Concerning Keys: Part I

Since the creation of the mechanical typewriter in the early 19th century, and subsequent popularization, our writing habits have been on a steady trajectory toward tool-assisted methods. One commonly debated issue among early inventors was the layout of the keys, which originally resembled those of a piano more than modern computer keyboards. An inventor of the first commercially successful typewriter, Christopher Sholes, at the advice of his friend, designed the predominant alphabetical layout, known as QWERTY.

The name QWERTY comes from the arrangement of the first five letters in the upper left corner. The design aimed at reducing jamming caused by the rapid pressing of nearby keys. In order to resolve this issue, Sholes separated common combinations of keys, such as HE, AN, ND and EN. The result was slower typing but less jamming, which meant that the overall speed of entry was increased.

Some might be startled to learn that they are needlessly typing more slowly, but attempts to introduce more efficient layouts have failed. In 1936, Dr. August Dvorak and Dr. William Dealy patented a design intended to increase typing speed by reducing the average distance required for fingers to travel between keys. Since some letters are more common than others, moving the more common letters into easy-to-reach locations supposedly made typing faster and less awkward.

Although studies of DVORAK’s effectiveness have yielded contrasting results, the creation of a more efficient key layout is a step that many believe should be taken. Part of the reason for inconsistency could be the difficulty in transitioning to an unfamiliar system. This idea lead to the creation of the Colemark keyboard layout, which was less efficient than DVORAK, but was thought to be an easier transition for those accustomed to QWERTY. However, the difficulty involved in revolutionizing an established system is impossible to circumvent, so the adaptation should make the most of such inconvenience and provide the greatest possible improvement. Colemark is only a marginal upgrade from QWERTY and would still require drastic changes in habit, documentation and industry standards. Transitioning to the DVORAK layout would require the same changes, but offer greater efficiency. But is DVORAK really the most efficient keyboard layout?

In order to determine where the letter keys should rest, we must first examine the basics of typing. On modern keyboards, the correct inactive position for the hands is to have the index fingers resting on the keys with small bumps (the letters F and J in QWERTY) with the remaining fingers on each hand resting on their corresponding adjacent keys (the letters A, S, D on the left hand, and K, L, ; in the right hand). Proper typing practice teaches that the nearest finger to the desired key should reach out from its default position, strike the key and return. The goal is to have the fingers do the work while the hands hover motionless above the keyboard. This is because we have nearly 6 times as many fingers as hands, each of which can be moved more quickly and accurately than a hand.

Now that we know where our hands should rest, we can extrapolate the general area in which the letters should be placed. Since it’s most efficient to keep our hands still, it would make sense to keep the most commonly used keys within reach of the our fingers from the resting position, but here’s where things get complicated. Some of our fingers are stronger and more obedient than others, namely the index and middle fingers, which means that some key locations are easier to reach than others.

So now that we know the real estate value on a keyboard, the next step should be to simply place the most commonly used keys in the easiest to reach locations, but before we can proceed, we must take a closer look at the intricacies of typing.

As we’ve seen with numbers, some letters are more common than others, but there are also more common letter combinations and patterns. In addition, not all finger movements are equally fluid; it’s been shown that our fingers more easily move to and from the upper row than the lower. The most difficult movement is known as hurdling, which is when a finger leaps over the center row to reach the next key (as with the letters CR or MY in QWERTY). Also, most words involve a great deal of alternation between consonants and vowels, as with the word populate, and since we can type more quickly by alternating hands, it would make sense to keep vowels on one side of the keyboard.  It’s also important to note that the inner letters of the keyboard (Y, G, H, B in QWERTY) can draw the hand away from the default position, especially if the typist has small hands. On top of all that, most people are right handed, which means that the right hand is slightly more agile than the left, making the keys on the right side of the keyboard slightly more accessible.

In light of these important details, an ideal keyboard layout should follow these rules:

  1. The most common letters should be placed in the most easily reached locations, preferably on the right side.
  2. Vowels and common consonants should be kept on opposing ends of the keyboard.
  3. Letters that are commonly used together should be placed in locations that allow for the easiest transition.

