From: "MRFanning" <MRFanning-AT-email.msn.com>
Subject: RE: PLC: Difference-Value
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 17:26:51 -0400




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
[mailto:owner-phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu]On Behalf Of Barron
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2000 8:22 PM
To: phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: Re: PLC: Difference-Value




> You must remember that race is not a biological determinant, but a
> social construct.

Why would anyone 'remember' this. It is wrong because it is absolute. The
social construct theory of race is an argument on semantics. The biological
construct of race is supportable with clear and reproducible evidence.
Again, there is room for discussion based on semantics, but again, you would
not have it so with your absolutism.


I'm just curious about the "scientific construct of race" (it may already
have come up in the thread and I missed it).

According to the construct, if my ancestors include say Dutch, Cherokee,
Japanese, Turkish, Palestinian, Algerian, Nigerian and Bengali, what "race"
am I? What factor or set of factors will be given precedence? My melanin
count? Hair texture? Some genetic distinction?


> Racist: One who attributes a specific characteristic to all members of a
> group of people designated as constituting a "race."

Whose quotations? Whose definition? Want another?

Racism (racist): a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the
various human races _determine cultural or individual achievement_, _usually
involving the idea that ones own race is superior.

_Emphasis_ mine.


By your definition, and I suspect if you are serious in this matter this is
the crux of your argument, everyone who has the ability to differentiate
between  groups of people is racist. As I have clearly shown, the
differences do exist. As you have suggested via your social construct theory
of race, the term race itself is open to wide semantic vagary. So it is the
catagorizing that makes one racist according to you, right? Well, that makes
things all so clear. Each and every one of us is racist, so by default so is
Faulkner! Your definition, unfortunately lacks any vaule judgement, any
reference to superiority, hatred, bigotry or supression. I think it
obviously falls short as a useful definition however. Witness this
discussion.
--
Barron

There are a lot of ways of differentiating between groups of people:
vegetarians, academics, native speakers of this or that language, etc.  If
I'm reading this correctly, George is objecting to the idea that it is
"race" that manifests itself in a more or less clear set of characteristics,
and a set that isn't limited to  "cultural or individual achievement"
by any means, any more than his definition of racism is limited to questions
of superiority or inferiority. The argument (again, as I understand it, and
I may have missed a post or three along the line) is whether or not making
an attribution of some observed characteristic (Asians are good at math and
'hard' sciences, for example, which isn't negative, but which attributes
their proficiency to their Asian-ness rather than to more diverse
determinants, is racist? or not?) to a racial categorization which can be as
arbitrary as the One Drop rule. It isn't a question of whether or not the
characteristic(s) in question happen to be positive or negative (lazy
blacks, hard working Asians) but whether or not the claim is that the
characteristic is inherent one "race" rather than others. Further, there's
the question of the constitution of the categories themselves, and whether
or not they are (in whole or in part) constituted by an a priori assumption
that such things as "races" (since "race" in the singular doesn't seem to
serve any purpose without reference to a plural).

I apologize if I've misrepresented or misunderstood anyone's arguments.

Regards,

Robert
     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---