If a sterotype is true is it racist?

Any trait in any race that is believed superior is racism.

The paper doesn’t specify why these genes might have been under such strong selection. But the likely explanation for the pigmentation genes is to maximize vitamin D synthesis, said paleoanthropologist Nina Jablonski of Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), University Park, as she looked at the poster’s results at the meeting. People living in northern latitudes often don’t get enough UV to synthesize vitamin D in their skin so natural selection has favored two genetic solutions to that problem—evolving pale skin that absorbs UV more efficiently or favoring lactose tolerance to be able to digest the sugars and vitamin D naturally found in milk. “What we thought was a fairly simple picture of the emergence of depigmented skin in Europe is an exciting patchwork of selection as populations disperse into northern latitudes,” Jablonski says.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin

 

If you believe the science and the facts that Blacks are better at some things---anything---then that is racism.

Embrace your racism! You are one too.

 

I'll take the Webster's definition at face value.
The definition only said "superior" not superior in most things or everything.
You can believe anything you want. But I'll believe you are racist if you think any trait of any race is superior to others.

 

The truth is

White men can't jump, so if you believe that black people make better basketball players (probably mostly true) you are a racist. Time to face up to an emotion laden buzz word for what it is.

 

Except I believe we are all one race. The HUMAN race with different ethnicities.

 

You are entitled to your opinion. It is not, however, factual and as long as other races don't agree and they want their own culture, you can never stop the inevitable.

 

race 1
(rās)
n.
1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared bythe group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in partbecause there is more genetic variation within groups than between them.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographicdistribution: the Celtic race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology
a. A usually geographically isolated population of organisms that differs from other populations of the samespecies in certain heritable traits: an island race of birds.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/race
It is not my opinion. But 1 of the definitions.

 

Be that as it may, you realize there are different ethnic groups with different traits.

You sound like Bill Clinton. "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Yeah, right.

 

Race, ethnicity... it's a question of terminology.
Choose your own words.

 

The key word there that you put in red is most. Most biologists and anthropologists are not all biologists. Other sites disagree with your assessment. Here are some excerpts:

"Most anthropologists recognize 3 or 4 basic races of man in existence today. These races can be further subdivided into as many as 30 subgroups."

http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/how-many-major-races-are-there-in-the-world/

"Nonetheless, some biologists argue that racial categories correlate with biological traits (e.g. phenotype), and that certain genetic markers have varying frequencies among human populations, some of which correspond more or less to traditional racial groupings. For this reason, there is no current consensus about whether racial categories can be considered to have significance for understanding human genetic variation..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

According to George Gill (who works in this very field):

"Slightly over half of all biological / physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html

So, you have your "facts" and I have mine.

 

If race doesn't exist then racism doesn't either.

 

Where? In a few tiny corners of the planet?

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this is entirely wrong for about three quarters of humanity. You know, the vast majority who are brunettes and who favour brunettes.

 

This is patently absurd. You're talking about a TINY proportion of males. Visit China, or India. Please.

 

Because they have olive skin, and because they stay out of the sun.

 

ewww!

white women look TERRIBLE with a suntan. not to mention the extreme ageing effects even a tiny amount of sun causes.

if you're black, be black. if you're white, be white.

 

There is a difference between being a gingerbread-woman/ompa loompa and having a tan though. Nothing wrong with having a tan.

 

Yes. If we all said we are the human race, we could do away with racism.

 

Yep. And mine can do away with racism.

 

Anyways, Greataxe is of course wrong about brunettes being scientifically unattractive when scientific attractiveness has nothing to do with hair colour and everything to do with facial features. A beautiful face is a beautiful face.

 

"Racist" in our messed up society means basically that anything that hurts the feelings of a non-white said or done by a white person - regardless of the truthfulness or factual veracity of that thing - is "racist" by default.

 

Other than that it looks terrible, and causes premature ageing?

 

Too much tanning is probably very bad for you, but having a tan does not look terrible. Not if it is natural or at least looks natural. If you are someone who tans easily, you can't help it.

 

I'm only referring to those who have naturally very pale skin, who then deliberately expose themselves to sunlight in an attempt to de-pale themselves. It always looks awful. Cheap, trashy, coarse.

Yes, I have strong preference for super pale skin (in females/myself). I think it looks much classier and more refined.

 

It's self-loathing generally speaking.

 

Given that "superior" for the most part is a subjective value, we have no way to prove any one thing is superior to any thing else. It is only when we provide a context can it become an objective reality. The UV protection you brought up for example. Because UV protection has a set defined standard, we can make claims of superiority. A sunscreen with a higher UV protection rating is superior to those with lower ratings, by definition of what UV protection is. Now for context, let's compare that to the pH levels of various substances. A higher pH is not necessarily superior to lower one because there is no context to it. An acid would be superior for etching, whereas a base would be superior for cleaning. Therefor the higher or lower the pH would indicate the superiority of the substance for the defined task.

Back to UV protection, if a given "race's" skin was superior, factually speaking, at protecting against UV rays, then that is an objective measure. If the trait is objectively superior as a fact, not an opinion, then how can that be racist? The definition you provided in the post I quoted, used the word believe, with, in the context given, means opinion. Therefore, a fact cannot be an opinion and thus cannot be racist.