It relevant because you’re assuming race when there is none. You say a belief in race is neither necessary nor sufficient then go on to say people are devalued because of their race.

How can one devalue someone because of their race while at the same time believing no such demarcation exists? — NOS4A2

The same way you can say that one is conflating race with ethnicity while at the same time believing no such demarcation exists.

I would call you racist because you assume a group of people called “latinos” exist and that you hate them — NOS4A2

You did it again, that's exactly right. The “hate” part is what makes it racist. Simply recognising a group called “latinos” is not. The way you have defined race previously did not include the “hate” part, and that is what is causing the disagreement.

There is also a group of people called ‘rapists’ and I hate them too.

Even so, you just admitted you’d call me racist even though I didn’t in any way make a distinction of ‘race’ so calling me ‘racist’ for hating latinos, when I stated I don’t believe there are human races, must - by your own definition - make you ‘racist’ for calling me ‘racist’ because you’re falsely accusing me of hating a group of people based on ‘race’ when I very clearly said I don’t believe in ‘race’.

Note: I’m just following your reasoning here.

I understand what you're getting at. However, my whole project here is to show that the belief in the biological taxonomy of "race" is irrelevant. People were racist before the term was invented.

I fell behind cuz Im working, but just wanted to add something since Creativesoul is making the same point I would be making. Creativesoul is making the correct argument but I think using the wrong example. “Asian” should be replaced by something more specific, like “Chinese”, then hopefully the impact of the argument will get the point accross. “asian” describes geography, the biology of “asian” peoples is too diverse for it to be a useful biological “race”. Chinese people have definite common, biological traits where using a term like “race” is useful.

I’m working too (or at least should be)

A man of European ancestry could be born and raised in China, complete with the socio-linguistic and cultural norms. Is he Chinese or European.

Chinese, but I sure as hell wouldn’t assume so if I saw him walking down a street anywhere in the world.

There is also a group of people called ‘rapists’ and I hate them too.

Even so, you just admitted you’d call me racist even though I didn’t in any way make a distinction of ‘race’ so calling me ‘racist’ for hating latinos, when I stated I don’t believe there are human races, must - by your own definition - make you ‘racist’ for calling me ‘racist’ because you’re falsely accusing me of hating a group of people based on ‘race’ when I very clearly said I don’t believe in ‘race’.

Note: I’m just following your reasoning here.

That’s fair. I suppose you’d hate an ethnicity, not a race. I’m not sure of the correct term in that case.

How can you charge another with conflating race and ethnicity if there is no such thing as race?

Devaluing asians based upon looks alone is racist, even though asian is not a race. This clearly proves that racism does not require a biological classification called "race".

It's not even that, creativesoul. They are confusing race with biology. Race was never a biological fact, even though some people might have thought it so and wanted it to be.

All along race has been a certain social distinction, a category not of biology, but a social category about people who exist (who often have a skin colour, culture or ethnicity).

Yes. I'm simply making a concerted attempt at setting out the underlying habits of mind, the kinds of thinking, that constitute racism and having a racist element within one's worldview.

Believing that there are different human races may be a false belief, but it does not make one racist in the sense of being racist that matters... the kind of worldview that needs to be corrected and/or shunned...

So that wasn't quite my point. My point was that race wasn't biologcal, not that a category of race itself was a false belief. Categories of race may be (and are) entirely true, just as a social relation and construct.

In many ways it is a none question because they moment a group has been identified as a race, there is a person related to socially. If I set out a social category of these people, it gets used across society, the question of whether I might want to use it beccomes sort of moot. The people who exist, have been classifed by race and are treated in certain ways, are still there.

To be colourblind doesn't work becuase these people how exist and are affected are still there. It just doesn't get rid of significance of racial groups and how people have been affected.

I’d say both. It’s not really the case that the scientific history of the term ‘race’ hasn’t played a significant part in the development of racism. — I like sushi

Of course! The scientific history of the term is atrocious! A synonym for species nonetheless!

However...

A lack of belief that there are such things as races does not guarantee that one does not have racist elements within their worldview, just as a belief that there are races does not guarantee that one has racist elements within their worldview.

As it pertains directly to the OP subject matter...

