lost for words

[darren_stranger]

So, tonight on the train i was talking to this young guy i know, who's now become a full-blown Nazi Skinhead. I found myself refusing to be drawn into discussing politics, and i realised it was because i couldn't think of anything useful to say to him. I mean, i can go on and on about hypocrisy in Christian fundamentalism or racism in Australian politics, but it occurred to me that i didn't have a clue how to *logically* answer a simple question of "but what's wrong with racism anyway?". It's like it's something that i've always seen as so fundamentally self-evident that i've never even thought about the reasons *why* i believe in it. And that being the case, how can you have a productive discussion on that sort of issue with someone who overtly rejects that as a given truth?

Of course arguing why the reasons for the other point of view make no sense is probably more to the point, but for something i feel this strongly about, i really should think through why i feel that way more carefully. For one thing, i've never been much of a fan of "because it just fucking is" as an argument.

Comments

[hbdeath.livejournal.com]

Nietzsche picked up on this in one of his books where he asks just why we assume that good is, well, good. Or something along those lines. I am slightly drunk and not quite able to remember his exact phraseology, but it was something like that, and I remember being struck by what seemed like the self-evident rightness of the idea. From memory it was in Beyond Good and Evil.

As for skinhead boy, I rather doubt he would've been interested in an argument with you, as his own opinions would've struck him as being self-evidently right too. I think when it comes to the crunch what most people want is other people to reinforce their beliefs rather than challenge them, but I suspect this is particularly true of people like him. More than most, they don't care what other people think except when they agree 100% with them. So trying to argue the point with him would've been utterly futile and, more likely than not, only convinced him further that he was right.

[strang-er.livejournal.com]

I think he was trying to sound me out and see where i stood on it. I wasn't so much concerned with convincing him of anything, for exactly the reasons you mentioned, but i just found that i couldn't think of logical reasons to back up my own position, so i didn't go there.

It's kind of thrown me a bit, as i generally like to think of my own beliefs as based on logical reason, but if i can't even explain my own position compared to something that seems as obviously absurd to me as white supremacism, where is the basis for it? I guess never having had to put it into words before has let me off actually thinking about it until now.

[greylock.livejournal.com]

Racism is an unthinking rejection.
That's what's wrong with it.

Now, xenophobia - there's nothing wrong with that. It is a common-sense position (you are not like me, I distrust you - but I am open to discussing your whacked out ideas), but sadly one not too disimilar from racism if not considered fully (you are not like me, I kill you).

[strang-er.livejournal.com]

"Racism is an unthinking rejection.
That's what's wrong with it."

Hmm. Trouble is, in this conversation i could tell that he was going to be the one with the well-rehearsed reasons and i was going to be the one falling back on "because it just fucking is". If all i've got is "racism is bad, mmkay?" then i'm the one sticking to unthinking rejection. I should be able to do better than that.

Trouble is, i've never had to think this through before. I've had arguments with people plying the "i'm not being racist, but.." game, where the main point is to explain why what they're saying most certainly is racist, but never had a discussion where the basic premise that racism is wrong in itself is not accepted as a given. Needs some more thought.

[highlandish.livejournal.com]

ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to hate (Yoda)

hate and ignorance is the basis of racism, hate is unfounded in most cases, it is more based on fear that he will lose something, perhaps his whiteness or his territory, his way of life. so he lashes out and takes an extreme view on life to protect himself. his fear was instilled in him by his parents and his peers.

ignorance: teaching him that our entire culture is only a new thing developed over only a couple of generations will help dissolve his fear. tell him the facts of where our common ideals came from. that our maths and medical procedures and science were developed by Muslims, our language is French, German (he'll be happy) and Dutch mixed into Gaelic.

I haven't put a great deal of time into this response to compose it better, but you might garnish a few ideas from this post. I'd love to quote some Nietzsche as well, but I haven't finished the book yet to develop an opinion.

[strang-er.livejournal.com]

Explaining to a Nazi Skinhead that his beliefs are based on fear would probably at least bring the discussion to an end, though not in a particularly constructive way.

I'm guessing he'd more take the "what's wrong with being proud of my racial and cultural heritage?" angle, and even your points about there not being a 'pure' culture wouldn't really make a difference because, at the end of the day, chances are he's into all that stuff mainly because he *likes* it. No logical argument is going to change that. I'm not really concerned with trying to change his mind, which i probably couldn't anyway (the lightbulb has to want to change), but it's more about me being able to justify why i believe what i believe.