Presenting the most efficient keyboard layout ever conceived: QWUIO.

There are a few key differences to note in the QWUIO layout. First of all, as with DVORAK, all of the vowels are moved to the left side. Unlike DVORAK, however, all of the vowels fall in the center or upper row, within reach of the index and middle fingers. Another important change is the positioning of the period, comma and apostrophe in the center of the keyboard. This allows for the hand to return to the default position while the space bar is struck by the thumb. In addition to being an uncommon letter, K also ends many words, so it is included in the center keys.

In order to better understand the improvements offered by this QWUIO, let’s compare the placement of the most commonly used letters.

As we can see, QWERTY does a good job of relegating uncommon letters and punctuation to the outer regions, but seems purposeless in its placement of the more common letters, even seeming to favor the left hand slightly. DVORAK, on the other hand, obviously focuses attention on center row, but heavily favors the use of the weaker outer digits. QWUIO aims to employ the index and middle fingers as much as possible while promoting a steady hand position. Now let’s compare how well our layouts conform to common key combinations.

The QWERTY layout does a decent job of placing common key combinations in accessible locations, with few resting in optimal locations and few in poor locations. DVORAK places more keys in optimal locations, but at the cost of shifting many to poor locations. The QWUIO system, on the other hand, exceeds DVORAK’s improvements without making sacrifices, with over half of the keys directly beneath the resting position of the index and middle fingers. But what about the movement between the keys in a combination? What about alternating hands and hurdling?

This test reveals that QWERTY and DVORAK perform at a surprisingly similar level, allowing typists to access common combinations with general ease, but again, with DVORAK shifting some keys to sub-optimal locations in an attempt to increase efficiency. Although none of the three layouts require hurdling or the use of the outer-most keys, the QWUIO layout allows typists to execute a startling 90% of combinations using only the most effective movements and never asks typists to make awkward movements.

In part II we will discuss the relationship between keyboard layout and more advanced computer functions. We’ll also explore additional sections of the keyboard, including the number keys, arrow keys and the numeric keypad, as well as the function, modifier and lock keys.

Laugh Track

Now listen close and hear the tale,
of how our humor died.
For once we laughed when actors laughed,
and when they cried, we cried.

When film was new and no one knew
quite how to summon laughter,
the audience would take the lead,
our laughs would follow after.

But every now and then a quip,
would not seem as clever.
Without the crowing crowd to cue,
no laughter whatsoever.

And so they sought the aid of one,
who captured that glad sound,
the cheerful noise that lifts us up,
copied, cut and bound.

He used a secret magic box,
then took what wasn’t funny,
sweetened it just to our taste,
and made a ton of money.

So now we sit and watch and wait,
for a machine to tell us when,
to react according to the prompt,
then quiet and wait again.

Thanks be to Charley Douglass,
for now we can’t be sure,
of whether what we feel is real,
and if our joy is pure.

Series

If your goal was to own the fastest Mercedes-Benz sedan, which of the following would you most prefer?

  • S
  • SL
  • SLK
  • SLS
  • E
  • C
  • CL
  • CLA
  • CLS

The correct answer is the SLS, which takes a short 3.8 seconds to accelerate from 0 to 100 km/h. Although this fact may be common knowledge to motor enthusiasts, neither the vehicle’s speed nor any other attribute can be inferred from the model name alone. This isn’t surprising, since automobiles generally do not derive their name from specifications. However, this may cause some to wonder why a company would create a system of letters and numbers to identify their products, yet avoid using those letters and numbers to describe them.

There are generally two approaches to naming products. The first is to assign product names individually, as is commonly done with with pets and children. Automobile names are usually taken from an animal, location or native tribe, in an attempt to summon imagery of power, prestige and speed in the minds of consumers. Although the name may not describe any of the vehicle’s specifications, it usually embodies its some raw traits. The Dodge Magnum, for example, gives the impression of a powerful, dangerous weapon, while the Ford Fiesta’s title implies that driving the car is like having a party. There are cases where the vehicle’s title doesn’t quite fit, as it did with the Dodge Shadow, which was in no way a dark or sinister machine. In fact, the Plymouth Sundance, despite having nearly the complete opposite name as the Shadow, is actually the same vehicle.

