julien tayon wrote:
Le Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:22:43 -0800,
inspiré Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> écrivait la plume alerte :
....
Why shouldn't they be? If these phenomena
exist, they need to be
described fairly. That doesn't mean agreeing with them. A racist
article and an article about racism are two different things.
This is easy :
racism means there is a difference between race.
Not at all, and there are differences between races, at least at the DNA
level, but the racial markers in a DNA analysis tend to be weaker than
those which distinguish two individuals of the same race. It comes down
to how important those differences are.
Le petit Robert gives the following for racism "Théorie de la hiérarchie
des races, qui conclut à la nécessité de préserver la race dite
supérieure de tout croisement, et à le droit de dominer les autres."
This is very different from simply saying that races exist
If in the article we
show there is no such things as human races, how can you use a term such
anti-caucasian racism without implying first there are different races,
and as a consequence that regarding the race that are concerned the
racism is different !!!
Evidently, the people who say that there is anti-caucasian racism don't
agree that there is no such thing as race.
If racism are different regarding the «race» you
can compare them and say : oh anti-negro racism is worse than
anti-caucasian racism or else.
Reverse discrimination is an unfortunate by-product of affirmative
action. Without a belief that races exist there would be no affirmative
action programmes either.
Eclecticology