First, if everyone were of the same "race," other issues would be found to create division. Just look at Cambodia, Ireland, the Balkans and Rwanda, for example. Second, men have been mistreating each other for thousands of years, whether they looked alike or not, and every time that behavior has been driven by a perceived advantage. Third, until we choose Galt's pledge (I swear, by my life...), this problem isn't going to go away. Finally, we must accept that what goes around, comes around. No one was upset (other than blacks) when Wilson imposed segregation and preferential treatment in favor of whites on the country, and established an environment where race was going to be used as a club going forward (which it has, as we've seen). What's needed is to eliminate ALL racially based privileges and punishments, and return to a system of INDIVIDUALITY, which hasn't been here since the founding. When we compromised on our principles at the Constitutional convention, by allowing slavery, in the face of, "we hold these truths to be self evident...," we set the stage for racism to be one of the defining issues going forward, even though slavery itself was eliminated some 90 years later. Since then, we've gone back and forth over this one issue, and rather than eliminating it once and for all, we've merely chosen to use it to beat up on one group or another. No one seems to remember "we hold these TRUTHS to be self evident...," but just wants to get even for past behavior, the famous eye for an eye, which leads to blindness for all. I believe that it all starts with, at least on the black side, the belief that blacks were innocent pain in the ass bystanders in the slave business, when in fact, from Africa to the new world, they were some of the main players. This doesn't mean that whites were innocent pain in the ass bystanders either. However, we need to understand that, until England and the US outlawed slavery, it had been a global institution for thousands of years. The people engaged in that business were coming from a place where slavery was "normal," unlike some today who know better, even the Nazis, Communists and Muslims. Bewailing the injustice that's befalling some at a particular time does nothing but build up resentment for future rounds of this game. What's needed is a complete cleaning house of the evil of attempting to attribute any character based attributes to skin color or ethnicity, rather than the content of one's character. If we don't address this issue, we're wasting our time attempting to "save" the country.

I agree with you.

I'm trying something new with this thread. My idea is to reserve all "first-tier comments" to quotes from the book in question. Any discussion should be a reply to one of these quotes, or someone else's replies. Otherwise Rand's quotes will get crowded out and pushed down into oblivion. Does that make sense?

If you want to play along, please copy your comment and re-paste it as a reply to one of the quotes. May I suggest her opening quote here:

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/387a6793/racism-from-the-virtue-of-selfishness-by-ayn-rand~7a27e5d7kbci3h7pp7ubjukfxy

Good point. I'm sure that was part of the intention. Since racism was so entrenched in society, perhaps resorting to the coercive Government was seen by many as the only solution. I think Rand would say that the racism was enabled and encouraged by our collectivism, and would be been resolved (eventually) the closer we got to a laissez-faire society. Man's economic interests are served better without the irrationality of racial discrimination. Her thesis has never been seen (we have never had a truly free economy). Unfortunately we went the other direction with the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I'll be interested to see other replies to your comment.

Rand considered racism as just another form of collectivism. Attributing the same characteristics to a large group of individuals. Looked at it in that manner, the stupidity of it immediately shows itself to even a semi-rational mind.

This quote is my favorite! "But the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

This is why we need to return to the Republic model that limits the destructive ability of the majority rule. We now have 200 years more of experience at ways in which politics and business can 'game' the constitution and we have a lot of fences we could mend...but I am terrified of letting liberals get their hands on the Constitution to change it.

Jan

This is a crucial right that has been often overlooked: the right to shun.

Jan

Desist if you prefer. But if you want to honor my idea for this thread, just copy your comment, delete it, and re-post it as a reply to one of the other quotations. I suggest this one:

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/387a6793/racism-from-the-virtue-of-selfishness-by-ayn-rand~3tf4fss3qnewtdvyxenmkintcm

Too many people in today's society make such assumptions about the background and intentions of people around them that guilt is assumed far quicker than innocence.

I do not dispute this in principle, but I will comment that a friend of my described in detail how unfair scoring and quotas had let women break through into soccer teams.

I mention this for a discussion as to whether a pragmatic ruling can be used to implement change (we are all resistant to change).