The second route to naming products is to implement a system of alphanumeric codes. Although products named in this fashion lack the unique symbolism of an individual name, there are several significant advantages to this method. First, the release of each new model does not require the creation of a name. Second, these names sound technical and cool. Finally, and most importantly, key product information can be easily deciphered from these codes, but only if the codes are implemented with care.

Product codes may reflect one or more of the product’s traits, including release date, size, speed, color or series. BMW, for example, names its vehicles with a three digit number, followed by one or two letters. The first digit of the number represents the vehicle’s series, which describes the body size and other details. The following two digits indicate performance, and the letters describe various options, including automatic transmission, fuel injection or a convertible roof.

One mistake that those at BMW made when they conceived of this system was that they limited their capacity to release new series of vehicles. By using single digit numbers, BMW essentially proclaimed that they would never introduce more than two models smaller than the 3 series, and no more than one model between the 3 and 5 or 5 and 7 series. Although there have been changes, additions and exceptions to the BMW codification, their system remains a useful and straightforward example of the implementation of product codes.

There are many examples of product codes that do more to confuse than to educate. Nvidia’s GeForce line of computer graphics cards have suffered from a lack of clear and consistent product coding. In modern GeForce codification, the first digit of the model number represents the generation, while the remaining numbers indicate performance. There is usually a prefix, a suffix or both a prefix and suffix attached to the model number, which also indicates performance.

Although the model numbers, prefixes and suffixes do have meaning, the actual specifications of the product are impossible to extract from the product code alone. For example, the GTX 690 has double the amount of memory of the 680, but the 680 has the same memory as the 670. To cause further confusion, the 680 model also has a higher clock speed than the 690, which was touted as the most powerful card in the 600 series.

Now aside from using an inconsistent system for identifying individual products, the many generations of GeForce graphics cards have not been named in the same way. The first generation was strangely named the GeForce 256, which was succeeded by the GeForce 2. The GeForce 3 and 4 followed, but then the numeric succession was interrupted by the GeForce FX. The coding then returned to the previous pattern with the releases of the GeForce 6, 7, 8 and 9. However, when Nvidia announced its 10th generation of graphics cards, there was an adjustment. Since the 4th generation, most of the model numbers had been four digits long, which meant that the 10th generation would roll them over to a five digit number. To avoid such extensive product codes, the 10th generation was christened the 100 series. Since then, each generation has added 100 to previous generation’s code.

Another possible area of confusion is that series and model names are often largely arbitrary. In the examples above, the numbers don’t actually represent anything other than the relation between products, which isn’t even proportionally accurate. To avoid this, Samsung coded its televisions according to the size of the screen, the type of display and the number of features. By linking product codes to actual, meaningful specifications, Samsung’s products may all be easily identified by their product code.

When planning to implement a system of codes for products, whether for inventory or product naming purposes, be sure to follow these simple rules:

  1. Have your codes represent key product information.
  2. Leave room for new codes.
  3. Be consistent.
  4. Don’t use the letter X.

Ideally, product codes should include the greatest amount of relevant information that can be conveyed while remaining concise and legible.

end if

It’ll Be Fun!

Whether it’s our favorite restaurant, musical group or pastime, we can’t help but coerce our friends into sampling the things that bring us joy. Perhaps it’s a out of genuine concern for their well-being, or maybe the need to validate our own choices, but the harassment won’t stop until they agree to try it. Here are 7 steps to introducing a friend to something new:

  1. Invite a friend to join you in an activity or event that you enjoy.
  2. If they don’t agree to join you, offer transportation.
  3. On the way to your destination, play it up like it’s the best thing ever.
  4. Once you’ve arrived, look over at your friend with eyebrows raised in excitement.
  5. Have a miserable time.
  6. Using the phrase, “It’s not normally like this,” explain to your disappointed friend how the experience was an anomaly and that it will be much more enjoyable next time.
  7. Repeat steps 1 to 6 until they concede that your interests are fascinating.

end if

Knee Deep in the Dead

No one knows exactly what happens to our consciousness when we die, but we do know what happens to our bodies — they rot. Flesh festers and decays, bone and sinew dissolve, and the elements that once formed us are cycled back into the Earth. At least, that’s what happens if we don’t interfere with the natural process.

