I’ve always had trouble with the concept of supremacy. I think I understand it when it’s used aspirationally. I’m hoping that the Chiefs best the 49-ers in the upcoming Superbowl. Or predictively. I’m betting that the Chiefs best the 49-ers. But what would it mean descriptively – the Chiefs are the better team – other than predictively? Does it make any sense to say such and such is the best team in the league notwithstanding they’ve lost every game? I suspect not. So supremacy has to be a measure of success at some designated task.
    Let’s arrange people left to right by success at that designated task. I’m guessing, even correcting for percentages of the population, there’ll be more darker skinned people to the left of the spectrum than to the right of it when it comes to some of the more lucrative professional sports, like baseball, football and basketball. So yes, darker skinned people are ‘superior’ to lighter skinned people at those tasks. Inherently? Hard to say. The nature/nurture debate should be resolvable in principle, but the participants in the debate never seem to agree on that principle.
    By the similar measure, lighter skinned people are superior to darker skinned people at golf. But once again, inherently or culturally? Some American music comes from Africa. Some from the Irish. The rest, I think, can be safely ignored. But of the two, which is the superior lineage? It can’t be reduced to just a matter of taste. If it could we’d have to grant that roast beef and Yorkshire pudding – a.k.a. leather and slime – is as good as a Chateau Briande. Or that rolled oats in sheep gut – a.k.a. haggis – is as good as a Massaman curry.
    So yes, Virgina, there really is such a thing as objectively better. By what measure? According to John Stuart Mill, by the judgment of the majority of those who’ve had experience of both. According to Scripture, by whatever God says. And according to me, by whatever I say.
    But this is just a straw man. What the white supremacist wants to claim – or in my case the Jewish supremacist – is that the aggregate contribution of whites – or in my case the aggregate contribution of Jews – to human flourishing, as widely construed, has been greater by lighter skinned (or in my case Jewish) people than by darker skinned (or in my case gentile) people.
    Whether true or false we can debate in the bar. My question is, what would we do with the answer? Suppose I’m right, and the rest of you acknowledge I’m right. Should I expect to be allowed to skip my turn to buy the next round? The problem is just the fallacy of division. From the fact, even if it were a fact, that there are more Jews to the left than to the right, it doesn’t follow that I stand more to the left than to the right.
    But perhaps the argument is this. And in fact this is the argument. If there are limited resources – and resources are always limited – and we know nothing about the applicants save their skin colour or ethnicity, then shouldn’t the smart money go to where it has a higher probability of producing the goods? It’s not just a joke. Three guys walk into a crowded bar, a white guy, a black guy, and a Jew. Each wants to do an amateur comedy set, but there’s only time for one before closing. Which of the three would you be yelling for?
    I’ve listed this entry under ‘humour’. But it’s a serious question, is it not? When the white supremacists chant “The niggers [or Jews] will not replace us!”, they’re talking about the allocation of resources. But so are the ‘niggers’. For that matter, so are the Jews. So are men. So are women. So are trans-women. So are you. It’s as Ronald Reagan said. “It’s about the economy, stupid!”

Categories: Humour, Social and Political Philosophy

Tags: blacks, Jews, racism, sexist, transphobia, white supremacy, Whites