Racism

[GostHacked]

"What do you think the roots of racism are, how does racism become predominant in a society."

Before defining the roots of racism, you have to define the word itself, which Merrian-Webster fits for me: " a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

The key concept is the idea of 'inherent superiority.' So racism is not simply the recognition of the differences of others - their skin, nose configuration, language, religion, etc., nor is it the recognition that some of those differences may be more suitable in different environments over another. It is a belief in superiority of one race over another.

I think you nailed it. And this was the problem with the thread 'A Conversation about Race', which basicly was this premise you are talking about. The superiority of one people over another people. The whole thread (in my view) boiled down to all races/cultures have their advantages and disatvantages, in the end making all races/cultures equal across the board. Many of us think that the differences between races/cultures are what makes one superior over another, and you see to agree with me that this is a detrimental stance to take.

I've also said that the powers that be, benefit from having races/cultures go at each other. Mind you, you have put it in such better words, I thank you for that.

[Pliny]

"What do you think the roots of racism are, how does racism become predominant in a society."

Before defining the roots of racism, you have to define the word itself, which Merrian-Webster fits for me: " a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

Well said.

I myself believe that the institutionalization of racism is what perpetuates it. Racism in my view exists out of injustices and also fear with resultant injustices inciting it. Troublemakers, muck-rakers will also incite it. Over time these things settle themselves out if left to the people. Fear is assuaged and as long as injustices are corrected (the mandate of and failure of government) things will run smoothly. If government is, or is even perceived to be, biased in any respect, justice is never accomplished and racism will be perpetuated.

The old racial and segregation laws were governments failures. Today, it continues in the form of Affirmative Action and quotas. Government claims these are corrections to injustices but injustices cannot be corrected with further biases and injustices. Proclaiming them valid in the name of equality, or in the name of anything, doesn't make them more just, and as I mentioned perpetuates it.

Affirmative Action and quotas are supposedly about giving minorities or gender equal opportunity.

They are patronizing, condescending and divisive. Not only that but it makes politicians feel sanctimonious and encourages other biases and prejudices to manifest in the name of do-gooding and meddling to further massage their egos, never noticing the injustices they perpetrate out of their "good intentions".

[Shwa]

"I myself believe that the institutionalization of racism is what perpetuates it."

I tend to go with this sort of view of racism myself since it is the most harmful. Individual persons expressing their racist views are mere ignoramus bigots in my mind and do not have the power to actually do too much damage (sticks and stones, etc). Of course the damages scales up with numbers and, after all, institutions are made up of people. But it is racist policy from institutions - and the support and communication of that policy - that really perpetuates it for sure.

Affirmative Action was a short term corrective policy that has sort of continued beyond its useful self-life I think - at least in the major institutions I have had access and experience with. I don't think it is "reverse" racism since there is no intention to communicate the superiority of one race over another. However... it has the effect of appearing like racial prejudice.

I do feel that some governmental policies are still racially discriminative, but I am not convinced hiring practices are much anymore. And I believe that, for the most part, there is a good reflection of the general population in the general population of the employed. In some cases under-representation is difficult to manage in some occupations, but over time, as attitudes and beliefs change it will cease to be a problem. But these cases are more rural than urban.

In the urban setting, I think Affirmative Action programs are useful to be used if there is a requirement, kind of like dusting them off from time to time, but ... if you have to use Affirmative Action oriented hiring practices then the organization should be looking at other policies internal to the people that make up the organization. You know, because there is still that attitude going around...

[ToadBrother]

I think you nailed it. And this was the problem with the thread 'A Conversation about Race', which basicly was this premise you are talking about. The superiority of one people over another people. The whole thread (in my view) boiled down to all races/cultures have their advantages and disatvantages, in the end making all races/cultures equal across the board. Many of us think that the differences between races/cultures are what makes one superior over another, and you see to agree with me that this is a detrimental stance to take.

