What is racism
Recently in NZ, much has been made that we are all racist. This generalized thesis has been supported by a supposed scientific study done in Harvard University using mental associations and our preferences in relation to them. If a set of associations negative toward some people of different ethnicity, then the person declared racist.
Understanding this is sufficiently important I copy senior politicians, as well as the President of Harvard in that I regard the senior leader in such organizations as accountable for the output of the organization in precisely the same way the CEO of Air NZ or Fletcher Building is responsibility for the output of their organizations.
This is such dreadful inadequate science from a hugely prestigious source as to be breath-takingly bad. I will try to clarity the issues from the top.
- Until 2014 there was no scientific general theory of psychology. And vastly more significant, there was no understanding whatsoever of causality in human affairs or in science generally. In 2014, the spiritual model of humanity was published, the science now recognised and published in SSRN, the papers continuing strong propositions defining the spiritual model of humanity as the correct science of people. Second, declaring categorically that all social causality is via the individual mind. For a summary of the science, refer Spiritual Model of Humanity (2): Innovation and the CEO (June 2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3395015. For a discussion on the science and the strong nature of some of the proposition and what they mean, refer: https://www.facebook.com/graham.little.58/posts/10157340775537346.
- The spiritual model of humanity states that humans act according to the ideas they hold, the intensity of action derived from the emotions associated with those ideas. As a less dramatic aspect of the science, it also says ideas exist in the human psyche embedded in mental sets, and that these mental sets are interconnected, hence the human psyche is best thought of as a vast web, linking ideas, with emotions flowing quite freely through the web. So emotions from over there, can easily influence our view and feelings about what is over here.
- So, in practical terms what exactly does this mean? If you associated with idea 1 are a lot of things you do not like, and if associated with idea 2, a lot of things you are comfortable with, then you will exhibit intrinsic preferences to the latter. The scientific question is … are the preferences being stated legitimate or are they merely excuses to hide distaste due something you wish to hide, such as dislike of some particular skin colour. If the issues stated as distasteful are reasoned, and legitimate, then the negative association with idea 1 is legitimate, with a fully reasoned structure of ideation to support it.
- In regard racism … what does this mean? The science says it is ‘racism’ if an only if the detrimental opinion of a person is due their ethnicity (their skin colour), and nothing else. If the detrimental opinion is due ideas that are valid, then it IS NOT RACISM, it is dislike for things one legitimately rejects.
- In NZ, are there things Maori are doing that could legitimately be disliked? Try this list … From the book, free in PDF, The Science of Mental Health as Applied to Self, Politics and Social Policy (October 16, 2018). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3267112
In recent years, Maori have acted:
• Claiming ownership of foreshore and seabed.
• Claiming ownership of all water in NZ.
• Demanded privileged non-elected places on regional and city councils.
• Demanded preferential involvement in national decisions on economic development.
• Demanded the Treaty of Waitangi be included in the formal constitution of New Zealand.
• Demanded special treatment of Maori poverty (which is real but part of general NZ poverty, should Maori poverty get preferential treatment?).
• Demanded special treatment of Maori education, and today have specified Maori schools funded by taxation.
• Demanded the Maori language be compulsory in schools.
• Proclaim as racist any suggestion that laws should fall equally on all citizens.
• Exhibit opposition to Maori as ‘one cultural group among many’.
• Exhibit resistance to removal of Maori parliamentary seats thus support apartheid as the ongoing basis of NZ constitutional structure.
• Are consistent in the view that Maori deserves more than it is getting.
It is mainly Maori youth in prison. There is a large percentage of Maori in the gangs in NZ. Maori have a lower average education attainment standard than the rest of New Zealand. There are inherent cultural issues in Maori that have for generations hampered wealth creation and distribution, and educational development and advancement (although Maori are now returning to the entrepreneurial ways of ancestors with a buoyant Maori economy as a significant part of the NZ economy, which is good for NZ).
In addition, it is heavily Maori families who have their child protected by the state because of the dangerous environment the baby is entering. Maori dominate the family abuse statistics, demanding special treatment to overcome their cultural education deficiencies, health deficiencies.
- The question is: Are these legitimate issues associated with Maori, which the majority of New Zealanders know of, understand and reject? If they are legitimate, and are issues associated with Maori, then of course the mental association with Maori will be negative, legitimately so.
- It is totally due Maori fault, they are making no effort to integrate, exhibit ongoing demands to be treated in a superior manner due they here first, blame inept conduct on them being colonised and hence the rest of NZ society ‘owes them’. There is no exhibition or regard to the stable forward structure of our society and no regard to the status of any other person. In short, they are socially exhibiting inept conduct devoid of any understanding of a modern constitutional democracy dedicated to individual freedom.
By copy, I request the President of Harvard to assume some accountability for outputs from the prestigious institution he leads for inflicting on people the most dreadful, incompetent load of rubbish in the name of science. An appropriate act would be to force retraction of this so-called science of assessing racism, with an appropriate apology for implying people racist when in fact they are not. Bluntly, I think we should be able to expect very much more from Harvard, who know of my science, due I have exchanged with them, and since about one third of moderators of SSRN are from Harvard, with SSRN having originated in Harvard 26 odd years ago.
I sincerely hope that we grow to embrace quality ideas and understanding and not wallow in intellectual rubbish like this, no matter how prestigious the institution. It does stress the extent today that we are being severely let down by our intellectual institutions and how careful we need to be no matter where the person comes from and no matter how prestigious they seem to be.