ViskerRatio t1_itf9g6l wrote
Reply to comment by kozmonyet in TIL the Port Chicago disaster accounted for 15% of all African American casualties in World War II by Butthole_Alamo
While I doubt that they did rigorous research to reach those conclusions, the statements themselves are not inherently racist but could potentially be legitimate observations.
Contrast the two statements:
"White men like ice hockey more than black men" vs.
"That man cannot like ice hockey because he is black"
The first statement is very likely true - the fan base for ice hockey is primarily white men and relatively few black men are interested in the sport.
The second statement is the racist one - the assumption that the man's skin color defines his taste in sports.
Now, the statements you're describing could be based on racist assumptions rather than legitimate observations - but that doesn't make the statements themselves racist, merely the underlying assumptions.
The reason this matters is that, in science, there are a lot of observations about group differences that many people erroneously believe are racist despite being verifiable.
thx1138a t1_itfnpve wrote
Yikes
Darqnyz t1_ith4l87 wrote
You're trying to euphemize "descriptive vs prescriptive" racism right now
ViskerRatio t1_ithv1l1 wrote
No, I'm not. The Descriptive vs. Prescriptive distinction is about imposing a view vs. observing a view. What I'm talking about is that racial groups (as well as any arbitrary group) have observable differences and that the mere act of observing these differences is not, in itself, racist.
For example, you'll see a lot of people say "that's racist!" when you point out that Jews are wealthier than average or black people more likely to engage in crime. However, that use of racism is incorrect - and the overuse of it in this fashion ends up killing rational discourse.
Darqnyz t1_ithx18q wrote
You're literally describing the difference between descriptive/prescriptive racism.
Yes, observing differences between races is amoral. It has no bearing whether right or wrong. It's like saying "Black people are taller than Asian people". While "racist", it is a descriptive statement about black people that can be measured, and does not further imply anything inherent about race.
But you're taking things that have prescriptive implications, and pretending that you don't know about them, and then boiling them down to descriptive elements.
"Black people are lazy" is a prescriptive statement, because "lazy" is not a trait that uniquely/inherently Maps on to the race of the person being described.
When you made your explanation, you avoided restating the prescriptive statements being made about the "races" of the people being described. Which is fine, but that's why I said you're euphemizing them. Trying to sneak the "descriptive" label onto the statements, rather than actually assign it directly.
ViskerRatio t1_ithypf0 wrote
> "Black people are lazy" is a prescriptive statement, because "lazy" is not a trait that uniquely/inherently Maps on to the race of the person being described.
Almost no traits actually map onto race in an objective fashion. There's no actual reason that black skin should correlate with preferring basketball over ice hockey. It just so happens that we can observe this - and it is not racist to observe it.
In terms of the observations being made, saying "that's racist" is merely a way to shut down thinking about the issue and refusing to engage with why those statements were made.
I'd encourage you to consider the social classes within the groups named and what those various classes would have been doing during World War II other than working the docks. Because an Italian working the docks at Port Chicago and a black man working the docks at Port Chicago would have very likely have been drawn from different backgrounds if you stop to think about it.
What you - and many others - are doing is engaging in knee jerk prejudice. You're just assuming you know more about the situation than the people who were actually there. What you should be doing is trying to understand why they thought as they did - and reductive answers like "they were racist!" are never the correct ones.
Darqnyz t1_ithzr5s wrote
I'll just ask you directly, because I don't have all day:
Do you understand that saying "black people like to play basketball" is prescriptive and "more black people play basketball than other races" is "descriptive*?.
Do you understand that both of these statements are "racist" in the sense that they are making strong statements about race? As in the academic understanding of the term "racist"?
ViskerRatio t1_iti04db wrote
> Do you understand that saying "black people like to play basketball" is prescriptive and "more black people play basketball than other races" is "descriptive*?.
A prescriptive statement is one where you're imposing a standard on others. A descriptive one is one where you're observing a difference.
> Do you understand that both of these statements are "racist" in the sense that they are making strong statements about race? As in the academic understanding of the term "racist"?
While you're welcome to make up your own definitions of words, don't expect the rest of the world - including academia - to accept them.
What you're trying to do is precisely what I cautioned against - redefine 'racism' as a way to shut down critical thinking.
Consider for a moment that we have statements from people who were actually there and who were experts in their job. Your response to them - despite having no context whatsoever and no expertise - that they were 'racist'. That's it - you've decided to end any inquiry into why those statements were made and what observations they reflected. You don't want more information. You just want to demonstrate moral superiority.
Darqnyz t1_iti1qol wrote
>A prescriptive statement is one where you're imposing a standard on others. A descriptive one is one where you're observing a difference.
Ok, so we have semantics dispute. That's fine.
I learned "prescriptive" through philosophy, where it's better understood to mean "how something ought to be". I wouldn't use "impose a standard" but it works.
Descriptive however, I would say is simply observing something that "is". We can argue all day whether a black person is good, bad, fast, slow etc, but descriptively black people are human. Not looking for difference, but what is observable.
I refer back to the academic definition of racism, because it's lost so much meaning (thanks lefties), that it is basically useless. When I talk about racism, I try to stick to the "race as a category of human" side of things, because moralizing around race is a huge waste of time.
So when I say "racism", I'm just referring to prescriptive/descriptive identifications of race. Not "i hate blacks" or "white supremacy". Just observing racial groups and how they interact
That_Run_3066 t1_itsf836 wrote
There is some truth to that but people aren't ready to admit it yet. There is usually some truth rooted in most stereotypes although it is usually greatly exaggerated
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments