Subject: Re: On interracial relationships, or anything
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:25:15 GMT
Adrian Riskin (ariskin@guinan.mps.org) wrote:
: NightSerf (acs6j@virginia.edu) wrote:
: >
: >: > If race does not exist, then the dominant social reality of
: >: > the last 500 years -- race-based enslavement of African by
: >: > European, and the consequences we still see in myriad ways --
: >: > did not and does not exist either.
: >
: >: A bit of a logical flaw here. If race is a false premise, it
: >: does not mean that race based practices do not exist, only that
: >: they are based on a false premise and are therefore stupid.
: >
: >Er... if race is a "false premise", then "race-based" practices
: >would not be possible.
: NightSerf is right---your argument doesn't follow. Just because people act
: on a premise does not mean that the premise is true. I have a neighbor who
: acts on the premise that the democratic party is trying to control his
: behavior by beaming radiation at him through the walls. Whether they are
: or not isn't the point. The point is that it is at least plausible that he
: is wrong, but yet, his belief still controls his behavior. Just because
: people believe in something, doesn't mean that that something exists.
Let me be very clear. The existence of race is a necessary,
but not sufficient condition of racism. Racism must flow
from another premise besides the mere existence of race --
a moral premise, or a value premise. The point I tried to
make by making reference to the Pilgrims and the Indians
was that both sides of that racial divide recognized the
racial difference; one side lent a helping hand when the
other needed it, and the other side embarked on a program
of genocide as soon as they were strong enough. I conclude
that race is a necessary condition to racism, but it is
not sufficient. To deny racism, therefore, it is not
necessary, also not honest, to deny the existence of race
as a premise; it is sufficient, and more honest, to deny
the moral or value premise -- it has come by different
names over the centuries, eg. Manifest Destiny, Survival
of the Fittest, etc.-- that suffuses it.
Now, having said that, I do not deny as a meta-logical
matter that false conclusions inevitably flow from false
premises. What I have just demonstrated that the falsity
of racism considered as a consequent rests not on the
falsity of *one* of its premises -- the existence of
race -- but on the falsity of the *other* premise, which
is inescapably a moral premise.
Your example of the neighbor who acts on what *you* deem to
be a false premise is not apt. Since you are a mathematician,
I will put the matter in technical terms. As to the existence
of race, you seek to assert modus tollendo tollens (method of
denying the consequent), as follows:
[not-B & A->B ] -> not-A
in which you substitute A=race, and B=racism. You *assume*
that race->racism, deny the consequent, racism, and seek
through modus tollendo tollens thereby to deny race also.
That argument fails, because, as I have demonstrated, it
is not necessarily the case that race->racism. The missing
premise, as I have discussed, goes to values, and race
per se, though it exists, is insufficient. Your example
is inapt, because the logical set-up there is not modus
tollendo tollens, but of a (failed) modus ponendo ponens,
allegedly ridiculous, as follows:
[A & A->B] -> B
in which your neighbor asserts A=Democratic radiation, and
B is whatever he does based on that premise, while you
claim the self-evident falsity of A, and thus
[not-A & A->B] -> B or not-B
ie., no logical conclusion one way or the other. I am
willing to grant your confuting premise not-A, but I
deny it has any relevance as example to the issue under
discussion, in which the structure of the logical
issues (modus tollendo tollens above) is different.
Having said that, I may jump out of the logical frame,
and get back to the clear evidence of my senses. Race
exists as logical *premise*, not based on the existence
of a possible consequent, namely racism, but based on
the fact that society at large has a largely unerring ability
to classify its members based on race, and I have a
similar ability to do the same for everyone I encounter
every time I take a stroll in the park. As a scientist
now, as distinct from a logician, I *never* deny the
clear evidence of my senses.
: >Quite simply, my point remains
: >that if it does not exist, actions based on it also
: >could not be possible, and would not exist. You have not
: >defeated the cogency of that observation either as a matter
: >of logic, or as a matter of empirical fact. Your attempt at logic
: >is merely circular -- effectively, "if race is a false premise
: >then [actions based on it] are based on a false premise". This
: >hardly advances the dialogue.
: This point _is_ false as a matter of logic. It is conceivable that people
: act on false premises.
Inapt, as proven above.
: This point is also false empirically: There are
: many examples of people basing their actions on false premises. Acts based
: on the idea of race are just some of many such examples.
Wrong, as earlier demonstrated. When you have sorted out
the logical difference, Mr. Mathematician, between logical
premise and logical consequent, get back to me.
: NightSerf's argument is _not_ that
: >"if race is a false premise
: >>then [actions based on it] are based on a false premise"
: His argument is that "because people base their actions on a premise, it
: doesn't follow that the premise is true." This is correct.
