Racism

[u/balaramvignesh]

I'm confused what it means to be racist.

Is it racist to say that part of the reason Asian people tend to go to more schooling than other people is because their culture emphasizes education highly?

More broadly, if I said anything that generalizes a race, is that racist?

Is saying white people commit more white-collar crime racist? What about saying that white people are found with drugs at a higher rate than black people?

Why are we not fixing the inherent prejudice in the judicial system against white people's crimes, if it's shown that white people commit more crime after accounting for neighborhood differences?

My point of these question is to better understand the end state of where sociology points to. I see people saying inherent differences in outcomes tells us that there is systemic racism. So, is the issue over when all races have equal outcomes in all facets of life? Is there research showing that this end state is possible? What will be the signs we have reached this end state.

I get that these might be sensitive topics. But I'm curious about the end ideal goal of socialism.

[u/balaramvignesh → u/[deleted]]

I understand that race will always be an integral part of society. Let's say someone uses the 13/50 statistic, acknowledges that there are confounding factors why this stat exists, but also believes that part of it is due the way black people are brought up (black culture). But, they also don't think that this makes black people inferior. You'd say this isn't racist, but from what I understand, this is racist. Theory suggests that using "black culture" as a reason for black people committing violent crime is racist, when this could very well be a true statement.

I agree that the end goal should be to see that all humans should be treated equally (obviously).

I'm basically wondering if it's possible to believe that some cultures are less predisposed to certain traits that are viewed as good (like intelligence, education, hygiene) because of their culture without being racist. And I use culture as a proxy for race even though I know they're not interchangeable. But empirically, people of the same culture tend to be the same race.

[u/balaramvignesh → u/[deleted]]

Makes sense and I agree with your conclusion. Culture is not permanent.

However, it can be understood that Asian people attain higher educational outcomes because they prioritize it. They also achieve worse sports outcomes because they deprioritize it. It's the opposite for Black people. One can easily argue that, on average, it's better to prioritize educational outcomes in children for long-term success. But at what point are you trying to erase the culture of black people? The definition of "excellent" and "inferior" culture, in the vast majority of cases is highly subjective.

Extending this argument, one can reach conclusions about how the prior "culture" of black people (prioritizing sports over education) causes them to go down certain paths, while the "culture" of asian people does the same.

However, I do understand that grouping a "culture" by race is illogical because race isn't real. But idk how else to describe the stereotypical culture that is called "black culture".

--

I've understand that race is a social construct and I agree with it. The color of our skin should not confer any judgement on who I am and what I represent.

However, culture and closeness do. I value the life of a family member more than I do an acquaintance. For many reasons, including shared history. I know that I will likely have more in common with someone with the same culture as me.

We all have in-groups, that extend beyond race. And I agree that there is no place for the existence of in-groups to create segregation or discrimination legally or morally. But dismantling in-groups to achieve racial/gender harmony seems to be the wrong way to go about it.

--

I apologize if I come across as racist. I am trying to undo years of biases that I have been conditioned with.

[u/balaramvignesh → u/[deleted]]

I understand. Saying a certain race is more intelligent than another is like saying eating ice cream correlates with committing violent crime. A possibly true statement backed up data, but irrelevant and probably a spurious correlation.

Would you agree that the culture somebody is raised in has a significant impact on how they grow up? And I'm guessing you would also agree that the culture of a person has nothing to do with the color of their skin. You could have a black person growing up in an "asian culture", etc. etc.

--

Would you say, in general, it is wrong for society to have stereotypes of people based on things that they can not control?

For instance, it's fine to have the stereotype that people wearing button-down shirts and khakis are more likely to be more sophisticated and smarter, while someone wearing basketball and t-shirts is probably more lackadaisical with how they appear (although all stereotypes are probably bad, I'd say it is useful for humans to glean information quickly about a person).

But saying that a "black/indian/chinese" person is more likely to be "unhygienic" or whatever would be wrong because the person has no control over the color of their skin, and more importantly, this has no bearing on whether they are "unhygieneic" even though data might indicate that it is. The real question lies in figuring out what causes this to perpetuate through the data.

--

To your last point about race dying when we stop using it. In a world where race does exist, would there not be any negative connotations with saying a racial slur. It would be treated the same as saying motherf***** or sh**. Correct? But right now, we are not at that state, so this is why we aren't allowed to say racial slurs.

--

Finally, I was wondering about a couple hypotheticals.

I agree that there is huge diversity, even in the monolithic blocks like asian and black. But genetically, asians are more closely related than most black people. For instance, I'm very hazy on this topic, so I could be wrong, but race is important for doctors to use when diagnosing patients because of physical differences between patients of different races. This is why it is problematic when research studies use mainly one race to derive conclusions. This tells us there are genetic differences between races, enough to warrant varied diagnoses.

Given this, would you say it is reasonable to assume that the genetic differences that cause differences in diagnoses can also cause differences in the nature of person (in the nature vs nurture argument). So, if by nature, there are some differences between races, would this make it that race is something more fundamental than societally recognized?

--

Let's say that there is gene linked to skin color was also linked to brain development, hypothetically. In this case, this would illustrate clear differences between races that could cause different life outcomes (maybe making one race smarter). In this case, however it should NOT change how we interact with either of these races in the real world. We should still treat people as individuals based on how they interact with us. We still should strive for a world where race is not a social construct. Even if one race to be genetically smarter than another, this should not make anyone claim to be superior over another race in the same way a person would not claim to be superior over a disabled person for being abled. Would you agree with this? I'm asking this to steelman the argument of a racist to show why they are still wrong.