Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    2 entries found for racism.
    rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
    n.
    The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
    Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

    A little argument I put together (which only works if you take this definition completely literally with no room for error or discretion)

    1. A racist believed that race can account for differences in human character or ability.

    2. Some races have darker skins than others.

    3. Skin colour does, in some very small respect, determine one's ABILITY to tolerate the sun, and one's character when confronted with a hot day.

    4. Hence, race does account for ability and character (albeit in some very minute way).

    5. Hence, believing in pigmentation and biology makes you racist?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seer)
    The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
    The definition is not just saying different races have heightened abilities in different areas depending on their race specific physiology (e.g. some African muscle types have a higher number of muscle fibres, hence giving them more explosive power, giving an advantage in some sports).

    It's also saying that one race perceives themselves to be superior based on prejudice which is independent of evidence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    most black ppl think they are the superior race for basketball...i agree with them...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Let's just take the definition as it is instead of adding things on (as you have done).

    If we say race can account for ability and character, then we are invariably saying a race can be superior to another. Now, the definition doesn't state whether this superiority is isolated in one way or whether we are talking about 'general' superiority. Either way, the biology example leads us to to say races can be superior to one another.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "and that a particular race is superior to others. "

    Your argument does not take this definition into account.

    And it's a tenuous link at best, Seer.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by matouwah)
    most black ppl think they are the superior race for basketball...i agree with them...
    The fact that a high number of black people are in the sport, relative to white counterparts would suggest their physiology is more suited to the sport however, you have to consider social factors.

    For example, the England cricket team has no black players, because it's generally a sport exclusive to the white middle classes.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seer)
    Let's just take the definition as it is instead of adding things on (as you have done).

    If we say race can account for ability and character, then we are invariably saying a race can be superior to another. Now, the definition doesn't state whether this superiority is isolated in one way or whether we are talking about 'general' superiority. Either way, the biology example leads us to to say races can be superior to one another.
    Yes, but it can account for one race being superior in one field, and another being superior in another.

    Your definition accounts only for one race being superior at absolutely everything.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by matouwah)
    most black ppl think they are the superior race for basketball...i agree with them...
    You can't really try to link sports to a particar religon or race, it's more to do with the people who play it and physical ability if a white person tried hard enough he would become just as good. Culture does however play a massive role obviously asians are said to be better at cricket but in countries like pakistan it's all they play, and often they cannot afford anything else or just prefer not to play anything else..
    There's many things like this for example the brzilian children at football i mean english football i.e. soccer they're amazing at it but they play all day the're told its the only way to be rich
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alec)
    Yes, but it can account for one race being superior in one field, and another being superior in another.

    Your definition accounts only for one race being superior at absolutely everything.
    I've gotta agree with her there, spot on!!! But as was said it's to do with biolog and the geneology passed down from predessesors they can't exactly break the chain unless they don't have children but it all varies!!!
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kissmequick)
    You can't really try to link sports to a particar religon or race, it's more to do with the people who play it and physical ability if a white person tried hard enough he would become just as good.
    Not true, in my opinion.

    Physiologically speaking, races can be superior at certain types of sport.

    Ethiopian/Kenyan muscle types seem to be suited to endurance events. Western African muscle type seems to be suited to sprint events. Swimming events seem to be suited to European muscle types.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    "and that a particular race is superior to others. "

    Your argument does not take this definition into account.

    And it's a tenuous link at best, Seer.
    If we say making a distinction between ability and character is possible we are invariably saying making a distinction between superiority is possible.

    The main point of my argument is to suggest that, the word 'unjustfied' or 'false' should be used.

    Let us say races X and Y start off equal.

    We discover race X has a greater ability in tolerating the sun than race Y.

    This necessarily makes race X superior, therefore this fair assertion is racist.

    I think it depends on whether this superiority is isolated in a specific way, or we are talking about 'general' superiority. But, actually, regardless of the size of definition of 'superiority', a distinction in ability logically involves a distinction in superiority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alec)
    Not true, in my opinion.

    Physiologically speaking, races can be superior at certain types of sport.

