My American Heritage dictionary defines racism as follows:
1. The notion that ones own ethnic stock is superior.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on racism.
I have not been guilty of either of the above on this list nor anywhere
else, and yet several postings have suggested that either I am racist, or
that I'm espousing racist notions:
6/30/97, Mark Jones wrote:
>What an extraordinary posting from Richard Moore: a simple,
>in-your-face capitulation, lock-stock-and-barrel, bell-curves and all,
>to the most invidious possible kind of racism.
7/01/97, Alan Spector wrote:
>I don't mean to make any statements about the character of anyone who
>might believe this, but this is a racist argument, based not on biology,
>but on folklore.
7/02/97, James M. Blaut wrote:
>Moderate racism is, today, a more serious problem in the world of scholars
>than is classical racism,because it is mainly an implicit theory...
We are seeing here a bit of hyperbole. The root assumption, presumably, is
that acknowledgement of racial differences, or even of races, could be used
as ammunition/justification by racists (as dictionary defined), and hence
such acknowledgement constitutes "collaboration with the enemy", "guilt by
association", etc.
In this regard, please consider a HYPOTHETICAL scenario:
_Suppose_ someone published empircal findings to the effect that
"Europeans have been more warlike than the world norm", and suppose
that this was attributed (somehow) to geographical conditions and
climate.
Suppose further that racists everywhere misused this publication:
In the Third World: "Europeans are racially violent and
shouldn't be trusted!"
In Europe (Nat. Front): "Europeans are racially natural leaders
and should rule the world!"
My question, in this hypothetical scenario: Is the original publisher
guilty of racism? Or even of encouraging racism? I would think not. Any
more than Darwin should be blamed for Social Darwinism as an apology for
laissez-faire economics.
If I happen to believe races exist, or that there might be measurable
differences of various kinds, that is not racism. You can sling ad hominem
slurs, as in the three quotes above, but you don't have a case, not in
terms of my beliefs or statements.
Where you might make a logical case, would be in terms of propaganda strategy...
Mark's comment above speaks of "capitulation", which I presume refers to a
"battle" going on in propaganda-space. The "battle strategy" which I have
"betrayed", presumably, aims to "demolish" all sources of racist thought by
"proclaiming" that there are no racial differences.
My response here is that we need to decide whether our pursuit is science
or propaganda. One can take the results of science (eg- ecology), and make
them the basis of an honest and socially-beneficial education/propaganda
campaign (eg- Silent Spring). But if one takes convenient propaganda
claims and pretends they are scientific facts, then the result is a
betrayal of both honest science and honest propaganda.
Speaking pragmatically, that propaganda strategy, I might point out, is
falling apart in the field, if due only to sinister attempts to revive Nazi
concepts of eugenics, which are becoming, unfortunately, very popular
indeed - all but mainstream - under new rubrics ("crime" genes, "gay"
genes, ...). In terms of pragmatic propaganda, the strategy needs to be
revisited.
To the charge of "capitulation", I plead: in a scholarly discussion among
historians on wsn, I can see no basis for pursuing a propaganda strategy in
preference to a scientific investigation. This is hardly a list on
political activism. And I'm not proposing to write a magazine article
propounding racial differences, as such would have very little chance of
being interpreted other than as an apology for racial discrimination. But
on wsn, I'd presume the agenda should be an open exchange of views and
consideration of all relevant evidence.
As to Mark's all but explicit charge of racism on my part, I again
interpret that within the context of his implicit propaganda strategy.
When Native Americans were being systematically demonized and exterminated,
anyone with the temerity to view the victims as being in any way human was
called an "Injun Lover". Those who opposed the war in Vietnam were called
"commies" and "anti-American". So today anyone who even raises the
question of racial differences is called a "racist". The obvious goal of
such hypberbole is to stifle debate, to force people to make a "with us or
again' us" choice, and to silence their doubt. In all, a heavy-handed,
coercive, propaganda tactic. It has no more to do with science than did
the Church's condemnation of Galileo.
According to my own sense of the ground rules for scholarly discussion, I
find this issue of science vs. propaganda - and the stifling debate by
emotionally- charged guilt-by-association charges - to be more central to
our collective integrity than any particular belief about the existence of
non-existence of racial differences.
rkm