Appiah addresses the issues of racialism, intrinsic racism, and extrensic racism
in his article entitled RACISMS. However, after analyzing Appiah’s views on
racism and its different forms, his views on the theoretical validity of
racialism and extrinsic racism are seriously doubted. Appiah defines racialism
as “the view that there are essentail characteristics that allow us to
classify people into distinct races, each of which shares certain traits and
tendencies”. On this topic, Appiah thinks that this theory, or way of
categorizing people is false. He thinks that it is merely an excuse for people
to practice types of racism. Among the two most distinct types of racism are
intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic racism consists of people who differentiate
morally between members of different races because they “believe that each
race has a different moral status, quite independent of the moral
characteristics entailed by its racial essence.” For the intrinsic racist
there is no moral, intellectual, cultural, or perhaps even physical trait or act
in relevancy to a member of another race that would merit equal treament.
Extrinsic racists make moral distinctions between members of other races because
they believe that the racial essence entails certain morally relevant qualities.
The extrinsic racist’s discrimintation stems from the belief that different
races are different genetically, and these genetic differences constitute
different treatment and expectations. Even with evidence that states otherwise,
evidence that points that a person of another race is intelligent, or noble,
there is nothing that can deter the extrinsic racist’s perceptions about those
of another race. But, the extrinsic racist may in fact have friends or loved
ones in that race.It is this belief that leads Appiah to believe that these
individuals have a “cognitive incapacity”, or an inability to reason. Appiah
comments early on that racialism is a false concept, or view. His grounds for
his claim is that it serves as a presupposition to two types of racism,
extrinsic and intrinsic. However, he is only keeping in consideration a few
results and purposes of racialism. When Appiah looks at racialism, he sees that
it is a science that allows us to classify people into distinct races based on
character traits and tendencies. In his perspective, this serves no further
purpose but to validate racism, and that it is a concept that is false in
theory. The truth of the matter is there are certain obvious differences based
on race. Most apparent is skin color, and other physical characteristics like
hair, eyes, lips, etc. That fact alone weakens Appiah’s argument racialism is
false. This weakens Appiah’s argument because when he says that racialism is
false in theory, part of what he saying that either there are no traits that
allow us to classify people into races. Certain physical characteristics are
evident in races and allows us to classify by race. The second part of
Appiah’s argument regarding racialism is that racialism also classifies on
character tendencies originating from race. It is generally agreed that race had
no create character tendencies, morals, and actions. However, race can
indirectly play a role in the development of many characteristics. Race is
becoming less of a factor as more and more people engage in racial mixed
relationships. But it is a factor. Certain races are more inclined to be a part
of certain cultures, with their own respective value systems. For instance,
being born Chinese does not automatically make you good at kung-fu, give you
more of a natural ability to draw, or a more respectable person. However, due to
the history of the chinese, and the culture behind it their are certain traits
that a chinese individual would be more likely to take on. Chinese may be more
likey to draw well because of calligraphy, in which every word is basically a
little picture. this obviously would help to develop control over the pen. The
culture of the chinese has a very heavy influence on respecting one’s parents
and the elderly, which would undoubtably make older individuals seem more
honorable or wise. So in that case, race does indeed have an impact on character
tendencies and behavior. It shows that race can have a connection to culture and
upbringing, which does relate to the type of person that will develop. This is
where Appiah’s theory that racialism is a presupposition to to racism comes
into play. These cultural characteristics can easily be mistaken for racial
characteristics. Also, none of these traits are absolute, or definate. Culture
does not have the power to dictate a person’s morality, behavior, and
abilities, but it can influence these things. This , unfortunately, leads to
stereotypes, both good and bad. For example, it is assumed that if you’re
black, you have an inclination for basketball, you dance well, and you commit
street robberies. Here, Appiah is correct, there are no grounds for somebody to
assume this based on race, it is theoreticaly wrong, and morally wrong. There no
universal law that states that if you are born black, you will be good at
basketball. But, to make no prejudgement on a person, in its own twisted way, is
perhaps just as wrong as to make assumptions. When we have these thoughts based
on race, we are acknowledging the differences between people, and the problems
with society. Blacks are among the most recent group in our society to establish
themselves as equal. They suffer strongly from others’ racist beliefs, and are
often percieved to be people they are not. When we are walking down the street
at night, if we have the option to walk past a black man, and a white man,
chances are we’ll walk past the white man, because there is a racist
perception of blacks being more inclined to do something violent to us. This
belief holds down blacks, and other minorities, and can prevent them from
getting the opportuinities to improve their lives. This in turn may put
minorities in a position where they have to focus on increasing their physical
abilities, to excel in a sport to get what they want, or it may make crime a
more viable solution. This then creates an opportunity for those who are racist
to strengthen their racist beliefs. They pay no attention to any of the good
deeds or qualities, as Appiah has mentioned in his extrinsic racism theory, but
they seem to pay attention to the bad. Also, it can be said that there is some
theoretical truth to extrinsic racism. Appiah argues that extrinsic racism is
theoretically and morally wrong. There are not too many rational people who will
argue that any type of racism is right, so there is a general consensus of
agreement there. However, Appiah’s definition is a bit vague on how extrinsic
racism is theoretically wrong in relating genetic coding to intellectual and
moral traits. What about genetic defects? There are some diseases or genetic
anomalies that are more prevalent in some races than others. If there was a
genetic mutation that affects thinking, perhaps some form of retardation or down
syndrome, are we to regard that as extrinsic racism? This would be a case in
which intelligence would undoubtably be affected by genetics. Also, it is
controversial whether intelligence affects morality. Can a man who is not aware,
or is mentally unable to be aware of his moral obligations be held accountable
for moral crimes? These are all questions that Appiah leaves open to judgement
when with his statement that extrinsic racism is theoretically false. Obviously,
there can be differences that affect intelligence, and perhaps even morality by
genetics. These instances are not the norm, but they are possibilties. It can be
agreed with Appiah that all forms of racism are morally wrong, and there are
different forms of racism.However, Appiah’s arguments that the different forms
of racism and racialism are theoretically wrong, or impossible, are unsound and
leave open too much room for questioning. However, Appiah’s views opens the
question that if racism is so widely accepted as morally wrong, what keeps us
all committing acts of racism?Is it fear, or is it a need to feel superior? Or
is it just a flaw in human logic?