Humans have always been fascinated with death, particularly the death of those of our species. Because of this fixation, and also our attachment to those who have departed from the world of the living, death rituals are an important practice in every culture.

A death ritual is a ceremony held shortly after the death of a member of society which honors and commemorates their life through dance, speech and song. The precise purpose of a death ritual can vary, but they are generally viewed as a sort of final farewell that releases the soul into the afterlife and gives closure to those left behind. Although these ceremonies share a common purpose, their executions are unique and often shocking to the unfamiliar.

The preparation of the body may involve a number of different customs, including dismemberment, mummification or even draining the body of fluid, applying makeup and dressing it in fine clothing. The final ceremony may involve burying, burning or eating the corpse. Many of these customs seem vile and heretical to Western folk, for we predominantly bury our loved ones and rarely interact with the body. What’s interesting is that of all the ways to dispose of a dead body, burial in a marked grave is the only unsustainable method.

By assigning a small plot of land to each person, every member of society receives a shrine in their honor. Each grave is marked with a stone that usually bears a brief inscription epitomizing the person’s values and accomplishments. Because of our respect for the dead, these memorials are expected to remain undisturbed. However, this practice cannot continue indefinitely. Eventually our cemeteries will fill, requiring that we devote more and more land to the those unable to appreciate of our efforts.

This isn’t a threat that many are worried about, since cemeteries now occupy only a very small portion of developed land, which is only a fraction of the 150,000,000 square kilometers of land on our planet, but at some point we must address this issue.

Allowing for reasonable spacing between graves, each plot would require about 6 square meters, which means that the Earth could accommodate around 25,000,000,000 graves. If we inaccurately assume that our population and annual mortality rate remain constant, at 6,500,000,000 and .86% respectively, and that burial soon becomes the only acceptable death ritual, it will be a short 446 years before the entire globe is transformed into a graveyard. It’s possible that the reason we abandon our world and take to the stars in search of a new home will not be war, pollution or overpopulation (at least in the conventional sense), but because this planet’s overrun by our ancestors. It’s true that 2459 is a long way off, and that things could change by that time, but we could be losing 336,000,000 square meters of land every year —  land that could be used to benefit the living.

Rather than fearing that the dead rise from their graves, perhaps we should fear that they remain there.

end if

The Nature of Competition: Part II

In part I we discussed the different forms of competition, the origin of sport and the difference between direct and indirect competition. Now we will explore the role of competition in other areas and determine whether it’s actually a constructive behavior.

As we discussed earlier, the major function of competition in nature is to ensure the survival of those most fit for their environment. Modern human competition is used to propel ourselves to achieve new levels of excellence and elevate those who are more talented or dedicated. Competition is a wonderful thing for those who succeed, but as Charles Schulz reminds us, “Nobody remembers who came in second.”

Beyond the podium, in silent locker rooms and on long drives home, the unremembered contemplate the purpose of their efforts. Failure is a necessary component in competition; there’s no way round it. Even the most innocent and well-meaning contests produce failure. These failures are not incidental, but a requirement in order to produce the successes, for a competition without losers is not considered legitimate.

By asking individuals to compete against each other, we are demanding failure. We’re taking pleasure in watching people devote their lives to something and come up short. This reveals how competition is actually a cruel experiment carried out by fans, coaches and parents. By enticing individuals with visions of fame and fortune, while planting false ideas of superiority and a right to win, competitors are conduced to compete, and often fail, for our amusement. But when disappointment falls on those who didn’t achieve their goal, their only consolation is that they may have a chance to redeem themselves. This cycle can continue indefinitely, when a simple cost-benefit analysis of would easily determine that competition is a poor investment.

We may attempt to excuse ourselves from responsibility by proposing that failure is a result of inadequacy, but the fact is that it will come to most, regardless of their efforts. In addition, competition has no sense of justice, so there is no guarantee that the most deserving will be victorious.

