racist rhetoric

[Celso Alvarez Caccamo]

Being myself programmed for (unfortunately unfulfilled)
promiscuity, though not having yet found my black jeans--
oops, I mean *genes*, I'd like to support John Clark's and
Gary Palmer's (and others') interpretation of "Are blacks
genetically programmed for promiscuity?" as ideologically
racist. An elementary pragmatic analysis of the number
of pressupositions activated tells me that the question is
far from a "scientific" search for answers. My simplistic
interpretation is:

(1) The utterance triggers the existential pressuposition
that "blacks" exist in the real world as predefined objects.
(2) These "blacks" are defined genetically.
(3) Genes "program" people, usually for bad things (except
for white gifted children and universal language).
(4) In the context, "promiscuity" is one of those bad things,
not simply the activity of "having frequent and diverse
sexual relationships" -- in my mind, a sporty thing to
strive for in a better world.
(5) The question triggers the vacuous -- but no less
manipulative -- 'either...or' pressuposition 'Either blacks
are genetically programmed for promiscuity or they are not',
which is extremely far from an intelligent research issues.
And (6) sentence modality (a question, not a statement) is
irrelevant, since the presupposition-ridden proposition 'blacks
being [or not] genetically programmed for promiscuity' is the
same as in an assertion.

My conclusion: I would call this propaganda (not rhetoric),
that is, discourse designed to effectively preclude thinking.
As John Clark suggests, any -- also elementary -- exercise
of commutation should show this more clearly:

-"Are blacks genetically programmed for leadership?" (e.g.
Koffi Anan, Nelson Mandela)
-"Are whites genetically programmed for chastity?"
-"Are yellows genetically programmed for technical
intelligence?" (Japan, Korea, Taiwan...; now, don't try to
explain to me why "yellows" would be offensive while "blacks"
is not).

BTW, I did read Andrew Brown's article. The issue here is
whether the utterance at stake means the same in Brown's
reported speech. At the level I've discussed, I think it
does. So, the article is unsuccessful in that it makes
alert readers waste too much time thinking whether and why
Brown thinks or not that the headline is the type of
"scientific question" that deserves or not being considered.
The popular press is full of these catchy headlines about
science matters. Well, journalists are simply learning from
popularizing researchers (linguists included) with their
wise book titles -- usually the most intelligent part of
them.

--
Celso Alvarez Cáccamo              Tel. +34 981 167000 ext. 1888
Linguística Geral, Faculdade de Filologia     FAX +34 981 167151
Universidade da Corunha                          lxalvarz at udc.es
15071 A Corunha, Galiza (Espanha)  http://www.udc.es/dep/lx/cac/