"Racism"

[Dill]

(03-23-2018, 04:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I really don't see the difference as some folks are still going to discriminate against those unlike them. So why does it matter if that person is a racist or an ethnictist?

The inclination of some folks to discriminate isn't naturally, proportionally distributed among populations, like genes for detached ear lobes.

That inclination is pretty much a matter of social environment/indoctrination. It is learned behavior.

What we now call "racism" clearly correlates mental and athletic ability to skin color and presumed heritage--to "natural" qualities which cannot be changed.  In the US, some people would like to see social policy informed by this "knowledge" so that we stop spending money on social welfare supposed to have no effect on some populations, due to their racial nature and limitations. So at the level of policy, it certainly matters how we view the biological foundations of human classification.

The authority of science once played a large role in spreading and legitimating racism as a basis of social classification, also a classification of opportunities and rights.

In shifting to "ethnicity," science not only goes for sounder biological footing, but also de-legitimizes the previous racism it helped create.  An "ethnicist" would have no ground for the racist discrimination we here all deplore. If he ran around saying blacks are better athletes and whites are smarter, he would really just be a racist.