he difference between racism and bias or prejudice

[daddyhominum]

In a different topic, Argus posted:

How dumb is not understanding the difference between racism - which is the belief in racial superiority due to genetic advantage - and bias or prejudice based on dislike of known cultural ore religious traits.

I invite Argus or others to enlarge on this matter as I do not understand what the difference is between prejudice and racism.

No doubt I can learn a lot.

[myata]

The difference is, prejudice or dislike is private, while a public statement of superiority based purely on one's ethnicity, religion or race constitutes racism. We can privately believe in all kinds of bizzare things. However, making a public statement requires some kind of rationalization. In attempting to rationalize their inacceptance, dislike, misunderstanding or fear of certain practices (e.g. wearing a turban), some make trivial logical mistake (fallacy) of generalization, i.e., extending obviosly wrong action attributed to someone with a certain trait to everyone with that trait (i.e, bomber in xyz country wore turban; my neighbour wears turban => my neighbour is a bomber). This is one way a prejudice can evolve into racism.

[jbg]

The difference is that one can legitimately favor the US or Canadian cultures in our respective countries. The people who move here come by choice, and are presumed to choose our culture, i.e. our way of life. Racism is different. It is the hatred of people based not on their beliefs or culture, but based on physical characteristics. One chooses culture or custom, not race, in the course of life. One cannot and should not be hated for the way they're born.

[Wilber]

Prejudice doesn't need to have anything to do with race. Prejudice against someone just because of their race would be racism, any other kind of prejudice would not. Many are prejudiced against smokers, that doesn't make them racist. In my book, prejudice has more to do with what people do, rather than who they are.

[Leafless]

I invite Argus or others to enlarge on this matter as I do not understand what the difference is between prejudice and racism.

No doubt I can learn a lot.

I don't know what it is possibly you don't understand.

Racism= a belief in the superiority of a particular race; prejudice based on this.

Racism is only a belief but coupled with prejudice COULD translate into racial discrimination in which Canada has laws covering this type of discrimination.

http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/C-18.7/text.html?no_cookie

[August1991]

Prejudice is to form an opinion before obtaining all the facts.

Racism is to discriminate along racial lines. (Incidentally, it used be known as racialism.)

To discriminate merely means to put into different categories or groups. Individuals discriminate in their daily lives in many ways. We choose to shop in certain stores but refuse to go to others. We choose our friends, a spouse, employers.

The Charter of Rights forbids the government to discriminate along certain prescribed lines (including racial lines). The Charter of Rights does not apply to individuals. Our human rights legislation, in theory, does that.

Here's an interesting article to read that poses these questions in the context of DNA and discrimination based on genetic knowledge (contained theoretically in a genetic smart card):

Invidious discrimination is by definition discrimination that we find contemptible. There are many ways of further defining this, all with different practical results. How we feel about the genetic smart card and individualized risk management may well turn on which definition we choose.

One view is that private individuals should have the freedom to discriminate no matter how irrational or contemptible such actions might be. Only government should be prohibited from disadvantaging a historically subordinated group.

Rand

(The text also uses the new term for "oppressed", "victim" or "minority"; "historically subordinated".)

[daddyhominum]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=prejudice

prej·u·dice Pronunciation (prj-ds)

n.

1.

a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

b. A preconceived preference or idea.

2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.

3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.

4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.

tr.v. prej·u·diced, prej·u·dic·ing, prej·u·dic·es

1. To cause (someone) to judge prematurely and irrationally. See Synonyms at bias.

2. To affect injuriously or detrimentally by a judgment or an act.

How dumb is not understanding the difference between racism - which is the belief in racial superiority due to genetic advantage - and bias or prejudice based on dislike of known cultural ore religious traits

Thank you all for responding.

I find the above dictionary meaning quoted above agrees with my understanding of the meaning of the word,” prejudice" in line three. Therefore, in spite of your kind efforts, I am still unable to determine why it is dumb to see racism and prejudice as at least, parallel, if not, congruent, in meaning. If you go to the URL I included above and page down to the Thesaurus you will find the word "racism" given as a synonym.

So, racism is prejudice always, but prejudice can be racism and it may not be racism when used in a non-racist context. But the statement as quoted above refers to, "bias or prejudice based on dislike of known cultural ore religious traits"

So is prejudice against cultural or religious traits (sic) a context for prejudice that does not represent racism? The Canadian experience suggests that such prejudices may not be racism but nor can they be used to deny a Canadian the full enjoyment of a particular culture or a particular religious practice. Most of you will recall the case of the RCMP officer who wore a turban to work and was eventually confirmed in his right to do so as a practicing Sikh.

