Mediaboss Marketing

Skin color aside, what makes a white person? What makes a black person? If skin color magically disappeared the next morning, along with major physical differences, would you be able to determine who is white, black, Asian, and so on, based on their behavior or living conditions? You could make guesses based on generalizations and averages, but would you be one hundred percent correct? In order to better understand race and its importance, we should see whether or not it is more accurate to judge someone by their race or their individuality. Throughout this essay I shall argue that looking at people as individuals and upholding values of individuality is not only more ethical but more accurate than looking at people as merely members of a collective based upon their skin color. Is race just simply skin color, or is there a much larger picture which involves different behaviors or traits? Is race at all even relevant? In order to answer these questions, we need to establish what race is to begin with.

Definitions involving race seem to heavily emphasize physical differences with no mention of culture. For instance, Merriam-Webster defines race as any one of the groups that human beings can be divided into based on shared distinctive physical traits (Merriam-Webster). Does this definition fit what we commonly view as race? How about if it fits how we commonly view white people or black people? Are we able to identify white or black people based on their physical differences or behaviors? Oxford defines race as Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics. Again we see the same situation. Professor Ian Haney-Lpez has a somewhat different definition:

I define a race as a vast group of people loosely bound together by historically contingent, socially significant elements of their morphology and/or ancestry. I argue that race must be understood as a sui generis social phenomenon in which contested systems of meaning serve as the connections between physical features, races, and personal characteristics. In other words, social meanings connect our faces to our souls. Race is neither an essence nor an illusion, but rather an ongoing, contradictory, self-reinforcing process subject to the macro forces of social and political struggle and the micro effects of daily decisions.

Professor Lopez does note physical traits but seems to also include what he says are personal characteristics. What are these personal characteristics though? Is he just repeating himself when talking about physical features, or does Professor Lopez mean something entirely different? Is he referring to behaviors or actions? What behaviors would you describe as white? What behaviors would you describe as black? What are the characteristics of a Latino person if you excluded skin color? What makes a white or black person besides skin color? Perhaps these personal characteristics that Lopez is referring to can be found in the socially significant elements of their morphology and/or ancestry. When discussing socially significant elements were really talking about society, but is society the same globally? A black person in the United States who moves to Sri Lanka is still physically black, regardless of the different society and culture. Even if the country or geographic region were constant, society is always changing. So, will Lopezs definition hold the test of time? Imagine a utopian future where race has suddenly become irrelevant. Does Lopezs definition hold? Unfortunately not. We require a more consistent and universally applicable definition, which is why Id go with those laid out by Merriam-Webster and Oxford Dictionaries. Lopezs view of race embodies a social justice bias that has crept into his definition. We will further examine current social justice views on race as this book goes on.

So, what is race? To put it simply, it is a group of people only held together by physical differences. This is not to mention that these physical differences, which seemingly unites a group, is very diverse as well. There is no one true shade of black or white. There is pale, tan, moderately pink, light brown, dark brown, chestnut. There are large noses, short noses, medium noses, wide noses, thin noses. There are slanty eyes, wide eyes, small eyes, big eyes. Race can only tell us generally what the physical appearance of an individual is. It does not tell us anything about an individuals history, personality, work ethic, or interests.

Here we see a clear divide when it comes to an understanding on race: collectivism versus individualism, a rivalry that isnt limited to just race. Those who view people as members of collective races instead of different individuals also apply different traits and preconceptions about such members. Historically speaking, these could be those people who thought blacks were genetically inferior, and used this stance in order to justify slavery. There are also those who currently fight in the name of social justice, who champion ideas about white people being inherently privileged and people of color being members of an oppressed group. The white supremacist who thinks their race is superior to blacks uses the same lens as the social justice activist who thinks white people are privileged and people of color are oppressed. I shall refer to these people as racial collectivists.

An individual who views race as irrelevant views all races equally. There are people who look past the color of ones skin in exchange for more valuable information about an individual. Personality, intelligence, work ethic, religion, political leanings, all these are significantly more important than race to these people. Race is almost, if not completely, irrelevant. I shall refer to these people as racial individualists.

A libertarian theory on race would be a theory based upon individualism, one that takes into account the complexity and diversity of individuals. A libertarian would look past race in order to view the true beauty that is individuality. This makes libertarianism aligned with racial individualism. This is not surprising, seeing how many on the left tend to align more with the racial collectivists. The link between economics and race is present. Racial collectivism, interpreted by social justice advocates, is simply an application of Marxist class theory when applied to race. There is an oppressed class (people of color) and an oppressor class (white people). Libertarians are concerned with each individual within society, meaning an absence of one race representing oppressors and another representing the oppressed. This is all very well summed up by former libertarian congressman Ron Paul:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called diversity actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

In order to make the case for racial individualism or a libertarian theory on race, we must first examine different issues necessary to build a foundation for the principles of individualism when applied to race. The following are different topics which I believe will help us better understand this theory.

