Unfortunately, the reason why people start to think "racism" is acceptable and even good, is because the definition of racism is blurred. The only definition that truly makes sense in a broader perspective, is that racism is the term applicable to a belief in morality being merely an uncontrollable result of a specific genetic lineage.
It's an incarnation of determinism (another term constantly misused) pure and simple. To be specific, the pitiful try to use ones chemical predestination as "proof" or "argument" for ones superiority - which actually fairly often, very ironically, is accompanied by the idea that the racist should be given power...
-The way I use the terms, understanding "racial" differences is not the same as racism. For example, a physician taking into account the family history of his patient when prescribing him a medicine is not a racist. Neither is the asian man who based on science makes a decission to be more careful not to overconsume alcohol.
humans themselves blurred it to serve a primal pattern recognition instict. i explain this in the article
And they are. Those who discriminate in regards to any attribute seem to distinguish value. For example one could be racist against Steemit and not Bitcoin even if Steemit is better at many things. The fact that Bitcoin came earlier though, dominating the market gives it a "Race" advantage
i never said those are racist attributed. those are merely classifications for another purpose. Marrying someone because he is physician though or assuming the asian is better at math rhymes along racist attributes.
You don't seem to make proper distinction between cooperative behaviour and collectivism - as well as between concept creation and mistaken bias.
As this would likely take many hours to deal with, I'm giving up this conversation.
Depends on what asian you are talking about: the asian man in the example or the asian in general? And better than who exactly? If someone was to accept scientific data (if there was such available) showing that people with Asian descent tend in average to be better at math (or have a higher IQ) than people made up of different biological backgrounds, that would make that person racist? Sorry for the hypothetical question, because I have not read enough about the topic to have a definitive answer in regards to the correlation between physical and psychological traits, but all I'm trying to point here, whether it would be for anthropometric, cultural reasons or else, is that if there was revealed to be something about ''the asian is better at math'', I wouldn't label this along racist attributes because of the appreciation (better, more, less or not than) that would happen in this case to reflect reality about only one single trait. I believe what we are talking about here is racialism not racism, even if some dictionnaries seem to see the two words as interchangeable (erasing as a result the former à la 1984?), I can't help but to make a distinction between the ideas of ''we are different as groups'' (racialism) and ''we are superior as a group'' (racism).
If you believe you are a "white" or "black" person then you're racist because you believe in the concept of race. If you don't believe in the concept but choose to fight the effects then you may be an anti-racist. This means, you aren't a white or black person, but just a person who loves people (not just white or black people). So if you embrace a human identity above all else then you don't need "race consciousness" to be an anti-racist.
At the same time, you can care about the fate of people who look like you or who came from a similar background as you without having to internalize race identity. You don't have to see yourself internally as a white or black person to care about or love white or black people. The point is, human rights are the issue, not rights for blacks or whites, but for human beings. If you feel one group has an unfair advantage due to racism then it's not racist to give an advantage to the underdog.
So scholarships for people who live the black life, and black experience, is valuable if you know people in these perspectives have it harder in our society. The same goes for supporting women, or children or any other disadvantaged group in society. The belief in helping the disadvantaged does not require race specific consciousness.
My point is, what matters isn't the ideologies, but the outcomes. A person can totally be racist, believe in race consciousness, be pro white or pro black or pro woman or pro man, but still create good outcomes for all genders, all races, in spite of the fact that they have a preference. What it means is, you can do good for your group while also doing good for humanity as a whole.
So even people who are racist can be an asset for humanity. It all depends on how their racism is expressed and what form it is. It's like with viruses or diseases, some are mild, some are beneficial, some are so bad they destroy the host, and memes are very similar to viruses, and race ideology (and gender ideology) are memes.
I would tend to agree that racialism is not the same as racism.