So it is plain that prejudice against a culture or a religious practice expressed as a political act in Canada will very likely be treated the same way racism is treated. And in the thread context where this side issue arose, the matter was prejudicial statements towards Arabs and/or Muslims that called for political action. So the use of prejudice and racism were equivalent in the context they were found.

imo

[geoffrey]

So is prejudice against cultural or religious traits (sic) a context for prejudice that does not represent racism? The Canadian experience suggests that such prejudices may not be racism but nor can they be used to deny a Canadian the full enjoyment of a particular culture or a particular religious practice. Most of you will recall the case of the RCMP officer who wore a turban to work and was eventually confirmed in his right to do so as a practicing Sikh.

Should never have happened, most Canadians would agree I'm sure. Most rational people would.

It's not prejudiced or racist to have set limits and restrictions for everyone to follow. Mounties wear the Stetson, not a turban. That ruling never should have happened.

That's not racist, that's having non-discriminatory policies. Can I wear a turban if I wear an RCMP officer, even though I'm not a Sikh? Not likely. So one religion/race has advantage over another. It's wrong and immoral.

Those that pretend to be the most 'tolerant' generally are the most racist, also generally victims of their own policies in that regard. Eventually the 'tolerant' may see that their tokenism of ethnicities is mostly to their detriment.

The only non-racist policy is to ignore race completely. Have set rules and have people follow them, whether they are Indian, White, Black, whatever.

[Leafless]

So, racism is prejudice always, but prejudice can be racism and it may not be racism when used in a non-racist context. But the statement as quoted above refers to, "bias or prejudice based on dislike of known cultural ore religious traits"

So is prejudice against cultural or religious traits (sic) a context for prejudice that does not represent racism? The Canadian experience suggests that such prejudices may not be racism but nor can they be used to deny a Canadian the full enjoyment of a particular culture or a particular religious practice. Most of you will recall the case of the RCMP officer who wore a turban to work and was eventually confirmed in his right to do so as a practicing Sikh.

So it is plain that prejudice against a culture or a religious practice expressed as a political act in Canada will very likely be treated the same way racism is treated. And in the thread context where this side issue arose, the matter was prejudicial statements towards Arabs and/or Muslims that called for political action. So the use of prejudice and racism were equivalent in the context they were found.

imo

No you are wrong.

Muslim Shariah Law was rejected by the Premier of Ontario Dalton Mc.Guinty who represents Ontario residents.

So according to your logic based on the 'turban issue' makes Mr. Mc.Guinty and the residents of Ontario guilty and labelled racist.

You are the one that is being illogical or unreasonable.

[August1991]

I find the above dictionary meaning quoted above agrees with my understanding of the meaning of the word,” prejudice" in line three. Therefore, in spite of your kind efforts, I am still unable to determine why it is dumb to see racism and prejudice as at least, parallel, if not, congruent, in meaning.

I think the third line refers to American usage. To say someone was prejudiced was a polite way of saying the person was racist. (Check Gentleman's Agreement or To Kill A Mockingbird where you may find this usage.)

But one can understand the confusion. If someone prejudges, then the person may draw conclusions about someone based on skin colour or religion rather than to wait for other evidence.

So it is plain that prejudice against a culture or a religious practice expressed as a political act in Canada will very likely be treated the same way racism is treated. And in the thread context where this side issue arose, the matter was prejudicial statements towards Arabs and/or Muslims that called for political action. So the use of prejudice and racism were equivalent in the context they were found.

Huh? When you use the word "prejudice" above, I think you really mean "discrimination".

[myata]

To me, the difference between "ethnic" prejudice (religion, ethnicity, race), and racism coincides more or less with the boundary between thought and action. I can't see how someone who may consider themselves superior to others for any reason, but always acts fairly and equitably, be branded as racist. On the other hand, even "progressive" racial prejudice expressed in public (e.g. a notion that all white people are by definition racist, widely entertained on some progressive sites) would, witout doubt, itself be racist.

A good way to deal with a prejudice (before it evolved into racism) is to bring it in the open. E.g. try to explain rationally, why seeing an officer wearing a turban causes you inconvenience?

