To be more accurate, there is research (naturally controversial) that links racism to low IQ. The research I am referring to was investigating racism in a college population.
I'm not saying that you can't be racist and not realize it - everyone is racist to some degree, it's built into human cognition (I've done research work in cognitive science at UCLA). I agree that sometimes it can be difficult to recognize, especially in yourself. But at the end of the day, you either acknowledge the reasoning being presented or you don't. We are talking about this specific instance of the image where Lin is shown with just Asian men behind him. That image is clearly racist. Either you understand the multiple arguments that people have presented as to why it's racist and don't care (a de facto racist position) or are willing to give it a pass as humor, or you rationally can't connect the dots and are too simple-minded to understand the issue. By the way, I find it incredibly telling that after clearly laying out the logic, the only responses we're getting are, "Well, is this other situation/example/thing-that-isn't-what-we-are-talking-about racist?" It's a basic tactic to shift the grounds of the discussion when you are clearly losing the argument. If that's the kind of response we're going to continue to get, then I'm pretty sure we all know what's up. BTW: 1) The image of Lin's face being put on other players isn't racist. And it has absolutely no bearing on the argument at hand. 2) "Asian Heritage Night" is also not inherently racist. If you think this is a good rebuttal to the argument that the Lin photo is racist, then I suspect you have other biases and assumptions which are causing flaws in your logic. A celebration of any heritage or culture, in and of itself, is not racist. Even when placed in the context of today's United States and "Black History Month" vs. "White History Month", it is not racist (i.e., as a form of "reverse discrimination", a la quotas or affirmative action). There are clear reasons as to why the former is not racist while the latter is, from an institutional perspective. If you can't grasp those reasons, then maybe you should spend more time thinking about what racism is and what racism does beyond the individual, naive perspective of "treating everyone the same".
Hey Nubmonger, interesting perspective. If I have a really strong cultural identity and the way I try to understand other people is draw distinctions between "my people" and "your people", not in a comparison of superior or inferior character traits, but simply in observing differences without judgment, does that make me racist?
Didn't expect this thread to show up again, but what the hey... I would say that your categorization of "my people" and "your people" is a basic mechanism in human cognition. When it comes to building concepts, human brains by and large learn by example, and accumulate large sets of "things" that then serve as exemplars of a given mental construct (e.g. concept). For example, if you want to know what the concept of "one" is, then you take "one rock", "one tree", "one can", "one phone", etc. etc. etc. until the concept of "oneness" builds itself in your mind. You do this for everything from numbers to colors to personality traits to clothes. There are very, very few things which "self-conceptualize" based upon natural human development (what philosophers would call "a priori" knowledge). An easy real-world example of this is when you watch kids learn shapes and colors. You can't just show them one "red" thing and expect them to understand what "redness" is. You have to show them a red square, a red rooster, a red fire truck, etc. etc. etc. The key part here is that this type of construction generates differentiation by necessity. Notice that in order to understand "sameness" (e.g., that thing which is the same in all cases of "red"), the human brain must first be able to distinguish differences (e.g., all those things which are not the same in all cases of "red"). So, in your case of "my people" and "your people", you were clearly raised with some sort of consideration of what constitutes "my people" - all of those things which bind your group/tribe/nation/etc. together as a single "thing", a set category, in your mind. And, on the other side of that coin, everyone who does not fit within that category must necessarily be part of "other people". This is further refined into whatever categories you encounter as you grow up (e.g. "Christians", "Asians", "Chinese", "Liberals", "Texans", "Canadians", etc. etc. etc.), or what you would define as "your people" depending upon the person to whom you are referring. Long story short, without this tool in the cognitive toolbox, human beings would be ridiculously stupid. It is impossible to learn concepts and apply them to new situations without this type of mechanism in place. But at the same time, because this is built in so readily in our minds, we often fail to recognize that the same shortcut which tells us that "all water flows downstream" also teaches us that "all people with black hair are not of my tribe and cannot be trusted". There is no mediation involved in that type of judgment - it's built in and it's fast and it's supposed to be that way. However, as with all shortcuts, there are flaws, and those flaws can often lead to tragic consequences in today's far more complex world. The reality is that human beings share far more in common with each other than simple racial, religious, etc. divisions would indicate. However, because we define by differentiation, that cognitive process (combined with several other factors) overwhelms this fundamental truth. It's much easier and more "helpful" to figure out what is different between two people than what is the same, so we tend to latch on to those categorizations and build on them as we grow. This is what snowballs into things like racism or sexism - the need to place things into neat categories and be able to assume certain characteristics about those things because we put them in those categories. P.S. - Radiolab recently did a great story on this kind of stuff. It's a very interesting listen, particularly if you aren't familiar with stuff like the study of human cognition, anthropology, etc. http://www.radiolab.org/story/211213-sky-isnt-blue/
Yup, he's inconsistent. Sometimes he'll have amazing games (38 points vs Spurs) and other times he'll look like Mario Chalmers on a bad day. He needs to work on his 3's, handles, finishing without damaging himself
Thanks Nubmonger. The radiolab story is great. I appreciate your thoughtful and enlightening response. Your points about differentiation and categorizations reminds me of George Clooney in Up In The Air... Ryan Bingham: [on getting through airport security] Never get behind old people. Their bodies are littered with hidden metal and they never seem to appreciate how little time they have left. Bingo, Asians. They pack light, travel efficiently, and they have a thing for slip on shoes. Gotta love 'em. Natalie Keener: That's racist. Ryan Bingham: I'm like my mother, I stereotype. It's faster.
lol....people on clutchfans prefer to bring up his 25 million dollar check and ignore the fact that this is essentially his rookie year.
