not aware of it.

[yunling]

You don't have to be a social animal to realize there is no difference other than appearance among the butterflies.

 

Butterflies don't mind it at all.

You have no right to justify whether they are different or not, unless you feel superior to them.

[Winstonm]

Butterflies don't mind it at all.

You have no right to justify whether they are different or not, unless you feel superior to them.

 

Then why are you questioning me? ;)

[barmar]

P. octavia may be pretty, but all the ones I know are dicks. :)

[Winstonm]

P. octavia may be pretty, but all the ones I know are dicks. :)

 

Dick Octavia? :P

[RedSpawn]

Living in tribes and huts as in Africa or bathing and eating seaweed like those found in Asian were shocking cultural differences exacerbated by the alien (from the European perspective) appearance. The interesting thing to me is that it takes an observer who makes a value judgement about differences in appearance to have racism. Perhaps more than anything else, the European racism that immigrated to the New World was based on religion in that a justification for the debasement of other humans was necessary to restore a sense of righteousness to the oppressors.

 

I believe that this lineage of religious necessity of justification can be traced throughout history - in one form or another as the predominant reason for the rise and continued practice of racism. Even today, those who strongly believe the rights of their white European tribe are under attack and must be defended are themselves tapping into a religious justification more so than a nationalist justification, even if they are not aware of it.

Also, I think racism evolves from the human need to feel special. We want to know that we matter to others; we want to be seen. We strive to achieve some special status in the eyes of others; how we are viewed by others matters to us.

 

Racism and prejudice helps to draw ideological lines of superiority and inferiority which reinforce the notion of "specialness". "Those folks over there are different and don't have what we have-they aren't special like us-they don't think, behave, react, socialize, and look like we do. That's what makes us better (normal)." Labeling a group of people inferior or abnormal makes us feel special, soothes our fussy inner child and calms our ego.

 

Religion gives us validation and a security blanket because it suggests that we are a chosen people, that we are special and blessed by God. And there are others who are not so special, not so blessed, and need to be subjugated because they are cursed and come from cursed ancestors like Ham.

 

It's no surprise that the Bible that helps people find spiritual salvation and redemption is the same book used to justify the peculiar institution of slavery. It reinforces the notion that chosen people are guardians of the cursed and the cursed do not have nor have they earned God's favor so they must experience hell on Earth to experience the joy of the Promised Land. Slavery or subjugation is their lot in life in the physical realm, but obedience and submission to the "natural" order will have its rewards in the spiritual realm they are told.

 

Religion can be a weapon or salve depending on how its used, especially when the majority maintains the illusion of specialness by preventing the oppressed from learning how to read the Bible.

[ggwhiz]

Also, I think racism evolves from the human need to feel special. We want to know that we matter to others; we want to be seen. We strive to achieve some special status in the eyes of others; how we are viewed by others matters to us.

 

This made me think of the myth of American Exceptionalism which is largely based on the achievements of immigrants like Steve Jobs but embraced by Nascar enthusiasts etc. to justify a status that most of the rest of us just ain't buying.

[RedSpawn]

This made me think of the myth of American Exceptionalism which is largely based on the achievements of immigrants like Steve Jobs but embraced by Nascar enthusiasts etc. to justify a status that most of the rest of us just ain't buying.

Agreed. It has the same ideological roots of "specialness".

[kenberg]

This made me think of the myth of American Exceptionalism which is largely based on the achievements of immigrants like Steve Jobs but embraced by Nascar enthusiasts etc. to justify a status that most of the rest of us just ain't buying.

 

Growing up in the middle of the last century I never heard the phrase American Exceptionalism. I have no idea how it got started.

 

I have probably told this before but long ago I was coming back from the playground with my younger, age 4 or so, daughter and a neighbor woman with her daughter told me how lucky I was to have a normal daughter. Her daughter was exceptional, way advanced for her age. Nobody else had ever noticed this exceptionalism and I thought it a terrible burden to place on the daughter. I simply agreed that I was very lucky and we headed on home.

 

Claiming exceptionalism needlessly asks for trouble and invites a put down. I could claim I am exceptional, it's true in that there is nobody else exactly like me, but then that is true of everyone. A person or a country that is truly exceptional does not have to claim to be, people will notice.

 

Anyway, the sooner that phrase is retired the better it will be for everyone.

 

The butterflies are exceptional.

[Winstonm]

Growing up in the middle of the last century I never heard the phrase American Exceptionalism. I have no idea how it got started.

