julien tayon wrote:
Le Fri, 31 Jan 2003 11:22:43 -0800, inspiré Ray Saintonge saintonge@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