Another fundamental part of competition is enmity. Competition is conflict, and in order to have conflict, we must have an us and a them. It is essential that we detach ourselves from those we compete against, for our actions may directly result in their failure. Some competitors intentionally disassociate themselves with their competitors or even foster feelings of hatred in order to compete more intensely or without the restrictions that come with viewing an opponent as a fellow human being. Although there can be great respect between opponents, this relationship is hardly worthy of admiration. There cannot be unity between competitors, for in striving for the same goal we are actually stealing from others what they do not yet possess. There is a limited number of awards to be won, so the aim of each participant is to look out only for themselves, even at the cost of others. This may not be considered theft in the conventional way, but it is by our actions that our opponents are robbed of their prize.

This is also true in the world of business. Looking through the lens of nature, if sport is a dramatization of survival, then economic competition is an embodiment of the battle to feed. Much like blind pups suckling for sustenance, or wild dogs clashing for a piece of a kill, businesses compete to get a larger share of the market. Unlike in many sports, the aim of business competitors is not necessarily the elimination of their opponents, though that is sometimes the case. However, since they are often striving for the same goal, the competition can still be extremely fierce.

Because of the influence of capitalism and our confidence in the competitive market, the competition between businesses seems like an acceptable and upright practice, but the truth of the matter is that many honest, hardworking individuals are regularly driven into poverty. There is no room for empathy in competition, and as we already touched on, no role for justice, since there is no assurance that honest efforts will be rewarded or that underhanded deeds will be punished.

Another example of human competition can be seen in struggle for social superiority. Individuals compete to be the most popular and well-liked because we derive value from the knowledge of how we are perceived by others. This motivates us to keep up with, or surpass, those around us in whatever categories we deem important. Whether it be a measure of wealth, beauty or accomplishment, we can’t help but create competition with those around us.

Unlike official contests, these social arms races are conducted in silence, without terms or rules, and they are eternal. There is no beginning or end and no declaration of winners or losers in social competition, only the vague sense of comfort and supremacy that comes with being better at life than others. Social competition is indirect, since we rarely interfere with others’ quest for material excellence, but the frustration and sadness of those trapped below are definitely real. When we show off our new house, toned figure or gold medal to our neighbor, we could be subjecting our them to feelings of inferiority, whether or not we are aware that we are competing.

Shall we continue to raise our children to view other people as enemies, to prioritize themselves above others and to subject themselves to failure for our amusement? Shall we chase success at the cost of the misery and failure of others, like ravenous beasts?

end if

The Nature of Competition: Part I

Of all the curious behaviors we exhibit, sport has to be the greatest non-essential expenditure of resources. After all, what purpose does it serve? It doesn’t feed the hungry, clothe the naked or better mankind. In fact, it only increases our consumption of the Earth’s limited resources and distracts us from the things in life that actually matter. It could be argued that sport helps keep us active, healthy and happy, but the existence of the multi-billion-dollar professional sports industry is doing little to curb growing obesity rates.

So why is sport so popular? What is it about competition that stirs us to push our bodies to the limit, paint our faces and riot in the street? The answer could lie in our ancestors’ struggle for survival.

In the past, humans, like other creatures, were constantly subjected to the cruelties of nature, always searching for food while evading ever-present dangers. However, for most who dwell in the first world, survival is assumed. We do not worry about being hunted by beasts or succumbing to starvation. Although there is still a need to provide for ourselves, we no longer do it through strength or cunning. Because of this, the focus of our existence has changed substantially. Success, which has replaced survival as the primary motivation for competing, doesn’t ask us to be strong or fast, vicious or violent, at least in the physical sense. This has created a vacuum — an appetite for the primal, physical conflict we once endured. Sport fills this void by creating a dramatization of survival.

There is also an important distinction to be made between single participant and team sports. Although both are common throughout history, today’s team sports tend to have more intense fans. This could be caused by the relative lack of war experienced today. Our ancestors lived under the constant threat of invasion by enemy nations or tribes, something completely foreign to many of us. Without an avenue to focus our instinct to defend the collective, it’s possible that many throw their furor behind a local or national sports team in an attempt to satisfy nationalist inclinations.