 

I have probably told this before but long ago I was coming back from the playground with my younger, age 4 or so, daughter and a neighbor woman with her daughter told me how lucky I was to have a normal daughter. Her daughter was exceptional, way advanced for her age. Nobody else had ever noticed this exceptionalism and I thought it a terrible burden to place on the daughter. I simply agreed that I was very lucky and we headed on home.

 

Claiming exceptionalism needlessly asks for trouble and invites a put down. I could claim I am exceptional, it's true in that there is nobody else exactly like me, but then that is true of everyone. A person or a country that is truly exceptional does not have to claim to be, people will notice.

 

Anyway, the sooner that phrase is retired the better it will be for everyone.

 

The butterflies are exceptional.

 

And free.

[PassedOut]

A person or a country that is truly exceptional does not have to claim to be, people will notice.

Reminds me of something my dad drilled into us kids: A champion does not need to brag.

 

Maybe that's one of the reasons that Trump has always struck me as a ridiculous figure.

[kenberg]

Reminds me of something my dad drilled into us kids: A champion does not need to brag.

 

Maybe that's one of the reasons that Trump has always struck me as a ridiculous figure.

 

For me, and probably for you also, there are many reasons, but most certainly that is one of them.

[barmar]

Also, I think racism evolves from the human need to feel special. We want to know that we matter to others; we want to be seen. We strive to achieve some special status in the eyes of others; how we are viewed by others matters to us.

I'm not so sure that there's a need to feel "special". I think it comes from our social nature and tribalism -- there's always been a need to distinguish "us" from "them"; we share and cooperate with us (our family, our tribe, our country), while we against and go to war against them because we need to protect our stuff. It extends into other cultural areas -- this is why you sometimes see violent confrontations between fans of different sports teams.

 

It's not even a particularly human trait -- all animals that live in social groups do this. The point of being in a group is that you all provide protection for each other, and who do you think they're protecting against?

 

Our psychology tends to turn this into a feeling of superiority -- we justify violence against "them" because they're not as good as "us".

[helene_t]

And Africans have some facial features (like the broad nose and thick lips) that resemble apes, which reinforced this conclusion.

Huh? Most non-human primates resemble white people (thin lips, lots of body hair). In the geography books my parents read, monkeys were shown as caricatures of black people, but I think my parents thought it was the other way round.

 

Anyway, IMO it is not a good idea to use the argument "racism is not natural, therefore it is bad". As a child I was taught that genocide is not natural and therefore it is bad. Later I found out that actually genocide is a very natural thing. Should that then lead me to think that apparently genocide is ok? No, because the argument was bogus to begin with. Philosophy lesson 1: You can't derive a normative conclusion from a positive premise.

 

So racism is bad because it is immoral. And it doesn't matter what science has to say about it.

[barmar]

So racism is bad because it is immoral. And it doesn't matter what science has to say about it.

I'm not trying to defend racism, just explain how it arose from some very natural tendencies. Just like the geocentric view of the universe -- we can't feel the earth moving, but we see stuff moving in the sky, so it was natural of early humans to assume that the earth was stationary and everything revolves around it. This may have reinforced our notion of specialness, but it hardly came from it (and in fact, they also believed in more powerful gods that were causing all this).

[Zelandakh]

I'm not so sure that there's a need to feel "special". I think it comes from our social nature and tribalism

I think it is pretty much accepted that racism is an extension of tribalism. The boundaries have changed over the years but the fundamental thought process is fairly well integrated into human society.

[Winstonm]

I posted this part of this quote on another thread but I think it is worth repeating. From John Grisham's A Time To Kill:

 

Carl Lee Hailey: Well, you are white and I'm black. See Jake, you think just like them, that's why I picked you; you are one of them , don't you see?. Oh, you think you ain't because you eat in Claude's and you are out there trying to get me off on TV talking about black and white, but the fact is you are just like all the rest of them. When you look at me, you don't see a man, you see a black man.

 

Perhaps I am naive, but I think it possible by the exercise of our cognizance to overcome tribalism's effects. Instead of seeing a black man, I am convinced it possible to see a man who happens to have black skin, nothing more.

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps I am naive, but I think it possible by the exercise of our cognizance to overcome tribalism's effects. Instead of seeing a black man, I am convinced it possible to see a man who happens to have black skin, nothing more.

