| Already we see a bit of that ugly animal, political correctness. But it is not the animal it is made out to be. It is not some vast conspricy of one side or the other, it is simply the 'round off' error on social issues.
John and Adams are doing a splendid job of making it obvious so far. Adams does not understand that making an observation about a race does not have to be racist. John does not understand that he is judging an entire gene pool by the individuals that get noticed.
Who is right? They are both right, and they are both wrong. Yes, it is likely that a race that has lived a long time in a region where physical traits decide your survival, are very likely to come up short in an intelligence contest against a race that only competes with itself for survival. But intelligence is not the only measure of worth. But for some reason it is not racist to mention an advantage of a minority, or the weakness of a majority. Is that not also a form of racism? If racism is based on being the minority then only the Chinese are in the majority...
On the other hand, refusing to aknowedge differences in mental capability only further emphasises it's precieved importance. So by avoiding mentioning an intellectual lack you make the race feel even more inferior since you have just implied that they are too stupid to realize they are not intellectually equal.
But why do people make these silly connections? I can recognize that my race is not the most intellectually developed race on the planet, but I still have a high opinion of my own intelligence. I consider myself as an individual before a member of a race. I do not think I am so smart that I could raise the average IQ of my race, nor can a single moron lower it. So why is it racist to recognize that some races are smarter on the average? I have never talked to a race, all I have ever talked to are individuals. And I judge individuals as I meet them, they quit being a race the moment I talk to them... |