Denying race may equate to some folk's idea of what it means to be color-blind, but it does not guarantee that such a person does not have racist elements within their worldview. One can claim color-blindness by refusing to talk about race. That will not correct the problems that need corrected. It could be used to willfully exonerate one from addressing the issues head-on so long as such a person garners enough agreement from enough people that all talk of race is to be avoided because it is believed that it will further perpetuate racial discrimination or some such.

Placing all talk about race on equally unethical ground is foolish at best, and heinous at worst.

So that wasn't quite my point. My point was that race wasn't biologcal, not that a category of race itself was a false belief. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ok.

All along race has been a certain social distinction, a category not of biology, but a social category about people who exist (who often have a skin colour, culture or ethnicity). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes.

So you would agree that people can use the notion of race without believing that it is a legitimate method of scientific classification.

More along the lines the understand it to legitimately identify certain people, such there is a group talked about, thought about, understood to be treated certain ways or not, is there.

All without thinking race is biological or ascribing it defines some essential quality or predjudical value to a group.

I suppose you’d hate an ethnicity, not a race. I’m not sure of the correct term in that case. — NOS4A2

Well for the last 80 years or so, the world has used the word "racism" to describe the above. In fact the term has been used so consistently that almost no one is confused by it despite the scientific technicalities you have pointed out.

I also call tacos, "tacos", despite them technically being a wide variety items that could be made from corn or flour tortillas (or something else) and filled with some sort of meat (or not). As we get into it, the word "taco" can mean such a wide variety of things that it would almost seem meaningless, and yet we all know what someone means when they say "taco".

What is your actual point? Are we pretending that you really don't know what people mean when they use the word racism? Or are you just trying to say that the term is not precise? If the latter, to what end? Most words are not very precise.

I don’t doubt the frequency of usage. We also shouldn’t deny that it defined in various ways in different fields. I’m only suggesting that the defining feature of racism is the attaching of significance to race.

It’s a necessary yet unfortunate, term of accusation that has a place for singling out the kind of persons I portrayed above. You admitted you didn’t know what you’d call me, but by your own definitions singled yourself out as ‘racist’ by the accusation made - that is why your position, although seemingly reasonable, falls down very quickly in the real world because it doesn’t consider the actual nuance of day-to-day speech.

I’m only suggesting that the defining feature of racism is the attaching of significance to race. — NOS4A2

Yes, that is what you are suggesting. However, you are the first person I have ever heard define it that way, so it doesn't seem to accurately reflect usage.

As no one is confused by the word "racism", it is hard not to assume ulterior motives from those who attempt to redefine it.

I think this is clear enough to the OP now. I merely used his own reasoning for a specific example.

The conclusion is that we need a term to distinguish the kind of person I set out above who falls outside the definition the OP prefers. We have terms of endearment and terms of scorn. Not to mention the obviousness (at least to us) of the term being used to wheedle out such crimes in society rather than assume they’ve ceased to exist.

That person would be a Chinese citizen of european descent/origin. They would not share the racial traits of a Chinese person, as these are genetic traits formed through generations of exposure to a specific geography/environment. (And of course, im using my definition of rape...basically yours but with hate/discrimination as an additional requisite.)

the defining feature of racism is the attaching of significance to race — NOS4A2

... for (via policy and/or custom) the manifest purpose of (agents & bureaucrats of) business church or state discriminating (1) against members or communities of a color/ethnic out-group or (2) for members or communities of the color/ethnic in-group (e.g. in the Americas, Eurozone, Australia: "nonwhites" and "whites", respectively; in the PRC: non-Han (e.g. Uyghurs, Tibetans) and Han, respectively; in Turkey, non-Turk (e.g. Kurds, Arabs) and Turk, respectively; in Rwanda, Burundi, the DRC: non-Hutu (e.g. Tutsis) and Hutu, respectively; in India: non-Indo-Aryans (e.g. Dravidians) and Indo-Aryans, respectively; in Israel: non-Ashkenazim (e.g. Arabs, Sephardim) and Ashkenazim, respectively; and so on).

Btw, "race" is nothing but a bureaucratic (i.e. demographic) shorthand used primarily, and effectively, by color/ethnic in-groups in order to designate - brand, stereotype, essentialize - color/ethnic out-groups. Continuing to conflate the mention of "race" with the weaponizing of race at this point, when others have pointed this out already, is just trollish bullshit, NOS (et al). :shade:

Thus, "racist" seems an apt epithet for accusing anyone who, regardless of demographic traits or personal prejudices, (A) enjoys and actively seeks benefits from the accumulated historical legacies and/or (B) (via inaction or action) implements or supports current policies of (1), (2) or both, mentioned above.