I think it is more about changing people's perceptions about what constitutes "their tribe" than of the mechanism itself. This is something that has constantly evolved over the ages and will continue to do so long after we are gone. This is one reason why racism tends not to be seen in very young children but starts coming in after a while. For the young ones their entire social group is in this context their tribe, whereas older children start to sub-divide based on experiences and cues from their parents and peers. If the division is along race lines then this can end up leading to racism; if purely on natural socio-economic lines or even just Americans versus non-Americans, then racism will gradually diminish (and similarly for other countries).

[helene_t]

I'm not trying to defend racism, just explain how it arose from some very natural tendencies.

Oh yes I agree with that. Just the minor objection that I don't think thick lips makes anyone look more monkey-like although I suppose it may depend on the species of monkey.

[barmar]

Perhaps I am naive, but I think it possible by the exercise of our cognizance to overcome tribalism's effects. Instead of seeing a black man, I am convinced it possible to see a man who happens to have black skin, nothing more.

Maybe possible, but difficult. Until you know someone personally, all you have to go on are superficial features. And we are genetically primed to draw conclusions based on first impressions: quick, intuitive "friend or foe" decisions were necessary for survival.

 

And it's not just in our prehistory that this was necessary. The MIT campus is located just a few blocks from low-income housing projects in Cambridge. Even if you ignore race, residents of the projects are more likely to be in gangs or commit violent crimes. If you're walking at night in the neighborhood between them, and you notice someone following you, you need to decide whether to ignore them or try to get away for your own safety. Knowing that most of the residents of the projects are black, it's natural to be more worried if the follower is black, while assuming that a white kid is more likely to be another MIT student. It may be racist, but it's also based on solid statistics about crime in that neighborhood.

 

I've been threatened with a gun once in my life. I was watching a movie by myself, and some young people were talking back to the screen, and I complained to an usher about the disruption they were causing. After the movie, they confronted me in the parking lot, and one of them showed a gun; luckily, a security guard saw this and came to my rescue. This theatre was also located right near another housing project, and the race of the young people was stereotypical of the residents there. They also perpetuated a stereotype in their talking during the movie.

 

I don't think I fear black people in general, but I don't think it's completely racist to be aware that in certain places there's a high correlation between race and income level, and there's a similar relationship between income and violent crime. Black people aren't naturally inclined to violence, but black people are disproportionately poor, and hence more likely to turn to crime. If we could solve the poverty problem, it would extend to solving the violence problem. But as long as social and economic policies make income mobility difficult, we have a feedback loop that racists can jump on to justify their views ("look at all the black-on-black violence, they're obviously a violent race").

 

It's possible to be too politically correct to avoid racism. If you know that radical Islamic groups like ISIS and al Qaeda are planning attacks, and that their members are primarily of Middle Eastern descent, is it really so wrong for TSA to give a little extra scrutiny to people who look Middle Eastern? There are a limited number of screeners, so it's just good resource utilization to concentrate them where the danger is more likely. This isn't the same as automatically assuming browns are bad and whites are good -- it might amount to extra screening of 30% of browns versus 20% of whites (both random). Political correctness could mean that they're just as likely to pat down an 8 year old white child as a 30 year old man wearing a turban. Yes, the 8-year-old could have had a bomb planted on him by his parents, but statistically, which is the more likely threat? Political correctness sometimes trumps logic.

 

But maybe that's OK. We have ideals about freedom, tolerance, and diversity in our country, and perhaps promoting civil liberties over a little increase in safety is a way of saying that we consider these ideals paramount.

[barmar]

Oh yes I agree with that. Just the minor objection that I don't think thick lips makes anyone look more monkey-like although I suppose it may depend on the species of monkey.

You're right, I just looked some images of chimpanzee faces, and their lips aren't particularly thick. I was conflating them with the big snouts around the lips, which humans of any race don't have.

 

But their nostrils are flatter, similar to African-Americans. I doubt this is due to any genetic closeness, but simply due to geographical adaptation. From http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2013/03/20/why-our-noses-are-different-shapes/

The various shapes of noses appear to be tied to adaptations to climate, Holton said. The nose must properly heat and humidify the air that you breathe. In a cold climate, it's advantageous to have a narrower nose. That's so that when a person inhales, more air comes into contact with the mucosal surface of nose, which provides moisture. The narrow nose maximizes the surface area.

So apes have flat noses for the same reason that African humans do: they live in a warm climate, so don't need long, thin noses to heat and humidify the air.

 

BTW, I said apes, not monkeys.