I've also said that the powers that be, benefit from having races/cultures go at each other. Mind you, you have put it in such better words, I thank you for that.

The problem here is that race and culture are not the same thing. When we tend to react to what we view as the negative aspects of some perceived race (ie. those Arabs are all crazy-ass suicide bombers), what we're really reacting to is a cultural phenomenon.

[GostHacked]

The problem here is that race and culture are not the same thing. When we tend to react to what we view as the negative aspects of some perceived race (ie. those Arabs are all crazy-ass suicide bombers), what we're really reacting to is a cultural phenomenon.

Agreed. My intention was to have race/culture read as race and/or culture. Many people do perceive race and culture to be the same thing, which I have a problem with. The are exclusive for the most part, but are inclusive in a small way.

[ToadBrother]

Agreed. My intention was to have race/culture read as race and/or culture. Many people do perceive race and culture to be the same thing, which I have a problem with. The are exclusive for the most part, but are inclusive in a small way.

Only in that certain cultures are typical of (or at least began in) certain geographical regions. A black man in Seattle whose ancestors were brought over from Western Africa isn't culturally going to have much (if any) of a relationship with the cultures of that area.

[GostHacked]

Only in that certain cultures are typical of (or at least began in) certain geographical regions. A black man in Seattle whose ancestors were brought over from Western Africa isn't culturally going to have much (if any) of a relationship with the cultures of that area.

Yes, I agreed with you.

[Rue]

Still on about this?

I want this official. Out in the open. I am thiking of having an affair with Tyra Banks.

I am reluctant not because she is black but because her head is shaped like an alien's

or a large light bulb or a big squash.

[Shwa]

"The problem here is that race and culture are not the same thing. When we tend to react to what we view as the negative aspects of some perceived race (ie. those Arabs are all crazy-ass suicide bombers), what we're really reacting to is a cultural phenomenon."

No, not quite. M-W says: 2 a : "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics"

While race and culture are separate (2a), they are joined through the concept of ethnicity and it is fairly common to include ethnicity when discussing race (2b) or racism. Thus there is a "Jewish" race or a "French" race and even an "Arab" race. Since there is an intrinsic link - ethnicity - between race and culture, referring to either could mean a reference to the other.

[ToadBrother]

"The problem here is that race and culture are not the same thing. When we tend to react to what we view as the negative aspects of some perceived race (ie. those Arabs are all crazy-ass suicide bombers), what we're really reacting to is a cultural phenomenon."

No, not quite. M-W says: 2 a : "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics"

While race and culture are separate (2a), they are joined through the concept of ethnicity and it is fairly common to include ethnicity when discussing race (2b) or racism. Thus there is a "Jewish" race or a "French" race and even an "Arab" race. Since there is an intrinsic link - ethnicity - between race and culture, referring to either could mean a reference to the other.

Then the meaning of the word "race" becomes practically meaningless. If you're just trying to define ethnicity, it can get very complex. Were the Byzantines an ethnic group, a racial group, or a cultural group? Let's remember, at one time, they were a culture that extended from the Balkans to North Africa, and included everything from Armenians to Ethiopians.

[M.Dancer]

Then the meaning of the word "race" becomes practically meaningless. If you're just trying to define ethnicity, it can get very complex. Were the Byzantines an ethnic group, a racial group, or a cultural group?

They were first a political entity, secondly a cultural entity (hellenism) and thirdly a polygot of races.

But yes, race is problematic which, while historically useful, and socialological useful, is practically meaningless beyond that.

Edited October 28, 2009 by M.Dancer

[lictor616]

The key concept is the idea of 'inherent superiority.' So racism is not simply the recognition of the differences of others - their skin, nose configuration, language, religion, etc., nor is it the recognition that some of those differences may be more suitable in different environments over another. It is a belief in superiority of one race over another.

what a hatefully smug nonsense comment.