    Ethiopian/Kenyan muscle types seem to be suited to endurance events. Western African muscle type seems to be suited to sprint events. Swimming events seem to be suited to European muscle types.
    But how can you say thats deffinent, they may not train their bodies in the same way you've gotta admit that the way a body is built will vary the performance. Maybe britain focus's more on swimming than anything else, maybe the ppl don't push themselves as hard as the opposition, mybe it's because of the fact their muscles were different....who's to say
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kissmequick)
    But how can you say thats deffinent, they may not train their bodies in the same way you've gotta admit that the way a body is built will vary the performance. Maybe britain focus's more on swimming than anything else, maybe the ppl don't push themselves as hard as the opposition, mybe it's because of the fact their muscles were different....who's to say
    That's irrelevant really, the fact is that races can be innately more suited to certain activities than others.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seer)
    If we say making a distinction between ability and character is possible we are invariably saying making a distinction between superiority is possible.

    The main point of my argument is to suggest that, the word 'unjustfied' or 'false' should be used.

    Let us say races X and Y start off equal.

    We discover race X has a greater ability in tolerating the sun than race Y.

    This necessarily makes race X superior, therefore this fair assertion is racist.

    I think it depends on whether this superiority is isolated in a specific way, or we are talking about 'general' superiority. But, actually, regardless of the size of definition of 'superiority', a distinction in ability logically involves a distinction in superiority.
    You're definition of racism, and your noted physiological variation between races doesn’t match.

    We are adapted for the conditions we live in. African physiology copes better in Africa, European physiology copes better in Europe. You can't define one as superior, they are simply different (as conditions necessitate).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seer)
    That's irrelevant really, the fact is that races can be innately more suited to certain activities than others.
    Fair enough but are you saying race doesnt link to culture or parents genes????
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kissmequick)
    But how can you say thats deffinent, they may not train their bodies in the same way you've gotta admit that the way a body is built will vary the performance. Maybe britain focus's more on swimming than anything else, maybe the ppl don't push themselves as hard as the opposition, mybe it's because of the fact their muscles were different....who's to say
    It's been biologically shown that West African muscle type contains more muscle fibres which allows for explosive power, suiting it to sprint events.

    I see your point though, social factors need to be considered, as I explained in my point about cricket earlier.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alec)
    We are adapted for the conditions we live in. African physiology copes better in Africa, European physiology copes better in Europe. You can't define one as superior, they are simply different (as conditions necessitate).
    Correct, thats why you can see whether that particular race of people should have been living there compared tot ehir skin colour, i.e. White Austrilians, light Brown people in India (forgot which type of people), and some Jews, which according to their skin colour suggests that they either werent "designed" to live in the Middle East in teh first Place, or that they were driven away and their skin colour changed, (will take a lot of years...)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alec)
    You're definition of racism, and your noted physiological variation between races doesn’t match.

    We are adapted for the conditions we live in. African physiology copes better in Africa, European physiology copes better in Europe. You can't define one as superior, they are simply different (as conditions necessitate).
    Thats v true, apparent (im not saying its right) biologists believe we all started off brown/dark skinned however due do climate and certain heating and cooling reactions within the skin it's believe we've changed to white to suit our previous condition however many people know white people are more prone to sun burn than darker skinned ppl
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alec)
    You're definition of racism, and your noted physiological variation between races doesn’t match.

    We are adapted for the conditions we live in. African physiology copes better in Africa, European physiology copes better in Europe. You can't define one as superior, they are simply different (as conditions necessitate).
    My main reason for making this argument is to show the definition of stupid. The logical example you've quoted explains this adequately, there's no need to fuss over the pigmentation argument because the main point is not about pigmentation, it's that some perfectly innocent, logical, harmless truth can be deemed racist.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seer)
    My main reason for making this argument is to show the definition of stupid. The logical example you've quoted explains this adequately, there's no need to fuss over the pigmentation argument because the main point is not about pigmentation, it's that some perfectly innocent, logical, harmless truth can be deemed racist.
    I agree (I've reiterated this in earlier posts).

    My point is, your original quote of a racism definition doesn't account for superiority in different fields by different races, only universal superiority.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 28, 2003
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.