What is racism to begin with? The answer may seem easy but the definition has been tampered with in order to fit the political agenda of racial collectivists, more specifically, social justice advocates. Social justice advocates use a definition influenced by sociologist David Wellman, who claims:

The essential feature of racism is not hostility or misperception, but rather the defense of a system from which advantage is derived on the basis of race. The manner in which the defense is articulated either with hostility or subtlety is not nearly as important as the fact that it insures the continuation of a privileged relationship. Thus it is necessary to broaden the definition of racism beyond prejudice to include sentiments that in their consequence, if not in their intent, support the racial status quo.

This definition has prompted many social justice advocates to believe that racism is prejudice plus societal power. This stands in contrast with many objective non-biased dictionary definitions that state that racism is, according to Merriam-Webster: 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 Just to prove that normal non-biased definitions show a different picture, I will provide another from Oxford: Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that ones own race is superior So, whos right, the objective unbiased definitions or the sociological definition used usually for political advocacy?

In order to see, lets consider a thought experiment.

Youre walking down the street and you see a group of rich black individuals calling a runaway, homeless white child racial slurs. The child is in tears and the wealthy black group continues to taunt him. Do you intervene? If you abide by Wellmans definition then no. According to social justice advocates, this is not racism because even if the black individuals are wealthy and dressed in nice tuxedos and ball gowns they are still members of an oppressed class. This also means the runaway, homeless white child is a member of the oppressive class. This then simply becomes an issue of the oppressed standing up to the oppressor. Does this seem right? A better way to look at the situation lies in the lens of individualism. What we then see is rude, racist individuals taunting someone because of their race, which is racism. Which makes more sense as an analysis of this incident? The argument could be made that this is a hypothetical situation and rarely happens. Is this an adequate response to the criticism against a social justice definition of racism? Absolutely not. Definitions must have universal application and if all it takes is for one individual instance for your definition not to apply then your definition is broken. We will explore this idea of rare examples more closely in the next section.

Can empiricism be used to justify the stereotyping of individuals of different races? Consider the following two interactions I partook in.

I once had a conversation with a self-proclaimed white supremacist. I asked her to try and legitimize her views, and she listed off a bunch of empirical evidence involving crime, IQ, wealth, and productivity, all leading her to the assumption that whites are superior to blacks. Before you think up your criticisms with this reasoning, please consider another interaction.

I had another conversation with a social justice advocate who claimed all white people were privileged. After asking her to legitimize her views she listed off a bunch of empirical evidence involving wealth, incarceration, police shootings, and so on.

Do you see a connection? Both of these individuals were racial collectivists and used the same methodology, yet reached very different conclusions. Many libertarians who are familiar with the Austrian School of Economics already have their critiques of empiricism, but should we be equally as skeptical when empiricism is used to justify racial collectivism?

Lets start with what empiricism can do. It can tell us generalizations and averages that can explain certain phenomena. For instance, when people say that the disproportionate amount of blacks shot by the police is due to racism, we can better understand this situation by looking at empirical evidence involving crime rates that lead to police encounters instead. This explains the situation without placing blanket statements over an entire group of individuals connected only by their race. So if someone is asking why race a is more likely to be subject to [condition] than race b, we can explain this situation by looking at empirical evidence that shows that race a does more [action] that leads to [condition] than race b. Explanations are all empirical evidence. Evidence is no good when it comes to race unless the sample size includes every single individual member of a race and results in a 100 percentage. Such a thing is impossible, so lets disregard empirical evidence except in the instance of explaining phenomena involving a percentage of members of a race.

Going back to my two encounters, does empirical evidence justify their views and the acts of stereotyping different individuals that arise out of it? Absolutely not. To do so would be both illogical and unethical. Lets consider the first case. The white supremacist listed a bunch of empirical evidence involving crime, IQ, wealth, and productivity. If her assertion that whites are superior are true, then we would have to look at all the individuals involved. Are there people of color who dont commit crimes? Are there no white people who dont commit crimes? Are there no people of color who are smart? The same goes for wealth and productivity. The fact of the matter is that there are white criminals and black criminals, wealthy whites and wealthy blacks, and while the numbers may vary, race is not a sufficient way to look at it. 100 percent of wealthy people are wealthy, what percent of whites are wealthy? Definitely not 100 percent. Same goes for the other issues brought up by the white supremacist.

The social justice advocate is the same exact case. Just because there is empirical evidence that suggests more whites are wealthier than people of color, this does not mean that all white people are wealthy or all people of color are impoverished. The same goes for victims of police shootings and racism. As weve earlier established, white people can be victims of racism. The idea that white privilege is dangerous more dangerous than the ideas of the white supremacist is because its being masqueraded around as an anti-racist term. Most white supremacists know theyre racist and are proud of it. They mostly understand their ideas are going to be hated by the majority of people they encounter. This does not apply to the concept of white privilege. Its being used by social justice advocates to fight racism when whats ironically happening is theyre furthering racism by using the same methodology and collectivist lens that their white supremacist counterparts use. Not all white people are privileged, just like not all people of color are oppressed. Empirical evidence could suggest trends, but it does not provide a substantial assessment about entire groups of individuals connected only by the color of their skin. This makes the concept of white privilege illogical, unethical, obsolete, yet still dangerous.