Now there are many different kinds of sport, some representing survival more closely than others. Bobsled racing, for example, bears no resemblance to anything seen in nature, while wrestling, which has existed for millennia, is a fairly raw and accurate representation of unarmed human combat. Although more classic sports, like wrestling, have been present in some form in nearly every civilization throughout history, some of them are losing favor because of their violent nature. Violence is no longer seen as an acceptable avenue to settle a dispute, despite the fact that most every other creature in nature does this. But as we are attempting to suppress our violent nature, the rising popularity of mixed martial arts may suggest that we still harbor an appetite for a more elementary form of competition. After all, of what use is the ability to run while bouncing a ball, or hit a puck into a net while skating on ice? No one ever lived or died based on these skills; they are completely arbitrary.

Until now we have been discussing the origin of competition and its various forms, but it’s at this point that we make a significant distinction between two different types of competition: direct and indirect. Direct competition pits two or more participants, or teams, against each other in a head-to-head battle, where each competitor is attempting to achieve victory over their opponent(s). Examples of direct competition would include hockey, tennis and Starcraft.

Indirect competition, on the other hand, doesn’t ask competitors to interfere with each other, but merely to strive for the highest level of achievement, often while competing in close proximity, either at the same or a similar time. Examples of indirect competition include golf, memory sport and track and field events. A simple way to distinguish direct from indirect competition is that indirect sports may be played by a single participant, while direct sports require more at least two.

There are also some sports which lie somewhere between the two, such as baseball, which does require that players compete against each other, but only allows them to interact through a complicated set of rules that makes the game exceedingly slow and uninteresting. The only competitive interaction between opposing players comes when the batter swings at a ball thrown by the pitcher. Every other facet of the game is entirely indirect.

It’s interesting how indirect competition between athletes can be simultaneously intense, while totally fabricated. Most people are not aware that when they are watching the 100-meter dash, they aren’t actually watching athletes compete against one another. What they are watching is athletes performing in the same place at the same time, which creates the illusion of competition. Of course, it seems as though they are trying to outrun each other, but they are actually just running as fast as they can. The fact that the runners are side-by-side has nothing to do with their performance, other than the added pressure. It’s very possible that the winner of the race isn’t actually the fastest sprinter, but merely the person who is the fastest on that particular day, or the person who performs best under pressure.

There are also some forms of indirect competition, such as high jump and weightlifting, that are not decided by the best single performance, but through a process of elimination, similar to the game of limbo. Athletes are required to achieve a minimum level of performance in order to remain in the competition. After each round, those who failed are removed, and the required level is increased. A winner is eventually crowned when only one athlete is able to successfully complete the task. Although this system of indirect competition generates excitement and increases the length of the competition, it is completely unnecessary in order to determine a winner. We could just use an apparatus that measures jump height or lifting force, but that would merely expose how uninteresting these sports actually are. Also, just imagine how foolish it would be to use this type of system for other events, such as the 100-meter dash. Asking competitors to run the same distance again and again, faster each time would be absurd.

Of all of the strange forms of competition, bracket drag racing has to be the most contrived and fictitious. The idea of having two vehicles race to a finish line, although indirect, seems pretty valid, but that’s not what bracket racing is about. In fact, in no way does the sport actually determine who is the fastest. Here’s why:

Before the race, the drivers submit their dial-in, which is their projected time to cross the finish line. The car with the faster dial-in is then given a handicap equal to the difference between the two times, which eliminates the advantage. Once the race is over, the vehicle with the faster time is declared the winner. But how, exactly, does the race determine who is faster? The slower car is given a head start, so it doesn’t matter at all who is faster, only who performed closest to their dial-in. A race between a child on a tricycle and a tough guy in a muscle car would be exactly as legitimate.

In order to be successful, a sport must meet many requirements. Among those, it must be designed around human ability. It can’t be too difficult, lest the casual participant find it unenjoyable. Neither can it be too easy, for it must have a skill cap that allows professionals to continually improve. It also can’t take too long to play and risk boring audiences, or too short, requiring long pauses and artificial structures to increase its duration. A good sport is also simple, which is another reason why classic sports have endured for so long. Demanding that athletes conform to rules that are exceedingly silly or irrelevant may fail to capture the essence of competition, which is survival.

