Imagine you're a wife-beating slave owner
July 16, 2006 5:28 PM Subscribe
What if the sexists and racists of colonialism had been right?
There are plenty of species in which the female is big / scarier / cleverer than the male. And plenty in which the situation is reversed. If humans were similarly dispersed, would sexual discrimination be justified?
And - to take a different but parallel idea - what if humans had been separated for much longer before Columbus had got his ass in a boat? There could have been speciation and real differences.
There were plenty of folks in the 17th / 18th / 19th century who thought something like the above: women were stupid and there was a clear hierarchy of races. They (ie white men) ordered society accordingly: women should stay home and slavery was civilising for the "lower" races.
So, what I'm trying to ask in a (I hope) non-flame inspiring way is: Are we just lucky that there are no substantive differences between men and women, and between people whose ancestors came from different places in the world? What would big differences have meant (and mean) for inter-sexual and inter-racial relations?
There are plenty of species in which the female is big / scarier / cleverer than the male. And plenty in which the situation is reversed. If humans were similarly dispersed, would sexual discrimination be justified?
And - to take a different but parallel idea - what if humans had been separated for much longer before Columbus had got his ass in a boat? There could have been speciation and real differences.
There were plenty of folks in the 17th / 18th / 19th century who thought something like the above: women were stupid and there was a clear hierarchy of races. They (ie white men) ordered society accordingly: women should stay home and slavery was civilising for the "lower" races.
So, what I'm trying to ask in a (I hope) non-flame inspiring way is: Are we just lucky that there are no substantive differences between men and women, and between people whose ancestors came from different places in the world? What would big differences have meant (and mean) for inter-sexual and inter-racial relations?
This post was deleted for the following reason: bizarro hypothetical filter
Response by poster: As well as practically, I also wondered about the moral implications.
posted by TrashyRambo at 5:39 PM on July 16, 2006
posted by TrashyRambo at 5:39 PM on July 16, 2006
I hate to quote Ayn Rand (and I won't, because I can't find the quote at the moment), but she said something to the effect of, "The problem with prejudice is not that its beliefs are incorrect, but that it judges the individual based on the attributes of the group." That is, even if women were, on average, let's say, only 75% as intelligent as men, it would be unjust to assume that any given woman were not an outlier (by preventing her from voting, for example). So yes, I think that the discrimination you're referring to would still be immoral. (Supporters of racial profiling would disagree with me.)
posted by IshmaelGraves at 5:56 PM on July 16, 2006
posted by IshmaelGraves at 5:56 PM on July 16, 2006
I think there's a very obvious answer to your question right in front of your eyes: look at differences among how different animal species are treated.
Also, is the question of whether there are substantive differences between men and women, and between people whose ancestors came from different places, really settled? You write your question as though it is.
From articles I have read concerning such controversies, it's my impression that research on certain substantive differences between ethnic groups is largely taboo in academia (and justly so, in my opinion).
posted by jayder at 5:58 PM on July 16, 2006
Also, is the question of whether there are substantive differences between men and women, and between people whose ancestors came from different places, really settled? You write your question as though it is.
From articles I have read concerning such controversies, it's my impression that research on certain substantive differences between ethnic groups is largely taboo in academia (and justly so, in my opinion).
posted by jayder at 5:58 PM on July 16, 2006
We don't deny stupid people the right to vote. On the contrary, we tend to elect them to high office. What difference would it make if some particular ethnic group had a higher proportion of stupid people than our fictional uber-europeans.
The foundation of the concept of legal rights in the U.S. is that all humans intrinsically desire and therefore deserve certain freedoms. The government doesn't grant these rights to those deemed worthy; rather, a government becomes legitimate by acknowledging and protecting them. Lower intelligence doesn't enter into the picture.
posted by Humanzee at 5:59 PM on July 16, 2006
The foundation of the concept of legal rights in the U.S. is that all humans intrinsically desire and therefore deserve certain freedoms. The government doesn't grant these rights to those deemed worthy; rather, a government becomes legitimate by acknowledging and protecting them. Lower intelligence doesn't enter into the picture.
posted by Humanzee at 5:59 PM on July 16, 2006
It's possible to find plenty of substantive differences between any pair of groups. That's kind of the point of groups. So I can't agree with the premise of your question about whether we're lucky not to have these substantive differences, and can't give you an answer.
Basic human rights, though, are not predicated on physical attributes. At least outside the school playground, it's generally understood not to be good to bully and/or deprive the weak just because we can.
Even if we had no notion of basic human rights, though, and were living in some kind of pure meritocracy where those with the greatest abilities were generally held to be entitled to most of the goodies: discriminating on the basis of group membership would be unsound. There is bound to be a greater spread of valuable attributes within any group than there is across groups (unless this is what you're packing into your notion of "substantive" differences).
