OIT and Race etc

To Torsten:

In the reply I wrote, I said that I would be more offended by
the "hot-headed" racial label than by having my opinions excluded
because of race, the opposite of what you say. I wanted to add to
this that maybe my statement is not correct. It's actually hard (for
me personally) to say: I guess I found that the "opinions excluded"
prejudice would be less offensive to me because in actuality I don't
think anyone would actually do this openly and with a cool head. I
think openly declaring such a prejudice would only arise if one were
angered or enraged or indignant, and in that situation recognition of
the circumstances would mitigate any offense I might feel (because in
such circumstances I think all human beings are prone to
overgeneralizations and emotional and therefore probably inaccurate
statements). I would be more offended if such a prejudice were
calmly and unemotionally stated, as though it were taken for granted,
self-evident, and expectable, e.g. if it were mentioned as part of
the logic for one of the arguments in a posting on Cybalist (if this
is what actually happened, I am not aware of it -- I thought e.g.
Gobineau's ancestry caused debate around whether his views are
respectable, not automatic exclusion of his views). And I personally
understand and in a certain way almost respect this prejudice,
because I feel it is often or predominantly justified. I try to
avoid taking personal offense at such statements and recognize the
historical and factual background that (seem to) legitimize them. It
also depends on whether the word "blacks" is used as opposed to "non-
Caucasian" or another more indirect word. If someone said to
me, "Your opinion is excluded because you are black", what would be
offensive to me would be that I don't even think of myself
as "black", whether you believe that or not and whether it's correct
or not, and so the statement might be incorrect (to me) and therefore
presumptuous (how "black" is anyone?). It also makes it sound like
colour alone determines validity. But if someone said "Your opinion
is excluded because you are not Caucasian" or some other less
emotional appellative, I would be less offended because the words
used would (for me) immediately bring to mind historical and cultural
factors that could make such an exclusion appear to be a merely
logical, non-emotional necessity (assuming that some topic were being
discussed in which non-Caucasians have little authority due to
historical factors). And while such a statement could come across
as somewhat objective in nature, to me the statement that a certain
race is hot-headed sounds more like an obvious insult, since "hot-
headed" can often be used to insult a person. It also seems
unobjective and overgeneralized and not based on demonstrable
historical fact, rather just one person's impression of people of a
certain colour. It would be better to say "Human beings of
predominantly African ancestry are genetically prone to more frequent
instances of aggressive or violent behaviour", and maybe say
something like "based on genetic research". Because this would sound
very factual, it would be much less likely to cause offense (to me at
least). So I guess in my little exploration of the issue here I have
come to the conclusion that it's not necessarily what you say that is
more or less offensive than something else, it's quite often how you
say it (and that implies the intent behind it, whether it is to
express contempt or conceit which are harmful or instead merely to
state fact and reason(s) which could potentially be helpful).

Is this at all helpful? I hope I haven't been contradictory or
confusing, it's really a difficult question to answer objectively
(and without ever having experienced any prejudice in my life, here
in Canada, or even in my travels to Europe and yes the U.S.).

Andrew