NB: UN Reports on Human Rights, UNDP, WHO, ICJ @ the Hague and other international human & civil rights NGOs thoroughly document and annually publish accounts and analyses which track both manifestations and the effects of racism (as well as other modalities of systemic discrimination). Anyone who doesn't know about these pervasive and persistent injustices simply doesn't want to know because s/he has the in-group privilege of not having to survive discrimination, even open persecution, as members of out-groups everywhere must. And what one doesn't know about one doesn't care - give a fuck! - about, which shows.

Yes, that is what you are suggesting. However, you are the first person I have ever heard define it that way, so it doesn't seem to accurately reflect usage.

Then I’ll take credit.

There are people who believe the Earth is flat and that the Earth is 6000 years old.

It is perfectly understandable in this regard that there are likely many more people out there who see the term ‘race’ and assume it has a literal scientific application to different human groups demographically distinguished by the same word.

I think there is a reasonable argument about the linguistic use of the term and I don’t find it a huge stretch that some people out there would react to the whole ‘colour-blindness’ issue outlined. Some people are extremely rigid and literally minded.

Understand that the OP has called himself a ‘racist’ by accident (as I have shown in the last few posts I made) and that should be enough to show the flaw in logic and the nuance of language beyond hard, cold logic by way of rigid adherence to a singular interpretation of a term without deeper thought put into how context can become blurred due to political motives, emotional stances, historical shifts and general fluid nature of all languages.

‘Race’, on surveys, is also used to protect minorities from racism as well. If you think it’s misused then you should effectively be agreeing with the OP. I think the advantages of keeping an eye out for racism far outweigh the possible calamity of turning a blind eye and hoping we’ll just stop being prejudice because we no longer use the term ‘prejudice’. Language is effectively an extension of human reasoning through which we can both question each other and ourselves about out attitudes and actions. Removing the concept of ‘rape’ from all languages would only remove the word concept from society not the act, thus removing a huge tool for recognising and tackling the said act of rape through reason and dialogue.

By all this I mean to point out that the opposite is just as dangerous. Extending a term into areas that take certain liberties, some more or less justified, will lead to further destabilisation of the term in question. Really the OP is looking at language and the fact that ‘race’ is the item under scrutiny is neither here nor there to me. The same has, and will no doubt continue to happen for terms like ‘rape’, ‘sexism’ and ‘violence’. This is not to say the particular case of ‘race’ isn’t more potent - I believe it is by historical accounts and fact that issues of race and racism are very much in the limelight around the globe. I certainly don’t think turning a blind eye to the term would do anything other than allow it to grow in the darkness.

The day we stop talking about ‘racism’ will be the day when some other (or the very same) ugly effect of human society will lurk out of the darkness and slaughter sections of humanity. Maybe it will take a whole new iteration and temporal distance to give the term ‘racism’ a more distinct coinage? At the moment I prefer to think we’ll not have to go through the whole travesty again and again in order to merely stumble on a better terminological framing that allows us to see through to the heart of human bias.

I’m happy to say, and proud to say, I have certain prejudices/bias when I meet people. I say this because I’m quite aware that I hold, as everyone does, some quite idiotic cultural priming dependent upon mere appearances and mannerisms. I can say I am proud of this because I’m glad I can attend to this in my daily life and recognise it as part of being human rather than pretend it doesn’t exist or feel deeply guilt ridden because of this. I don’t feel guilty about it because I’m aware of this initial idiotic ‘reading a book by its cover’ bias apparent in every human and have noticed that it disappears once I start to talk to the person with this or that accent, this scowl, this or that skin tone, wearing this or that attire and/or by facial expressions and general precision of speech. All that said I will no doubt err from time to time - I did so last actually, but I wasn’t ashamed I just took serious account of my thoughts and actions and made a mental note to check myself again if something similar occurs (which I guarantee it will).

It’s a necessary yet unfortunate, term of accusation that has a place for singling out the kind of persons I portrayed above. You admitted you didn’t know what you’d call me, but by your own definitions singled yourself out as ‘racist’ by the accusation made - that is why your position, although seemingly reasonable, falls down very quickly in the real world because it doesn’t consider the actual nuance of day-to-day speech.

