Litmus Test Interpretation
 
Preliminary Results
Feb 2002 Dec 2003
realists 2.7%
anti-racists 41.1%
racialists 6.4%
colorblind 15.1%
bigots 16.9%
racists 17.8%

realists 2.72%
anti-racists 42.96%
racialists 7.16%
colorblind 16.79%
bigots 16.79% 55
racists 13.58%

 
1. Race can be trace through bloodlines and divides the human species. This question is designed to determine whether or not an individual believes that race is something akin to speciation. If one believes in a kind of biological determinism this question is usually answered in the affirmative. An affirmative answer might also interpreted as indicating that an individual sees humans as 'breeds' rather like with dogs which is a less stringent belief than speciation and independent evolutionary paths.
2. Race is real and biological but it has no moral component. There are people who believe that everything we know about racial determinism today is mostly correct but scientifically imprecise. This question should identify them as those who say that biological race means *something* but we just don't know what. There are racial expectations of the Human Genome Project.
3. Race is biologically fixed but may change over time. This is getting at the question of whether people believe that races are fixed through time. It's easy to say that an ethnic group are this or that but does that tie to race and biology?
4. Your race should always determine how society should judge your potential. In the end, whether biological or genetic or other, should society always take race into account? Is there a benefit in knowing the racial identity? This is essentially the Brave New World question. This question is worded harshly such that there would be no question that a person answering affirmatively would be an intrinsic racist.
5. Your race should never be considered at any time. This is the basic litmus question for colorblindness. It is also worded harshly so that there would be no mistake. Racialists, Racial Realists, Anti-Racists and Bigots fall somewhere in the gray areab between questions 4 and 5.
6. Race is not biological but socially determined. To futher distinguish between those who believe #2 strongly.
7. Racial profiling is rational. This is a tricky question, but it is essential in determining whether one can live with racial discrimination of any sort. For the purposes of this quiz, the response should be identical to 'Affirmative Action is rational.' Originally the question added 'and is proper in a democratic society', but I thought that skewed the question off the central subject of what one believes about race itself,
8. It is wrong to recognize someone's 'race'. This is an absolute position which on the surface seems to be redundant of question #5. But it additionally begs the question of one's acceptance of a unchangeable negative or positive value of race. One who might appear to be colorblind might also be racialist.
9. It's not my responsibility to concern myself with the problems of other races. Whatever ones disposition on race, should one be politically active? Is race my problem even if I'm not the 'problem' race? This is a bigot's position.
10. Races are naturally antagonistic. An affirmative answer suggests that there are no solutions. Whether or not a person desires conflict, if this is accepted as a natural fact it is likely that such an individual will always seek to recognize race and build it into consititutional provisions.
11. There is nothing special about racial discrimination - if it wasn't race it would be something equally stupid. Certainly a loaded question, but insightful in that it suggests that questions of racial discrimination can be handled similar to any other discrimination. This is generally a racial realist's position.
12. Institutional racism and individual prejudice are morally equivalent. I believe this to be the sentiment of the colorblind which consider references to race to be the root of all evil. While it might be a cognitive error to equate all racial discriminations this was the logic behind the abolition of affirmative action as racial preferences in California re: Proposition 187 (CCRI)
13. It is a citizen's duty to fight racism at all levels of society. An essential credo of the Anti-Racist.
14. Mentioning race is just as bad as being racist, it reinforces racism. This is a difficult question which I may conflate with #12 because it's difficult for me to understand the political rationale of the colorblind. Nevertheless, it is a statement I have heard said earnestly on many occasions. Consider this with respect to 'the race card'.
15. One must be very specific about racial terminology. The implied opposite of #14. Interestingly racists and anti-racists have the most to lose or gain through precise controls of the definition and meaning of race.
16. Minorities are just fine in America. The intent of this question is to determine whether an individual believes that America's melting pot is essentially at racial equilibrium. That is to say, with regard to the status quo of racial integration, race relations etc, is it necessary to agitate politically in one direction or another? It can also clarify 11 through 15 with regards to one's acceptance of the legitimacy of racial politics.
17. If I could change my race at will , I would. Now we turn to questions of identity. Depending on one's definition of race, the answer here has interesting connotations. But the one I am acting upon is to determine whether an individual would use the standing inequalities of race to their advantage. I believe that both the Racialist and the Realist would do so.
18. Racism will be eliminated by intermarriage. This is actually a position in and of itself, however it is mostly advocated by those who would rather not see a robust racial politics.
19. Governments shold punish racial hate crimes more forcefully than those that don't involve race. This is generally part and parcel of an Anti-Racist agenda. Although there are many reasons to support the idea, Realists and Bigots would not. A racialist might as would any racist whose ox is being gored.
20. I'm pround of my racial identity. Pride indicates bigotry.
21. The average person knows enough to correctly identify race.  
22. Every race has it's own special message to the world. This is a bigot's position.
23. No racial identity is neutral.  
24. You can and should be a credit to your race.  

