Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 05 May '10 20:41
    http://article.nationalreview.com/433353/resenting-achievement-more-than-wealth/thomas-sowell

    Thomas Sowell

    May 4, 2010 12:00 A.M.
    Resenting Achievement More than Wealth

    ...


    The hatred of people who started at the bottom and worked their way up has far exceeded hostility toward those who were simply born into wealth. None of the sultans who inherited extraordinary fortunes in Malaysia has been hated like the Chinese, who arrived there destitute and rose by their own efforts.

    ...
  2. 05 May '10 20:43
    ...

    Recent stories out of both Philadelphia and San Francisco tell of black students’ beating up Asian-American students. This is especially painful for those who expected that the election of Barack Obama would mark the beginning of a post-racial America.

    ...

    Achievements are a reflection on others who may have had similar, and sometimes better, chances but who did not make the most of their chances. Achievements are like a slap across the face to those who are not achieving, and many people react with the same kind of anger that such an insult would provoke.

    In our own times, especially, this is not just a spontaneous reaction. Many of our educators, our intelligentsia, and our media — not to mention our politicians — promote an attitude that other people’s achievements are grievances, rather than examples.

    When black schoolchildren who are working hard in school and succeeding academically are attacked and beaten up by black classmates for “acting white,” why is it surprising that similar hostility is turned against Asian Americans, who are often achieving academically more so than whites?

    ...


    This attitude is not peculiar to some in the black community or to the United States. The same phenomenon is found among lower-class whites in Britain, where academically achieving white students have been beaten up badly enough by their white classmates to require hospital treatment.

    ...

    People who call differences “inequities” and achievements “privilege” leave social havoc in their wake, while feeling noble about siding with the less fortunate. It would never occur to them that they have any responsibility for the harm done to both blacks and Asian Americans.
  3. 05 May '10 20:47
    Linking racism to "resenting achievement" is quite laughable, really.
  4. 05 May '10 20:48
    how so?
  5. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    05 May '10 20:49
    You fail to control for ethnicity. The "Sultans" are on their home turf.
  6. 05 May '10 20:50
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    how so?
    There is no "cause" for racism other than people having different skin colour.
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    05 May '10 20:52
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    There is no "cause" for racism other than people having different skin colour.
    I don't think that's true myself. I think there are varying causes depending on the situation.
  8. 05 May '10 20:55
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    I don't think that's true myself. I think there are varying causes depending on the situation.
    What kind of causes might there be?
  9. 05 May '10 21:04
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

    Evolutionary theories about the origins of racism

    Biologists John Tooby and Leda Cosmides were puzzled by the fact that race is one of the three characteristics most often used in brief descriptions of individuals (the others are age and sex). They reasoned that natural selection would not have favoured the evolution of an instinct for using race as a classification, because for most of human history, humans almost never encountered members of other races. Tooby and Cosmides hypothesized that modern people use race as a proxy (rough-and-ready indicator) for coalition membership, since a better-than-random guess about "which side" another person is on will be helpful if one does not actually know in advance.

    Their colleague Robert Kurzban designed an experiment whose results appeared to support this hypothesis. Using the Memory confusion protocol, they presented subjects with pictures of individuals and sentences, allegedly spoken by these individuals, which presented two sides of a debate. The errors which the subjects made in recalling who said what indicated that they sometimes misattributed a statement to a speaker of the same race as the "correct" speaker, although they also sometimes misattributed a statement to a speaker "on the same side" as the "correct" speaker. In a second run of the experiment, the team also distinguished the "sides" in the debate by clothing of similar colors; and in this case the effect of racial similarity in causing mistakes almost vanished, being replaced by the color of their clothing. In other words, the first group of subjects, with no clues from clothing, used race as a visual guide to guessing who was on which side of the debate; the second group of subjects used the clothing color as their main visual clue, and the effect of race became very small. [40]

    Some research suggests that ethnocentric thinking may have actually contributed to the development of cooperation. Political scientists Ross Hammond and Robert Axelrod created a computer simulation wherein virtual individuals were randomly assigned one of a variety of skin colors, and then one of a variety of trading strategies: be color-blind, favor those of your own color, or favor those of other colors. They found that the ethnocentric individuals clustered together, then grew until all the non-ethnocentric individuals were wiped out.[41]
  10. 05 May '10 21:05
    the brain is a categorization (i.e., discrimination) machine. train that out and be eaten, your genes lost to the wind.
  11. 05 May '10 21:06
    in the olden days, not now.
  12. 05 May '10 21:11
    Tooby and Cosmides may have been puzzled because they did not consider that, to an animal, anything that differs sufficiently from the animal is more akin to another species, not another race.
  13. 05 May '10 21:13
    "interbreeding does not normally happen". NORMALLY.

    is the distinction between race and species semantic only? (wikipedia does not seem to address the question .)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

    In biology, a species is:

    * a taxonomic rank (the basic rank of Biological classification) or
    * a unit at that rank (in which case the plural is "species". This is sometimes abbreviated: "spec." or "sp." singular, or "spp." plural).

    There are many definitions of what kind of unit a species is (or should be). A common definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not normally happen. Other debatable definitions may focus on similarity of DNA or morphology. Some species are further subdivided into subspecies, and here also there is no close agreement on the criteria to be used.
  14. 05 May '10 21:14
    i.e., a blue-winged tit may be considered a distinct species from a red-winged tit even though they sometimes interbreed, according to the definition above.

    that could apply to human races, as well.
  15. 05 May '10 21:18
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    i.e., a blue-winged tit may be considered a distinct species from a red-winged tit even though they sometimes interbreed, according to the definition above.

    that could apply to human races, as well.
    Genetically, humans tend to be very alike. Compare a black person to a white person, and then compare a Great Dane to a poodle.