That is true. But it carries no probative force in relation
to the point at issue, since neither does it follow that
because people act on a wrong *moral* premise, in the presence of
an auxiliary enabling premise of *fact*, that it is the auxiliary
enabling premise of fact that is false, rather than the wrong
moral premise that animates the action. You like examples,
I am sure you can think of one.
: >The simple truth in this matter is (a) that race exists, and
: >the fact of its existence allows a global system of racism
: >(white supremacy) to be practiced, even as (b) it is clear that
: >this racism (white supremacy) is not so much "stupid", as evil.
: It's evil and stupid, but stupid is not really the right term. The right
: term is delusional. You have a bunch of evil crazy people.
You have a *culture* of racism based on an evil idea.
The evil idea is not the evident existence of race, it is
the world view of the European, which values power, control
and domination, seemingly above all else. That idea leads
to the exploitation of man by man: in the absence of "inferior"
races, they would subjugate each other (witness feudalism
and the serf/slaves of Europe. In the presence of race,
the idea turns into racism.
: They need to
: be stopped, they do not need to have their delusions validated by those who
: should be stopping them.
They are not delusional as to the existence of race. They
are warped by the absence of right-knowledge about the
true nature of man in relation to God and the universe.
The Africans tried to teach them, the so-called Native
American tried to teach them, the Buddhists, the
Hindus, etc. All seemingly to no avail. If anything,
the wrong-knowledge spread by European cultural thought
and behavior has been like a cancer infecting the planet,
feeding on materialist excess, and eating up the very
planet as it spreads.
: You can't do anything effective about crazy
: people unless you clearly recognize that they're crazy. If you accept
: their delusions as real, you're drawn into pointless arguments with them.
If you argue such patent nonsense as the non-existence
of race, you get no further ahead in attacking the core
problem of racism, which lies in the spiritual debility
of European cultural thought and behavior. Read Marimba
Ani's "Yurugu: An African-centered Critique of European
Cultural Thought and Behavior" if you are serious about
fighting racism. Jejune nonsense masquerading as authoritative
logical argument will take you nowhere.
: >I would add that the culture that practices it cannot claim to be
: >civilized, no matter how technologically accomplished, but that's
: >another matter.
: The trouble is that if you accept the premise of race, then it becomes an
: open question as to whether racism really is bad. They say black people
: are worse than white people, and you have to then argue that white people
: and black people are equal, or that white people are worse than black
: people. It puts nonracists in a weak position. If there really is some
: physical difference between the so-called races, then I don't see why it is
: logically impossible that some races should be inferior to others.
... A good example of European cultural thought and behavior.
>From "differences", it is a very short jump to relative "inferior[ity]"
within such a mind-set: things have to be ordered into a
one-dimensional linear arrangement of relative power, domination,
and control. It is that mind-set that is the problem. The
truth is that Man is multi-dimensional, and within these many
dimensions, we all are differently gifted. The trouble comes
when those who have been gifted with a hammer start seeing everything
else as a nail...
: The fact is that there are no uniform physical differences which allow
: so-called races to be distinguished, so the best argument against racism is
: to say that classifying people on the basis of imagined differences in
: their skin color makes about as much sense as saying that people whose last
: name starts with a z are better than people whose last name starts with a
: c.
Nonsense.
(( cuts ))
: >"Stupid" though, is not what
: >racism (white supremacy) is, and I see through such an attempted
: >disguise, which racism (white supremacy) is not above attempting.
: >False premise, my ass!
: So because NightSerf agreed with you that race exists, and merely tried to
: help your case by pointing out an obvious logical flaw in your argument,
: you underhandly insinuate that he's a white supremacist? Tsk tsk.
I do not claim to know, and frankly I do not care, whether
Nightserf, as an individual, subscribes, consciously or
unconsciously, to racism (white supremacy). Therefore I have
no interest in asserting, whether by insinuation or otherwise,
that Nightserf as an individual is racist or otherwise.
I do however have a very strong interest in exploding
nonsense masquerading as aid to the anti-racist cause.
The reason is clear: if it's nonsense, and it can't stand
up, then it's no help. I am also aware that racism (white
supremacy) has one aim, but many modalities, deception
being prime among them. Therefore, my point was exactly
what it was, neither more nor less. For damn sure though,
Nightserf does not get a free pass from me carrying
anti-racist credentials, merely because he comes with
a fallacious argument purporting to attack racism as
merely being "stupid".
: Adrian
"If you do not understand White Supremacy
(Racism)... everything *else* that you
understand will only confuse you."
--Neely Fuller
Contents | Previous | Next