From: IN%"bryce@digicash.com" 24-APR-1996 06:43:13.96

For what it's worth, Webster's defines:

rac.ism \'ra--.siz-*m\ \-s*st\ n 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race 2: RACIALISM - rac.ist n

[...]

Thus no two of "racists", "separatists" and "race-haters" would be identical sets of people.

?

But with a high degree of overlap, I'd warrant.

Fully agreed. I don't dispute that most people calling themselves separatists are racists; it's just that I'd prefer not to call someone a racist who isn't one.... just as I'd prefer not to call a liberal a Communist unless they are one. (Communist referring to the whole dictatorship of the proletariat business, not just state socialism - the former, which is not classical Marxism, is where the abuses of rights other than private property come in).

This means that Abraham Lincoln was a racist, by the way.

Abraham Lincoln is one reason I _don't_ use the above definition; by mine, he'd be a separatist (wanted to move Blacks to Liberia, if I recall correctly). I trust that everyone involved in this discussion (with the exception of the neo-Nazi) would agree that Abraham Lincoln was better than those in the South who wanted to keep blacks enslaved?

(That definition isn't too good, though. "_The_ primary determinant"? I would have to classify as racist those who believe that race is _a_ primary determinant of those qualities.)

The definition is bad enough that I checked a concise OED for comparison; see the results and my commentary below.

Sorry to be off-topic, but if a thing is going to be discussed I might as well try to add signal. (The "[NOISE]" tag that I left in the subject line doesn't indicate noise, but off-topicness.) Perhaps we could just drop the "Cc: cypherpunks" part and continue this discussion?

Thank you. The dropping of the cc:cypherpunks part would be rather inconvenient. This phenomenon is one reason that I'd like to see a list server capable of setting up mini-lists on demand, easily.

Concise Oxford Dictionary, 8th Ed., Copyright 1991 Oxford Univ. Press

/racism/ <<"reIsIz(@)m>> n. 1. a. a belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this. b. antagonism towards other races, esp. as a result of this. 2. the theory that human abilities etc. are determined by race.

This has some differences from the Webster definition, specifically the inclusion of prejudice as a definer. The latter definition is silly. It is scientifically well-proven that different races have different physical attributes - blacks tend to have higher blood pressures, for instance. Is this definition saying that believing what is known is racism? Of course, with this definition I can see why Herrnstein and Murray keep being called racists. (Incidentally, I don't believe they are correct regarding the genetic component of intelligence as having a racial correlation - the existing (and unfortunate) environmental differences are a perfectly adequate explanation. Unfortunately, we can't tell the existence or non-existence of such differences until the genes affecting intelligence are significantly better understood; until then, the most pragmatic assumption is the lack of any such difference, given the lack of any obvious evolutionary cause for it. In other words, I call _The Bell Curve_ mistaken in its conclusions on race - not racist. Incindentally, I also believe that such differences are environmental for the emotional reason that I would be very uncomfortable believing otherwise. I don't think this is biasing my evaluation of the science, however.) Both of these definitions involve "superior" and "superiority"; I thus also looked this up.

/superior/ <<su:"pI@rI@(r)>>, <<sju:->>, <<sU->> adj. & n.

adj. 1. in a higher position; of higher rank ("a superior officer"; "a superior court"). 2. a. above the average in quality etc. ("made of superior leather"). b. having or showing a high opinion of oneself; supercilious ("had a superior air"). 3. (often foll. by "to") a. better or greater in some respect ("superior to its rivals in speed"). b. above yielding, making concessions, paying attention, etc. ("is superior to bribery"; "superior to temptation").

I don't think anyone would disagree that blacks are currently (and unfortunately) in a lower position in US society overall. Moreover, the 2nd and 3rd part of the definition make "racism" as defined above a rather over-inclusive term. For instance, it would call any scientist who does a study and finds lower IQs among members of some race a racist. Such differences are well-known to exist, and (as I state above) are probably environmental in origin. In other words, unless one makes the "prejudice" and/or "antagonism" parts mandatory (in which case it would be narrower than my definition of racist, which essentially hinges on definite prejudice existing), the Webster definition of racism is over-inclusive by any reasonable standard. -Allen