Friday, December 18, 2015

What if white supremacy had been true?

Suppose, for example, whites were really superior to blacks. Would there be any moral advantage in suppressing that belief in the interests of equality? Now, in fact, blacks are not inferior, but if they were inferior, should be, on the supposed basis of avoiding racism, deceive ourselves into believing that this was not the case?

16 comments:

planks length said...

I do not understand where you are trying to go with this. Is there a point I am not getting?

Victor Reppert said...

Well, some people argue that any superiority claims are wrong to hold because they are superiority claims. That includes white and black, male and female, gay and straight, even animal and human. The question is whether these equality claims have to be based on empirical facts, or whether they all have to be accepted on principle no matter what.

Hugo Pelland said...

These are very interesting points, and it boils down to political correctness again. In its name, some people avoid pointing differences between sexes/races/ethnicities at all cost, to prevent potentially damaging comments.

Back home in Québec, a few years ago, a psychologist was banned from his professional union because he publicaly declared, on a TV talk show, that blacks have lower IQs on average, and that it was because of years of artificial selection through slavery. I am not sure what the point was; it's kind of stupid to state that. But it's true apparently... actually it has to be true, one way or another, in the sense that not all races can possibly have the same average IQ.

James Pate said...

I was listening to someone last night who was making that point about IQs and was arguing against the idea that the lower scores are due to culture. There are probably professionals and academics out there who can do a better job refuting such arguments than I can.

Speaking for myself, it's not an idea that I want to dwell on. I think that people should be given opportunities to better themselves, wherever they may be, and their work should be judged on its own merits, apart from what group they are a part of. Plus, we all have to find some way to live with each other, and one group downgrading another does not further that goal.

Hugo Pelland said...

Yep, well said James.

oozzielionel said...

This can get very ugly. Some of the most prevalent arguments against integration from the 1860's to the 1960's were, "The are not ready yet.", not intrinsic inequality. This argument could be substantiated empirically yet it was racism of the worst sort. It pretended to be compassionate are reasonable but was oppressive and hateful. Those who voiced this could even at the same time claim that they were fully equal, just not yet practically able to handle it. This is not just a hypothetical, it was a reality of which we may not have been fully cured.

B. Prokop said...

This is one case where we poor, ignorant "Bible-believing" Christians have it all over our Darwinist brethren. When Paul writes, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" we must acknowledge that there is no Master Race, no White Supremacy, no patriarchal privilege, but rather genuine, heartfelt dignity for all. We leave all ideas of racial superiority to those who worship at the altar of Survival of the Fittest.

When ignorant atheists ignorantly state that "Nazi ideology was founded on Christianity", they do nothing but forfeit any claim to rational thought. Any sort of racial ideology is the antithesis of Christianity, diametrically opposed to the very core of its teaching.

Jezu ufam tobie!

David Brightly said...

Bob, do you see the incongruity in using that particular transcendental statement---ordinarily understood it contains obvious falsehoods---to justify a bit of ugly competitiveness---'have it all over our Darwinist brethren'?

David Brightly said...

The question is whether these equality claims have to be based on empirical facts...

Clearly No, because understood empirically the equality claims are false (see previous comment). 'Equality' has to be given a transcendental meaning. Or, if we are uncomfortable with that, we can at least say that everyone falls under the concept Human, so that asymmetric treatment demands justification from relevant difference. This is not the same thing as wilful self-deception (is this possible or sustainable?) as to empirical issues, which is not likely to lead to anywhere good, or so I would have thought.

B. Prokop said...

"Bob, do you see the incongruity...?"

Nope.

SRV said...

"Now, in fact, blacks are not inferior"

Right, that's why blacks, on average, have lower IQ scores than whites and Asians...

Terrell Taylor said...

"Right, that's why blacks, on average, have lower IQ scores than whites and Asians..."

Poor people must be inferior as well following your logic.

Ilíon said...

"Suppose, for example, whites were really superior to blacks."

ONCE AGAIN, by what metric? Until one knows *how* someone else is defining 'superiority', all this hyperventilating about "racism" is nothing more than an excuse to engage in leftist virtue-signaling.

For instance, consider this chain --

VR: "Now, in fact, blacks are not inferior"

SRV: "Right, that's why blacks, on average, have lower IQ scores than whites and Asians..."

Terrell Taylor: "Poor people must be inferior as well following your logic."

1) VR makes a vague, all-but-meaningless assertion -- other than to signal his rightthink -- because he hasn't indicated *how* he's using the concepts 'superior' and 'inferior'

2) SRV responds to VR's all-but-meaningless assertion by interpreting it in the only way it can be made to make sense, which is to say, as though VR had said (as he probably did intend): "Now, in fact, blacks are not inferior [to whites by *any* metric at all]"

This modified statement, which as I said, is what I suspect VR *means*, is so laughably false, it's just a "liberal" bullshit shibboleth, and SRV made reference to a well-established hatefact to show it to be bullshit.

3) Terrell Taylor then pipes up to demonstrate how "virtuous" he is, as though any rational person gives a damn about leftist virtue-signaling.

Terrell Taylor said...

@ Illíon I'm glad to see that you acknowledge how virtuous I am.

Ilíon said...

What i acknowledge is that like *everyone* operating from the false premises of leftism, you're more righteous than God himself (*). God, however, may disagree.

(*) and thus, you imagine that you've refuted the hatefacts to which SRV referred by shrieking about how "hateful" they are.

Terrell Taylor said...

@ Illíon Yawn.