Jan

I agree with you.

I'm trying something new with this thread. My idea is to reserve all "first-tier comments" to quotes from the book in question. Any discussion should be a reply to one of these quotes, or someone else's replies. Otherwise Rand's quotes will get crowded out and pushed down into oblivion. Does that make sense?

If you want to play along, please copy your comment and re-paste it as a reply to one of the quotes. May I suggest her opening quote here:

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/387a6793/racism-from-the-virtue-of-selfishness-by-ayn-rand~7a27e5d7kbci3h7pp7ubjukfxy

I would have to agree, that their attitude is more of a narcissistic selfishness, aka, the non-productive selfishness. Their attitude is more of "I want my stuff! And because I do not understand other people, they can't have their own stuff!" In this arena, there is selfishness for good purposes and there is selfishness for bad purposes.

There are no races in our species. "Race" is a social construct based on self identification per the Federal government guidelines since the 90s when our knowledge of genetics advanced to the point where it was clear there are no races in our species.

Hi nsnelson,

I've seen this discussed on other threads recently as well. A person SHOULD have the freedom to associate and do business (or not) with whomever he chooses. Unfortunately, the laws are not written that way, and the law that AR was referring to is probably one of the main culprits. When Objectivists gain control, hopefully we can correct some of this!

What are you talking about? Are you asking about the Civil Rights Bill that Ayn Rand was writing about in September of 1963? It is not clear what your comment is in reply to.

Second, I was not clear in my other post about this thread. I envision all first-tier comments being just quotes from whatever book the thread is talking about. All discussion starts as a reply to one of those comments. Otherwise all the comments will keep getting pushed down and lost amongst the non-Rand comments. Not sure if this is workable. (If you want to delete your comment to re-post it as a reply somewhere, thus deleting my comment here, I'm fine with that. Or maybe I'm being too OCD....)

And I appreciate the distinction. Just because we legally allow discrimination does not mean that we have to like it. But there are other remedies than always appealing to the coercive Government.

We see this all the time in our politically correct world. A little bad press, and businesses cave voluntarily. Think of the fallout around Donald Trump's remarks. Univision, NBC, Macy's...he just calls them cowards.

Or consider the "Confederate flag." Dukes Of Hazzard is being dropped. Apple stopped selling games. Target (et al) stopped selling the flags. This was all voluntary, due to "social ostracism" and the threat of "boycott."

I think this is the way things should work. I think people are overreacting, and being irrational about these things. But let the free market work, rather than appeal to the Government to fix these things. The same should apply to our right to discriminate.

I have thought this for years, and was glad to see it published here: "A man's rights are not violated by a private individual's refusal to deal with him. Or as OA put it somewhere else, in a free society we associate voluntarily, which implies we may disassociate (or refuse to associate) voluntarily. Anti-discrimination laws violate this principle. We ought to be legally allowed to discriminate as we like.

“Consider the implications of that statement. It does not merely demand special privileges on racial grounds – it demands that white men be penalized for the sins of their ancestors. It demands that a white laborer be refused a job because his grandfather may have practiced racial discrimination. But perhaps his grandfather had not practiced it. Or perhaps his grandfather had not even lived in this country. Since these questions are not to be considered, it means that that white laborer is to be charged with collective racial guilt, the guilt consisting merely of the color of his skin.

"But that is the principle of the worst Southern racist.”

“It is an ironic demonstration of the philosophical insanity and the consequently suicidal trend of our age, that the men who need the protection of individual rights most urgently – the Negroes – are now in the vanguard of the destruction of these rights.”

“Racial quotas have been one of the worst evils of racist regimes.”

“That absurdly evil policy is destroying the moral base of the Negroes’ fight. Their case rested on the principle of individual rights. If they demand the violation of the rights of others, they negate and forfeit their own. Then the same answer applies to them as to the Southern racists: there can be no such thing as the ‘right’ of some men to violate the rights of others.”

“This is pure racism. As opponents of this demand have pointed out, to assign children to certain schools by reason of their race, is equally evil whether one does it for purposes of segregation or integration.”