In part II we will explore the role of competition outside of sport, and how it’s actually pure evil.

How to Spot a Racist

Everyone knows that racism is bad, but what is racism? What is race, for that matter? And how can the human race be comprised of many different races? Despite our agreement that racism is unacceptable, the fact is that many of us might find it difficult to define.

Before continuing, we must acknowledge that race is a sensitive issue, for many have suffered because of racist policies and racially motivated abuse. We’ve got a history so full of mistakes. Despite this sensitivity, it’s important that this concept is not spared from scrutiny and comprehension. In fact, sensitivity only increases the necessity for understanding, since ignorance makes a feeble shelter. Let’s begin by attempting to forge agreeable definitions of race and racism.

Race, although commonly understood to describe the differing clusters of humans found across the globe, leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Some believe that a race is any people group that displays unique physical or genetic traits, but since we know that every population is unique, there seems to be implied requirement. Instead of debating the exact population size or genetic dissimilarity required to categorize a race, let’s just think of a race in the classical sense, as a group of humans which can be differentiated by physical appearance.

Now that we’ve defined race, it should be relatively simple to understand racism. The idea conjures a vast, potent array of imagery and emotion, much of which could be captured in two concepts: intolerance and inferiority. These ideas can be synthesized by defining racism as the belief that some races are more valuable than others and should be awarded special rights. Having isolated our terminology, let’s examine how racism is commonly misidentified.

The following sentences are examples of statements that could be misunderstood to be racist in nature:

  • Asians are short.
  • Americans are fat.
  • French are great lovers.
  • Australians are laid back.
  • Jews control the movie industry.

That’s right, these are not racist statements. Although they are statements about race, they are actually racial stereotypes — oversimplifications or misrepresentations of a group, often founded on anecdotal evidence. None of these examples imply that a race is inferior to another or that they should be treated differently. They are merely identifying, accurately or not, general characteristics of a people group.

Stereotyping, though distinct from racism, can support it by affirming negative views of other races. However, it is important to understand that believing a stereotype does not make someone a racist, even if that stereotype mocks another race. Mockery isn’t racism. A person may also be prejudiced against a race, branding members of that group with qualities informed by a stereotype, but this also isn’t racism. As stated earlier, a racist view doesn’t merely perceive differences between races, it asserts an inferiority.

Stereotypes are often based on exaggerated or isolated examples, but they can stem from verified sources as well. The fact that one in eleven African-Americans is incarcerated could be used to support the stereotype that African-Americans are criminals, which might then lead to the racist belief that African-Americans are inferior because of their criminal tendencies. Here’s another example of how a legitimate observation could lead to racism:

  1. Aboriginals have historically struggled with alcoholism. (observation)
  2. Aboriginals are alcoholics. (stereotype)
  3. This person is aboriginal, therefore they are an alcoholic. (prejudice)
  4. Aboriginals should be restricted from purchasing alcohol. (racism)

It’s crucial to recognize that an observation that could be used to support a stereotype may still be useful. We should not discard such information, since, as we already mentioned, ignorance is not a proper defense against misunderstanding.

Although the distinction between racism, stereotype and prejudice may seem trivial, we must comprehend the difference between these ideas in order to correctly identify the motivation behind statements like the ones presented in the examples above. It’s also essential that we avoid incorrectly labeling people and policies as racist when they are, in fact, not racist at all. In addition, we must be careful to avoid the frivolous application of such harmful titles, lest we erode their meaning and needlessly offend.

This differentiation applies to other areas as well, including sexism, which is not merely the observation of differences between the sexes, but the support of the intolerance or perceived inferiority of a sex.

The purpose of this clarification is not to excuse the reinforcement of stereotypes or the prejudgment of others for any reason, but merely to educate on what constitutes racism. In the same breath, we must not shy away from issues of race and sex, denying the features that define us. Just because we aren’t equal doesn’t mean we aren’t of equal value.

end if

Unmarked