This doesn't seem to stop fair numbers of people from lumping others into groups and then ignoring everything about those people except the assumed attributes of their assigned group. So it seems to me that unless there was a vastly different proportion of bigots in your hypothetical world, inter-group relations would most likely work pretty much the same way they do in our world.
posted by flabdablet at 6:03 PM on July 16, 2006
Basic human rights, though, are not predicated on physical attributes. At least outside the school playground, it's generally understood not to be good to bully and/or deprive the weak just because we can.
Even if we had no notion of basic human rights, though, and were living in some kind of pure meritocracy where those with the greatest abilities were generally held to be entitled to most of the goodies: discriminating on the basis of group membership would be unsound. There is bound to be a greater spread of valuable attributes within any group than there is across groups (unless this is what you're packing into your notion of "substantive" differences).
This doesn't seem to stop fair numbers of people from lumping others into groups and then ignoring everything about those people except the assumed attributes of their assigned group. So it seems to me that unless there was a vastly different proportion of bigots in your hypothetical world, inter-group relations would most likely work pretty much the same way they do in our world.
posted by flabdablet at 6:03 PM on July 16, 2006
Interesting question: if a race was thought of/proved to be sufficiently inferior or lacking in brainpower...
Chimps are close relatives (although admittedly not human) and they're used for drug experiments, circuses, food, zoos etc.
If chimps could do useful work, in factories perhaps, then they'd be used there as well I'd imagine. They could be sent in to clean up nuclear spills even!
If a race of humans had similarly lower levels of brainpower I wonder if they'd be treated similar? or perhaps it's easier because chimps look different to humans?
posted by selton at 6:04 PM on July 16, 2006
Chimps are close relatives (although admittedly not human) and they're used for drug experiments, circuses, food, zoos etc.
If chimps could do useful work, in factories perhaps, then they'd be used there as well I'd imagine. They could be sent in to clean up nuclear spills even!
If a race of humans had similarly lower levels of brainpower I wonder if they'd be treated similar? or perhaps it's easier because chimps look different to humans?
posted by selton at 6:04 PM on July 16, 2006
What is it with all of the "is racism ok" questions as of late?
posted by caddis at 6:22 PM on July 16, 2006
posted by caddis at 6:22 PM on July 16, 2006
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies might be an interesting documentary or an interesting read for you to explore.
Several science fiction authors have explored these kinds of themes. I can't think of an exact match, but Brave New World includes a sort of caste system of human workers.
posted by ejaned8 at 6:34 PM on July 16, 2006
Several science fiction authors have explored these kinds of themes. I can't think of an exact match, but Brave New World includes a sort of caste system of human workers.
posted by ejaned8 at 6:34 PM on July 16, 2006
I operate on the assumption that greed has been the underlying factor in human relations, rather than ideology. Rhetoric may be a convenient excuse ("women are weak and dumb and want to be protected from themselves" or "brown people are stupid heathens and we'd be doing them a favor") but it's just noise flying over a world of free and disenfranchised labor. If you look at how western corporations sidestep humane labor practices by moving their manufacturing to places where such concepts are undefined, you can see that the thread of greed over human equality has not been interrupted.
posted by evil holiday magic at 6:55 PM on July 16, 2006
posted by evil holiday magic at 6:55 PM on July 16, 2006
What is it with all of the "is racism ok" questions as of late?
Is Judaism a race, now? Sheesh.
In any case, putting aside what "race" means, there are, for example, statistical disparities between sexes and "races" that are used as a basis — right or wrong — for insurance rates.
Forget the colonialists of the 1700s and 1800s and think much, much larger: Globalism is driving the ultimate colonialist expansion ever seen in history.
Multinational corporations create products and drive economic indicators based on the differences they see and can manipulate or profit from. Witness the Pink Dollar.
"Discrimination" is ancient history, an artifact of people whose worldview is outdated. "Market demographics" is the hot new, socially acceptable discrimination/ghettoisation.
posted by Mr. Six at 7:05 PM on July 16, 2006
Is Judaism a race, now? Sheesh.
In any case, putting aside what "race" means, there are, for example, statistical disparities between sexes and "races" that are used as a basis — right or wrong — for insurance rates.
Forget the colonialists of the 1700s and 1800s and think much, much larger: Globalism is driving the ultimate colonialist expansion ever seen in history.
Multinational corporations create products and drive economic indicators based on the differences they see and can manipulate or profit from. Witness the Pink Dollar.
"Discrimination" is ancient history, an artifact of people whose worldview is outdated. "Market demographics" is the hot new, socially acceptable discrimination/ghettoisation.
posted by Mr. Six at 7:05 PM on July 16, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by delmoi at 5:35 PM on July 16, 2006