Racism is not recognizing that we have DIFFERENT capacities (which of course means inferior or superior capacities) ... no no racism is only "racism" when we say that certain racial traits are superior or inferior...

so if Kenyans have perfect running machines (lung capacity, bone density, hip configuration)... it isn't that they're BETTER.. its that theyr equal...

sheer lunacy...

[Shwa]

"is practically meaningless beyond that."

We can test this with a statement:

"The Spanish are deceitful, manipulative and untrustworthy and their inferior lives should be wiped from the face of the Earth. At the very least we will not be hiring any of them."

Is this a racist statement or not?

You can replace 'Spanish' with whatever group you wish to see if it fits the definition. Try Slavs, Jews, Blacks, Indians, etc.

[Shwa]

"what a hatefully smug nonsense comment."

Nice try, but I think you have misread Merriam-Webster:

" a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

key phrase: "inherent superiority of a particular race"

[ToadBrother]

what a hatefully smug nonsense comment.

Racism is not recognizing that we have DIFFERENT capacities (which of course means inferior or superior capacities) ... no no racism is only "racism" when we say that certain racial traits are superior or inferior...

so if Kenyans have perfect running machines (lung capacity, bone density, hip configuration)... it isn't that they're BETTER.. its that theyr equal...

sheer lunacy...

Let me guess. You're going to tell us next that blacks have got a better sense of rhythm and the Chinese can add more numbers in their add at once.

But let's be very clear here. The tendency of your posts, when you're not trying to look like a kindly defender of racial difference, is that you think certain groups are inferior. You'll say to yourself, "I'm not really a racist, because I say 'Kenyans can run faster'", but then you'll post some bit of Holocaust Denial dreck, or claim the Queen is a Jew, or post some article with a subject that says "BLack guy did this..."

I'm not sure whether these little fits of generosity (or at least as you view it) are to salve your own ailing conscience, or some pathetic attempt to convince those of us who know exactly what you are that you're something different.

[GostHacked]

Racism is not recognizing that we have DIFFERENT capacities (which of course means inferior or superior capacities)

K racism is not recognizing the differences.

... no no racism is only "racism" when we say that certain racial traits are superior or inferior...

K racism is about recognizing the differences.

I am le confused.

[lictor616]

K racism is not recognizing the differences.

K racism is about recognizing the differences.

I am le confused.

that was poorly written sorry:

if racism is recognizing differences in qualities (which presupposes better or inferior automatically) then you yourslef by your won standards are racist.

[lictor616]

Let me guess. You're going to tell us next that blacks have got a better sense of rhythm and the Chinese can add more numbers in their add at once.

But let's be very clear here. The tendency of your posts, when you're not trying to look like a kindly defender of racial difference, is that you think certain groups are inferior. You'll say to yourself, "I'm not really a racist, because I say 'Kenyans can run faster'", but then you'll post some bit of Holocaust Denial dreck, or claim the Queen is a Jew, or post some article with a subject that says "BLack guy did this..."

I'm not sure whether these little fits of generosity (or at least as you view it) are to salve your own ailing conscience, or some pathetic attempt to convince those of us who know exactly what you are that you're something different.

yet I'll show through A and B that royal males are routinely and traditionnaly circumsized by the mohel of London... and you'll deny it simply because you don't like this fact..

doesn't make it any less a fact...

and I'll talk about submarine diesel soviet engines used to gas jews as being official holocaust history, and you'll call ME an anti-semite.. even if that is what the prevailing acceptable story is...

you're just rejecting out of hand and playing the discounting game...

you might as well not reply if you cant counter refute.

[ToadBrother]

yet I'll show through A and B that royal males are routinely and traditionnaly circumsized by the mohel of London... and you'll deny it simply because you don't like this fact..

doesn't make it any less a fact...

If I say your a homosexual who trolls gay bars looking for young men, and then claim I can document it, it doesn't make it a fact.

and I'll talk about submarine diesel soviet engines used to gas jews as being official holocaust history, and you'll call ME an anti-semite.. even if that is what the prevailing acceptable story is...

