Quote:
Originally Posted by K-dog
racism
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Since you are holding yourself up as the great teacher of all things, why don't you tell me where my ad hoc definition went wrong.
|
K-Dog is wrong for three distinct reasons.
First, the Mormon folk tale cited by K-Dog itself perfectly satisfies the very definition of racism quoted by K-Dog. According to the story, blacks were "fence sitters" or "less valiant" in the pre-existence and therefore God cursed them with black skin. Cain was their ring leader and earthly father. Thus, "the mark of Cain" is black skin, and Cain propagated this sign of God's curse through his posterity. In other words, this folk tale holds that God created the black race as a marker, to telegraph to the world that they are inferior and unworthy to hold his priesthood.
Now, K-Dog, how is this not "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." It certainly is. It's the very essence of racism.
Second, K-Dog's "logic" is medieval logic. In our modern, liberal society empirical truth is the predicate for an exercise in logic. One does not begin reasoning or applying logic using as a predicate a stated religious belief. I venture there must be many white supremacist crack pots running around in northern Idaho who can give you an "explanation" for why it is just or a product of natural law that blacks are inferior or Jews are dirty and wicked. This does not mean that they are not racists or bigots. Their explanation is itself the very essence of racism. A modern society whose values are grounded primarily on empricism regards such an explanation as mere rataionalization for racism.
Not to mention the fact that the Mormon folk tale cited by K-Dog is belied by empirical evidence. The world is not 6,000 years old. The Biblical Adam and Eve were not the first humans; there was not a wayward son of Adam and Eve who begat them black grandchildren. This is a fairy tale, and any moderatey educated person in our society should recognize it as such. Modern science has explained that the cause of differing skin colors is the earthly, physical environment, and the fact that humans evolve.
Third, because in our Western, liberal society we have learned from hard experience that the source and substance of human characteristics is elusive, and thoroughly mysterious, and the product of millions of years of collective human experience and evolution that originated in a single life form, as well as an individual's personal experience, racism is commonly understood and recognized as meaning making distinctions and judgments based upon race for any reason at all. Our societal norms are defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as much as any of our institutions. Here is what the Court has said on this issue (ironically as it upheld the relocation of Japanese imigrants during WWII) in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 65 S. Ct. 193, 89 L. Ed. 194 (1944):
"[A]ll legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single group are immediately suspect. That is not to say that all such restrictions are unconstitutional. It is to say that courts must subject them to the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify the existence of such restrictions; racial antagonism never can."
K-Dog, your Mormon folk tale would not pass muster. In our society an explanation such as that is on its face immediately regarded as racist, regardless of the sincerity of the declarant, or his alleged special relationship with God. This is a value judgment, yes, but common English usage would regard the Mormon folk tale you cite as racism.
Note: I do not agree with sophistry distinguishing policy and doctrine as making a material difference on this issue. Rather, I've seen that these discussions eventually get to the bottom of it that there is no such thing as "Mormon doctrine." We recently received an important lesson in this when the LDS church finally disavowed any belief that Western aborigines are "Lamanites" (though the admisison was handled in a thoroughly craven, round-about manner).