Monday, October 8, 2018

Why I'm a Racist

Racism is a form of determinism: it is the theory that the content of an individual's mind is innate and determined (somehow) by their genetic heritage. An individual's virtues or vices are not determined by his choices, according to this theory, but rather by the collective "blood" of his ancestors.

The central problem of racism is that it short-circuits our ability to make accurate judgements about a person. Euclid, the ancient Greek mathematician, reportedly told his student Ptolemy I, who later became one of the successors of Alexander the Great, that "there is no royal road to knowledge." This is what racism is: a royal road to knowledge of an individual's character, without any cognitive effort beyond noticing that individual's skin tone.

So, why am I a racist?

Easy: the standard of what constitutes racism has changed.

It used to be that lynching was considered a racist act. Here's a partial list of what constitutes modern racism:

Notice the commonality: all of these examples constitute a replacement of objective standards by some ill-defined subjective criteria with the stated goal of "increasing diversity." Racism is thus "eliminated" by eliminating rigor and high expectations, and hoping that the outcome is somehow "fair." Everybody gets a participation trophy when equality of outcome replaces equality of opportunity.

One consequence of this redefinition of racism is that it mocks and cheapens the achievements of those who fought against actual racism. It equates microaggressions with lynchings, thus elevating the banal to the level of evil.

A second consequence is that it lowers the standards of doing good. It allows people to fool themselves into believing that they are achieving something important when they obstruct traffic or kneel at a football game. Anybody can be Sojourner Truth or MLK without leaving the comfort of their keyboard - all they have to do is play the victim and be offended. What such people do not understand is that achievement is only possible through rigorous standards; remove those standards, and significant accomplishments will not arise. Sending men to the moon required exacting standards of physics and mathematics; protesting the Apollo 11 launch only required four mules and two wagons.

Third, this redefinition of racism allows anti-white prejudice to be acceptable and to go unchallenged. White guilt is "earned" for having and demanding high expectations, and there is no way of atoning for this "sin", since ignoring race is itself racist, as is noticing race.

The ultimate problem of redefining racism in this manner is that it significantly reduces the quality of life for everybody, not just whites, all while misplacing the responsibility on the wrong party. For example, when a person receives substandard care from a graduate of a medical school boasting affirmative action as an admittance criteria, who will get the blame: the student who took advantage of this lowered acceptance criteria, or the administrator who decided that admission by reason of diversity was a good idea?

Those who promulgate this redefinition of racism thus offer us the following choice: be called a racist, or abandon strict standards of excellence. Rational people must not allow themselves to be skewered on the horns of this false dichotomy - rational people want both rigorous standards as well as the right to make objective judgements. But if wanting to retain math, logic, and the other beneficiaries of exacting standards makes me racist, then I'm a racist. I'm going to own the "fact" that I'm a racist. Just don't expect me to go to a Klan rally.

No comments:

Post a Comment