Culture has been used as justification that there are some inherent differences between races that are not just related to physical differences. This has led to terms such as black culture or white culture. This assumes, going off a racial collectivist analysis, that it is impossible for a white person to be integrated into black culture or that a black person would stray away from black culture. An individualist does not deny culture and its importance, but an individualist more specifically a racial individualist would recognize that cultures arent inherent to certain races.

Think about this geographically. Asians are spread all throughout the world, in North America, Latin America, Europe, Africa, Australia, and obviously Asia. Do all these Asians follow the same culture simply based on the color of their skin? To say so would be ridiculous. For starters, there are different cultures based off of specific countries. Chinese culture is very different from Japanese culture. If they have the same culture why are have the Chinese and Japanese had historical conflicts? Within the country is different cultures as well. For instance, if we were to look at China, the Jiangshu province is much different from the Qinghai province in terms of culture. I shouldnt even have to explain the cultural differences that lie within the Tibet Region and Inner Mongolia. To claim that a culture is inherent or belongs to a certain race is geographically ridiculous.

This also assumes that its impossible for a member of a race to not identify with a common culture. Is there now no such thing as outliers or outsiders? Are there absolutely no Egyptians who follow an Egyptian culture? Do these outsiders not exist? What if these outsiders come in the future? Do we have all the relevant information to accurately say that ones race must obligate them to a culture? We dont, and to say otherwise would be to claim you know every single individual personally on the planet currently, as well as every single individual who has ever lived and ever will live. Many social justice ideas fail when we consider what relevant information is necessary to validate these beliefs, but the idea that a culture is inherent to a race is just one of them.

All of this refutes the famous term used by racial collectivists known as cultural appropriation. Although this concept is used mainly in social justice circles, I will admit it has found its way into unbiased organizations as well. The Cambridge Dictionary even has a definition for it: the act of taking or using things from a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that you understand or respect this culture. So how then does one obtain a culture? Do you have to be Asian in order to eat sushi? Do you have to be Mexican in order to wear a sombrero? The fact is that no individual can own a culture, regardless of their race, and at the same time no individual can be prohibited by a force of nature from taking part in a culture regardless of their race. The concept of cultural appropriation fails because it tries to claim the impossible: that a race made up of diverse and complex individuals somehow claim ownership to a culture.

Diversity of race is something that many have strived for, but why? It would make sense ethically to strive for diversity of race if there is clear racial discrimination, but why do people strive for diversity just for the sake of being racially diverse? Consider what this means. Striving for racial diversity implies that there is something inherently different between a white person, black person, Latino person, etc. What gets accomplished with racial diversity? More representation of people of many races, sure, but what is fundamentally different about them besides skin color? The most famous attempt to force diversity is the implementation of affirmative action programs in colleges across the western world. Individuals are being either penalized or benefitted, not for any merit, but rather due to a physical feature they have absolutely no control over. All in the name of what? Many have argued that there is a point of view and story involved inherently within a race, so therefore you would in turn be supporting diversity of opinion. The problem with this is that not all people who share the same race share the same story. Suppose the argument is made that black people go through financial struggles more than white people, therefore affirmative action must be put in place in order to get that perspective included into discourse between students. What then if an odd coincidence occurs in which the only black students who were admitted to University A were wealthy and well off? Its a very rare thing to see but not impossible. Would you then claim that University A was diverse?

I believe diversity is something to strive for, just not the racial diversity that social justice advocates advocate for. Diversity of personality, thought, religion, and political ideology is all much more important than diversity of race. When we focus clearly on diversity of thought instead of diversity of race, we can better accomplish the goals of a more well-rounded, knowledgeable society. There is nothing inherently different about a white person or a black person besides skin color.

What is the beautiful infinity? Ive coined this term to highlight the complexity and diversity of individuals. There are infinite types of individuals and no one individual can fully understand them all, let alone one. There are many of these individuals who are pushing ideas in the name of social justice. These racial collectivists just use the same methodology as racial collectivists of the past, such as white supremacists and the Ku Klux Klan. What is essentially being done is lazy; instead of looking at all these complex and diverse individuals, racial collectivists are lazily grouping people together based on their skin color, a physical attribute they have zero control over. Personality, intelligence, history, geography, and psychology, all tossed aside in the name of laziness and racial collectivism by social justice advocates. Individuals do make up a beautiful infinity. You will never find two individuals who are 100% identical; there are individuals who may act the same, grow up the same, and live the same, but there will always be a difference. The human mind is complex and has led to a history full of diverse individuals, and will lead to a future of the same. To group them based on skin color and then proceed to make assumptions about them is unethical, illogical, and frankly lazy. I shall conclude with a 1973 quote by Austrian economist Friedrich A. von Hayek:

I am certain, however, that nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice.

* Stuart Clayton Lee is a far-right anarcho-capitalist who is currently attending college in Washington state. His favorite political philosopher is Robert Nozick, even if he disagrees with him on many issues. He finds himself most in agreement with Murray Rothbard. He is also a contributor to Liberty Hangout. He is currently studying economics and is pursuing knowledge personally in Austrian economics.

Like Loading...

View original post here:
Beautiful Infinity: A Libertarian Theory on Race - Being Libertarian