There's nothing terribly improbable about gassing people with engines. You just hate Jews, think the Nazis were a decent bunch, and try to find any kind of pseudo-skepticism you can to justify your vileness.

you're just rejecting out of hand and playing the discounting game...

you might as well not reply if you cant counter refute.

Refute what? Idiotic claims from a fevered hateful mind?

[GostHacked]

that was poorly written sorry:

No kidding, and you did not seem to do any better here.

if racism is recognizing differences in qualities (which presupposes better or inferior automatically) then you yourslef by your won standards are racist.

Edit: Be carefull using the term 'presupposes'. This kind of sets you up for failure when you assume something as fact before actually getting the facts.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition

Do you still beat your wife? <--- presupposition. :Edit

Try again. I have stated here that the overall differences do not equate to overall superiority or inferiority. Also, you have no clue as o what my standards are. But I can clearly see yours.

Edited October 29, 2009 by GostHacked

[lictor616]

No kidding, and you did not seem to do any better here.

Edit: Be carefull using the term 'presupposes'. This kind of sets you up for failure when you assume something as fact before actually getting the facts.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presupposition

Do you still beat your wife? <--- presupposition. :Edit

Try again. I have stated here that the overall differences do not equate to overall superiority or inferiority. Also, you have no clue as o what my standards are. But I can clearly see yours.

so if a kenyan has a perfect running machine its somehow still not acceptable to call him a superior runner ... gotcha... very sensible.

[ToadBrother]

so if a kenyan has a perfect running machine its somehow still not acceptable to call him a superior runner ... gotcha... very sensible.

No, that's acceptable. But to declare all Kenyans superior runners is absurd.

[GostHacked]

so if a kenyan has a perfect running machine its somehow still not acceptable to call him a superior runner ... gotcha... very sensible.

Like I said, having an advanage in one area does not make that whole race or culture or ethnicity group overall superior over another race or culture or ethnicity.

ToadBrother seems to be on the same page as me when we talk about overall superiority, which is like he said, absurd.

No, that's acceptable. But to declare all Kenyans superior runners is absurd.

I'll use a game analogy here. I started playing Dungeons and Dragons online. I am playing an Elf Paladin. I get some bonuses because of the race and inherant traits. In our group we have a dwarf fighter, hafling rogue, a human bard, and a human fighter, and another Elf who is a wizard. ect ect.

Paladins are good for fighting, but not good against spells or traps. Our rogue is great at detecting traps and disabling them, but sucks on the head to head fighting. Our wizard is amazing at disposing of ghosts, wraiths and the like and healing, but can't take more than a couple whacks of the sword. While me as a Paladin can take the hits, suck against ghosts and the like. Each one of us has a trait that is better than the other classes/races. Unfortunately we can't solo everything and expect the proper outcome. All of us need each other and those special traits to get the job done. Or we all die. We all bring something to the table which is superior over the other, but in the end it does not make us overall superior to another class or race.

Kenyan's are good for long distance running, but really seem to suck on the sprints. They are a superior long distance runner, but are horrible at sprinting (this is an example and may not be the actuall truth).

Lictor - Do you think that there is a race and or culture and or ethnicity group that is overall superior to another??

[Melanie_]

so if a kenyan has a perfect running machine its somehow still not acceptable to call him a superior runner ... gotcha... very sensible.

Nairobi has an elevation of 5450 feet. Kenyan runners do well because they live and train at high altitudes, then compete at low altitudes. It has nothing to do with racial characteristics, its just geography.

[lictor616]

Nairobi has an elevation of 5450 feet. Kenyan runners do well because they live and train at high altitudes, then compete at low altitudes. It has nothing to do with racial characteristics, its just geography.

for some reason colorado athletes, peruvians and Tibetans.... nope... don,t do well at all in running...

genetics cannot be ignored.