Post quoted in full, no remarks, no need to read.
-----Original Message-----
From: JakePrime@aol.com <JakePrime@aol.com>
To: virus@lucifer.com <virus@lucifer.com>
Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: virus: Hail Virus!
>In a message dated 98-06-15 11:29:28 EDT, you write:
>
>>> One more thing, I am NOT polliticaly correct, and I don't want to be
also.
>I
> don't care if some considers some experimental data rascist. I am not a
> rascist. <<
>
>This is a little strange. If you are NOT politically correct, why would it
>concern you whether others thought you were racist or not?
>
>If by saying, "I am not a racist" you really mean that you aren't a bad
>person, or you are not a white supremacist, or you do not believe in
genocide,
>or you do not believe in racial segregation, or you think that inter-racial
>marriage and children is fine, or you do not believe in racial cleansing
>(either through genocide or relocation), then so be it.
>
>I accept your statement and I make no ill judgment of you. Of course if
you
>are emphatically NOT politically correct, I would think that my judgment
>wouldn't matter to you anyways. If you do hold these extra opinions then I
>might judge you poorly, but being NOT politically correct, that shouldn't
>bother you either. You can be a racist without holding any of these extra
>opinions, however.
>
>>>If someone supports rascism using para-scientific arguments in Poland, he
>qualifies to psychiatrical treating.<<
>
>Now this would be an example of opressive political correctness. To my
best
>understanding we do not send our political dissidents to psychiatric wards.
I
>highly doubt psychiatric treatment would do anything for these attitudes
you
>describe.
>
>In my understanding a racist is a person who holds that there are
fundamental
>differences between people according to a genetic categorization called
>"race." I am very skeptical, but agnostic about that point of view.
>
>You can hold that view and not be stereotypical racist at all. For
instance
>you could believe that there are distinct genetic races, but that the world
>would be a better place if all races interbred to create a "colorblind"
one-
>race society. This position would not be what many people would think of
if
>they heard the word "racist". Some liberals might think that was a noble
>point of view, but in my opinion its racist all the same.
>
>If "race" is to mean anything from a genetic point of view there would have
to
>be a meaningful degree of reproductive isolation between these proposed
>"races". Otherwise I do not see how "race" would mean anything from a
genetic
>point of view.
>
>Now I do think that the word "race" does denote something. In that respect
I
>am not "colorblind", but I think that the real things that "race" denotes
are
>discreet cultures. This makes some sense in this country (the US), because
>until official segregation ended in the south, people that had ANY "negro"
>ancestors were considered to be "negroes". Any geneticist would tell you
that
>is a very silly and meaningless distinction in the realm of genetics.
Several
>generations would easily drown out any so-called genetic distinctions.
>
>So, while a white person with a great-grandfather who was "negro" was not
>significantly different from any other white person in a genetic sense,
they
>were still culturally lumped with the rest of the "negroes". The only way
>that could make any sense would be if "race" were really a cultural and not
>genetic distinction.
>
>>>(Well, I was pretty sure that the reason would not be discussed, but I
>really didn't realize how strong is anti-genetic lobby here :-)<<
>
>There is no room for an anti-genetic lobby among people who accept
evolution
>fully and completely without reservation. I think that probably describes
>just about everyone that is regular to this list.
>
>Genetic diversity is the engine of evolution. If intelligence is at all
based
>on genetic factors, which I am sure that at least to some extent it is,
then
>there would be a diversity of intelligence within humanity, and these
>differences would have to be inheritable. But since I am very skeptical
that
>"race" is a genuine genetic category, I am likewise skeptical that there
are
>any significant differences in intellectual genetic endowment between the
>cultural categories that "race" actually denotes.
>
>Intellectual differences between cultures would not surprise me at all.
>Different cultures clearly value, and indoctrinate different kinds of
mental
>behavior in their members. Some cultures place greater value on emotional
>expression and zealotry, and others place greater value on serene
>contemplation. Of course they will perform differently on any test
designed
>to examine mental behavior.
>
>-Jake