Then you go on to say such racism is rare in the animal kingdom...
It is indeed rare. You have simply, and once again, confused species with "race."
Bird varieties could interbreed but don't. Crows, sparrows, pigeons, etc., flock and mate only with their own type.
I think you are confusing "interbreed" with "intercourse." These creatures may have the physical ability to sexually intercourse, but they cannot interbreed. This is because Crows, sparrows and pigeons are each from different species. Black and white speckled pigeons, on the other hand, flock with white and brown speckled pigeons quite seamlessly because, despite their superficial differences, nature has fashioned them such that they are all One Interbreeding Thing. You've merely here confused, once again, the idea of species with the idea of "race."
Lions and tigers are both cats and could interbreed (and have in zoos as the "liger") but do not in the wild.
This is because lions and tigers are indeed separate species, unable to truly interbreed. The "liger" can be produced only with human intervention, which offspring in every single known case is unable to continue in nature because every known liger is born sterile. This is hardly a basis for any biological future, so your point here is dead on arrival.
Horses and buffalos shared the western plains but never interbred or mixed together. Such examples are legion.
That is because in all cases the creatures come from different species that cannot promote or have difficulty promoting a biological future. In every single case here you've merely shown segregationist behavior between different species. Your point is quite seriously dead.
At a minimum, animals are strict segregationists. They prefer their own to the exclusion of their "cousins" who differ from them only superficially.
When two animals genetically differ so much from another that they cannot perpetuate their DNA via biological union, those differences are not superficial. Where Nature is concerned, the differences are most significant. The entire point here is survival. The reason crows and sparrows don't mate is because such a relationship is naturally foreign to either creature's fundamental genetic identity. It is a terminal ending and nature tends to curse such things.
But nature has no problem at all with the mating of pigeon "races." In other words, whether charcoal gray or brown, pigeons are just pigeons and they flock together. "Racism," if it occurs at all in animals is rare.
But even it if occurred as commonly as you claim, this is not at all at issue as far as I am concerned. The fact of the matter is animals do a lot of things that civilized beings know to be "wrong." These things are all wrong because they fail to promote and/or are contrary to our biological natures (our genetic character).
Packs of wolves and coyotes can coexist peacefully in the wild, but only by respecting territorial boundaries.
Nope. This is just wrong. Wolves and coyotes can and therefore do mate to perpetuate their hybridized species. There are genetic pressures against some combinations of wolves and coyotes that probably work somewhat to preserve the two separate dog types, but in many regions "pure" wolves no longer exist because of having mated with coyotes.
When there is a violation of boundaries or an intrusion into food sources, it is met by aggression and violence.
This is useless to your position because these squabbles most often have nothing to do with "race," but more to do with culture - i.e. social groups. Even some genetically and morphologically identical species fight over territory, mates and food. Lions, for example, identical in every way except that they are members of different social groups, will fight each other. There is obviously therefore not a shred of "racism" here. Indeed, even some direct relatives fight over these things.
Stronger, more successful animals can and do marginalize their weaker brethren when the issue is as basic as survival.
Well this certainly doesn't help you, since it is also in effect even in creatures of the same litter!
Such behavior hardly differs from the Sharks and the Jets in West Side Story, which was a morality play about racism.
I am not saying categorically that what I might call "racist" behavior does not exist at all in nature. I think if it does exist it is quite rare. My point is one of reason. When at our most fundamental position we humans are able to interbreed and promote our DNA, it is against the fact of nature to claim we are so fundamentally different from one another that we ought not do what nature has empowered us to do. Such a thing is contrary to the natural truth. This is why I say racism, as a natural fact, does not exist for humans. It can exist only from ignorance of what we are under the microscope.
We differ from animals only by virtue of higher intelligence.
False. There are some humans who are still human and yet who cannot think as highly as some animals. So clearly intelligence is not what really separates us. Here is the truth: we differ from animals only by virtue of the genetic partition between us and them. And that is all. We are genetic humans, One Thing. Animals are not members of our set.
We, too, are prompted by instincts -- even to the point, unfortunately, of killing our young at times.
This is not "instincts." It is ignorance of self.
It is far from irrelevant to study animals behaviors in the quest to better understand our own.
Indeed, but seeking to validate our behavior by the behavior of animals is barbaric, uncivilized - ignorant. Merely because a dog eats feces, runs around on all fours and barks in the middle of the night gives humans not even a single reason to act likewise.
You said also that racism is merely the result of self-ignorance and barbarity. What is the meaning of "racism" to you? How would you define it?
Racism is the idea that one group of creatures, differing from another group only superficially such as in the hair, feathers or skin, but being genetically and morphologically the same such that the two groups are even able to interbreed, should purely because of the superficial differences condemn any relationship that nature has empowered the two groups to enjoy to the direct biological promotion of the species.
Does dislike of another race, or all other races, constitute "racism"?
Not necessarily. Some "races" have cultural attributes that I might abhor, depending upon the context in which they occur. I think in most cases when we dislike a "race," we are in fact disliking culture. Moreover, cultural influences may affect our proclivities such that some of us will prefer certain physical characteristics over others. Context makes a huge difference in how we perceive things. I don't think many people give much thought to this.
Recently I was in the field, hunting on a hot day when a fairly large spider dropped onto my head, crawled down my neck, onto my shoulder, then down my arm. I watched him as he lowered himself to the ground and scurried away. For some reason, it was the most natural thing to experience this without alarm. The spider really didn't look dangerous or even ugly to me. It was just a fellow creature, trying to make its way. Had he come near me in almost any other context, I would have been repulsed and killed him without any consideration. I think our perceptions, our likes and dislikes, can change depending upon a variety of factors. Plenty of times I have met people who upon first glance didn't seem especially handsome, but who, upon getting to know them, I came to think were very lovely. I think where "race" is concerned, our choices are all valid. If we like blond hair and dislike red hair, it is just fine. But if we claim blonds philosophically should not socialize with or marry reds, then we need some fundamentally biological basis to support the claim. I am saying that that basis does not exist in nature and that those who nevertheless act as if it exists are acting contrary to the biological facts.
I ask you this not in a taunting manner, but sincerely. "Racism" is a term considered pejorative, used frequently, but seldom defined with any precision. I would be very interested in your view.
I appreciate the discussion. I think it is not defined with precision because it is very difficult to define what does not materially or logically exist. |