[sharplittlteeth.livejournal.com]

I have no idea who Leif Powers is, but this might be a starting point:
http://www.leifpowers.com/rwrong.htm

[strang-er.livejournal.com]

Quite a good article. Thanks.

Though it's probably geared more to everyday racism in society than the 'fashion' racism of nazi skins, one phrase that did jump out at me was "each person must be considered for ner (her or his) own self, and not for that of a generalization", which probably sums up my position better than anything. I'm sure i've said something to that effect before - that it's better to take each person as you find them than pre-judge them according to a generalisation - and it's even part of the reason why i'm willing to talk to a nazi in the first place.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

OK, I'm going to try my very hardest to thing why, logically, a person should be a racist.

If, and only if, there is a definable subspecies of human who has inferior physical attributes and dangerous psychological dispositions then racism could be justified.

However there is no such subspecies of human. There are no human races. So therefore any classification of "race" therefore becomes entirely arbritrary. Something that can be used against any person.

Interesting, it is attempts to reach racial purity (such as Elizabeth Nietzsche's experiement in Paraguay, "New Germany") which leads to genetic inferiority and severe mental problems.

It's called in-breeding. Human beings are genetically and culturally at their best when they have incorporated genes and memes from the widest possible selection. That's what gives us adaptability.

That's why racism is a failed venture. It makes people ugly and stupid.

[strang-er.livejournal.com]

All of this makes sense, though i was more expecting it to go along the lines of the old "being proud of our European cultural heritage" angle, with 'race' being more a question of who the rightful inheritors of the culture are (ie the 'trying to sound reasonable' version). But i didn't get into it so i don't really know where he was going with it.

[justaprimate.livejournal.com]

Very nicely put, and exactly what I was thinking (and going to say), except maybe your version sounds a lot better, hehe.
May I also recommend reading Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" - basically a very detailed account of how/why the biological justifications used for racism, particularly those in the 18/19/20th centuries, were invalid.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Very nicely put, and exactly what I was thinking (and going to say), except maybe your version sounds a lot better, hehe.

Let's just say that I've had a lot of arguments with racists on aus.politics over the years and learned from the experience.

Gould's pretty damn good on this sort of thing. He understands the science and he demands scientific validity. I have enormous respect for that. Another work which I think's pretty good in this field is "The History and Geography of Human Genes" (Cavalli-Sforza 1994)

[octobrianaoz.livejournal.com]

Racism appeals to people because it excuses us being mean and bad to others. As it seems to be based on entirely arbitrary characteristics, and less that 1% of a human's genetic code, it would seem to be fairly random.

[strang-er.livejournal.com]

"Racism appeals to people because it excuses us being mean and bad to others."

That's probably the closest to my main emotive objection to it, though it does in turn rely on accepting the premise that being mean and bad to others is also wrong (which i doubt carries much weight with nazi skins).

Perhaps the biggest reason i can think of why racism is bollocks is that i've seen for myself that people of different 'races' aren't so different as humans. It's convoluted arguments about why one culture is superior to another, woven into notions of who a particular cultural heritage 'belongs' to etc etc, that i find harder to think of answers to on the spot.

[belegdel.livejournal.com]

Here's my laymans attempt. I started a philosophy degree once, but gave it up because, well, it took ethe fun out of thinking it through myself.

As already mentioned, "race" is a fairly arbitrary distinction. Although some "races" are unfortunate enough to be visibly distinguishable, others are less so. Even amongst dark skinned people there are numerous races. Once you start investigating why this race or that race are inferior, you will very quickly find a lack of well grounded evidence to support the theory. In fact, given historical intermingling of cultures and races, any kind of racial "purity" is pure bollocks unless delimited by some arbitrary date and geography restrictions.
So, basically, it's poor logical thinking. I don't think one has to have really thought about it much to necessarily understand that - it can be intuited by extrapolation from generic human behaviour.

Secondly, racism is by definition a form of hate and it's hard to argue that hate does not beget hate, or that hate often leads to violence and suffering.
So by being any kind of proponent of hate, you are in a way inviting hate upon yourself, which is self destructive. Call that one the "make love not war" theory and I think it also can be intuited.

And lastly, it's a gross form of generalisation that leaves no room for individual achievement or merit. I suspect that you'd be the sort of person that values individuality and especially the concept that an individual can amount to more than the pigeon holes they can be put in. Also generally an intuitive leap.

I keep mentioning the intuition thing because I wonder if that isn't how so many people *know* it's a bad thing, but not why. Of course, by the same token, some people seem to "know" it's a good thing. That's because intuition is a tool of expedience that needs to checked every now and then.
Which you've done. I'll stop now that I'm coming off patronising :|