How did I single myself out as racist according to my definition? I haven't once professed any belief that there are distinct biological races. In fact I professed the opposite.

Btw, "race" is nothing but a bureaucratic (i.e. demographic) shorthand used primarily, and effectively, by color/ethnic in-groups in order to designate - brand, stereotype, essentialize - color/ethnic out-groups. Continuing to conflate the mention of "race" with the weaponizing of race at this point, when others have pointed this out already, is just trollish bullshit, NOS (et al).

Not once have I conflated the mere mention of race with the weaponizing of race.

Rather it is you who abuses the false demarcation of the color line, that perverse ideology which you use to justify hoisting racial assumptions upon the disparate individuals involved.

You didn’t notice? Oh ...

You have previously stated that calling someone racist means you are racist because you’re perpetuating the term ‘racist’ by doing so. You then accused my rendition of someone who hates latinos as ‘racist’ even though I stated the prejudice wasn’t set within the parameters of distinctions of race between humans. You then admitted you falsely accused said rendition of being racist which mist necessarily follow that you were racist because you missed the initial position laid out and added the ‘race’ element in order to accuse that rendition of me as ‘racist’.

Here:

Yes, that is clear from what I wrote. What is not clear from what I wrote is your misrepresentation that using the term “race” is racist, which seemed to be pulled from thin air. — NOS4A2

Followed not long after by:

They are both racist because they both subscribe to the racist worldview. My contention is one cannot hate Asians unless he believes such a distinct group exists. — NOS4A2

Yet you accepted what I said here and questioned yourself:

Yes, people use the term race all the time.

“How about if I state that there is only one human race and then say I hate latinos? Can I be called ‘racist’ then? By your definition I’m not being ‘racist’ am I? If not then what would you call me? An ‘ethnicist’ maybe? The term doesn’t exist, instead we use ‘racist’, ‘bigoted’ and/or ‘prejudiced’.” - (my words)

I would call you racist because you assume a group of people called “latinos” exist and that you hate them. — NOS4A2

In the above you’ve called that person ‘racist’ even though it is crystal clear that person doesn’t believe in distinctions of human races. Thus you were perpetuating the worldview of ‘race’ so in your own words:

“racist because they both subscribe to the racist worldview.”

You clearly subscribed to the ‘racist worldview’ where, to repeat, the statement made expressed hatred based on a premise that didn’t hold to the view that different human races exist.

Of course, I’m merely trying to show how your views must necessarily shift with context. You didn’t hesitate to call out the above hatred as ‘racist’ yet it is not aligned to your own definition. So if you’re calling someone racist who isn’t racist (by your own definition) then surely you were perpetuating the racist worldview - albeit accidentally - thus making your accusation unfounded, false, dangerous and/or hypocritical. Personally I’d say your response was instinctually correct and proof that you may state one idea of how you wish to use a term yet when it comes to answering a question you still call someone ‘racist’ based on their dislike of culture.

Note: I’m not trying to trick you here just showing how your claimed use of the concept ‘race’ doesn’t actually hold up in colloquial speech - a good sign for me that you cannot actually hold fast to your own definition and no matter how hard you try commonsense wins through.

You accepted the disjoint well enough by calling said person ‘racist’ then realising that it didn’t fit into your coinage of ‘racist’ and being stumped as to what to call this hideous attitude based only on cultural prompts. Everyone else calls it ‘racism’ and you did too on instinct.

The big question now it whether or not you can accept the further nuance surrounding the term ‘colour-blind’ and, more so for some, whether they can accept your take on that term from your first post.

You have previously stated that calling someone racist means you are racist because you’re perpetuating the term ‘racist’ by doing so. You then accused my rendition of someone who hates latinos as ‘racist’ even though I stated the prejudice wasn’t set within the parameters of distinctions of race between humans. You then admitted you falsely accused said rendition of being racist which mist necessarily follow that you were racist because you missed the initial position laid out and added the ‘race’ element in order to accuse that rendition of me as ‘racist’.

Well, the first sentence is false. I have never stated such a thing. Not a great start. The rest of your misapprehensions arise from this misapprehension.

As for your mental gymnastics, I simply did not know whether Latino was considered a race or ethnicity on the US census, never once implying that I believe there is such a biologically distinct entity. But no, instead of allowing me this minor correction or allowing me to clarify, you offer me some uncharitable interpretation of my views in order to accuse me, in a round about way, of calling myself a racist.