 

The Positions (roughly)

  
[Intrinsic] Racist This person believes that race is an essential and immutable part of human character. Further the racist assigns some positive or negative value to that essential part and says that society should take note of that for most matters. Racial antagonism is natural to the racist because there are qualities in some races that make them dominant over others. The racist believes in racial purity and essentially that people can be bred like animals to inherit or enhance behavioral traits.
Extrinsic Racist (Racialist)

The extrinsic racist can also be called the Scientific Apolitical Racialist. While he believes that race is biological and that people can be bred, he doesn't assign any particular value to people's 'breed'. The Racialist believes that it is important to know, from a genetic and biological standpoint what race is and what characteristics are likely to proceed from which genes, the interpretation of these is not so important.

The racialist is often upset by a percieved reluctance of others to acknowledge the possibility or probability of correlation of criminality or intelligence or other aptitudes to race. The Racialist may very well subscribe to 'liberal' notions about what to do in light of such knowledge, but does not generally join with those who reject scientific inquiry into the question of racial superiority and inferiority.

The racialist might be most challenged and surprised by Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" in finding changes in civilizations and the triumph of ancient 'races' one over another is not necessarily the product of any inherent superiority or inferiority.
Racial Bigot Doesnt really care where race comes from or why. But knows to assign value to race. Is not above positive or negative discriminations.
Racial Realist The Racial Realist does not bother to make particular distinctions at a biological level. You might very well substitute ethnicity. Racism is a part of life. There's not much that can be done about it. It might be preferable if we knew 'objectively' more about race but people are going to do what they're going to do. Such an individual is not optimistic that racial problems will be solved and concedes the intractability of the problem. Race should then just be whatever it is.
Colorblind

The colorblind position in interesting in that it is that which is most in line with basic declarations of equal rights under the law, yet is the position least likely to generate solutions to existing inequalities.

 

Additional Notes:

Racial Expectations of the Human Genome Project
i have heard followers of rushton et al suggest that perhaps african americans from the tribe of bill cosby are very genetically different than those from the tribe of o.j.simpson and that one day we'll finally be able to tell who the truly inferior [sub]race is, but right now we are just guessing based on skin color (which is roughly ok but imperfected as yet). this is basically a racialist position which agrees with the research done in 'the bell curve' but is wishy-washy on the political perscriptions because they might be proven scientifically inaccurate. strictly speaking, jimmy the greek is a racialist, because he honestly sees nothing morally out of whack with blackfolks who don't excel in watersports. there might be people who make colorblind statements because they find it impolitic to speak their racialist minds; such folks, to my experience, are uncomfortable with the tenderness of the subject and prefer rational tomes like the bell curve. they may be unlikely to become anti-racist because of what they percieve as a political unwillingness of anti-racists to consider their 'hard evidence'. my view is that they haven't taken seriously the possible consequences of the social or state recognition of objective superiority and inferiority. i would point them to aldous huxley's 'brave new world'. therefore question #4.

updated November, 2001