[Figleaf]

[

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf

[Leafless]

E.g. try to explain rationally, why seeing an officer wearing a turban causes you inconvenience?

The RCMP reflect Canadianism throughout the world in which most countries instantly recognize the unique uniform worn by the RCMP.

The RCMP in Canada under federal responsibility impress along with their unique dress code a symbol of law and order recognized and admired by most throughout Canada.

The RCMP is NOT a religious organization nor does it require it's members to belong to any particular faith. This alone has the potential to steer away many young recruits who don't want to identify their membership being attached by other members that reflect their strict religion rather than the forces identity.

To see a member of the RCMP wearing a turban rather than a stetson removes the unique characteristics of this respected law enforcement agency. This partially dilutes the importance of this law enforcement agency in the eyes of many by allowing a turban to interfere with the traditional dress code that traditionally identified this unique Canadian law enforcement agency by allowing religion to supersede dress code characteristics.

It is simply UNSETTLING to see an RCMP officer wearing a turban and also reflects a disturbing identification pertaining to a foreign nationality rather than Canadian which is also unsettling.

[daddyhominum]

So, racism is prejudice always, but prejudice can be racism and it may not be racism when used in a non-racist context. But the statement as quoted above refers to, "bias or prejudice based on dislike of known cultural ore religious traits"

So is prejudice against cultural or religious traits (sic) a context for prejudice that does not represent racism? The Canadian experience suggests that such prejudices may not be racism but nor can they be used to deny a Canadian the full enjoyment of a particular culture or a particular religious practice. Most of you will recall the case of the RCMP officer who wore a turban to work and was eventually confirmed in his right to do so as a practicing Sikh.

So it is plain that prejudice against a culture or a religious practice expressed as a political act in Canada will very likely be treated the same way racism is treated. And in the thread context where this side issue arose, the matter was prejudicial statements towards Arabs and/or Muslims that called for political action. So the use of prejudice and racism were equivalent in the context they were found.

imo

No you are wrong.

Muslim Shariah Law was rejected by the Premier of Ontario Dalton Mc.Guinty who represents Ontario residents.

So according to your logic based on the 'turban issue' makes Mr. Mc.Guinty and the residents of Ontario guilty and labelled racist.

You are the one that is being illogical or unreasonable.

I probably am wrong but nothing in your statement establishes that.

I infer that your argument is that Shariah Law is a 'custom' or 'practice' of Muslims so refusing to enable it was a political act of prejudice.

To establish the error in your statement I only have to demonstrate that a single political entity consisting of Muslims , such as a nation claiming to be Muslim, does not require Sharia law. That is the essence of the null hypothesis to a any generalization(induction). If you believe that all Muslims require Sharia law and some are observed not to do so, then your premise is wrong.

So Ontario did not act with prejudice against Muslims but against some Muslims who wanted to use Sharia law.

Further, I observe that the Premier of Ontario cannot enable any law to supercede Canadian law. I also observe that objections to the proposal were voiced primarily by Muslims, especially women of the Muslim faith.

So, while I am no doubt illogical and unreasonable, your argument fails to establish that as true.

[daddyhominum]

So it is plain that prejudice against a culture or a religious practice expressed as a political act in Canada will very likely be treated the same way racism is treated. And in the thread context where this side issue arose, the matter was prejudicial statements towards Arabs and/or Muslims that called for political action. So the use of prejudice and racism were equivalent in the context they were found.

Huh? When you use the word "prejudice" above, I think you really mean "discrimination".

I do. Prejudicial discrimination.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?...=discrimination

dis·crim·i·na·tion Pronunciation (d-skrm-nshn)

n.

1. The act of discriminating.

2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

3. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.

[daddyhominum]

So is prejudice against cultural or religious traits (sic) a context for prejudice that does not represent racism? The Canadian experience suggests that such prejudices may not be racism but nor can they be used to deny a Canadian the full enjoyment of a particular culture or a particular religious practice. Most of you will recall the case of the RCMP officer who wore a turban to work and was eventually confirmed in his right to do so as a practicing Sikh.

Should never have happened, most Canadians would agree I'm sure. Most rational people would.

It's not prejudiced or racist to have set limits and restrictions for everyone to follow. Mounties wear the Stetson, not a turban. That ruling never should have happened.

That's not racist, that's having non-discriminatory policies. Can I wear a turban if I wear an RCMP officer, even though I'm not a Sikh? Not likely. So one religion/race has advantage over another. It's wrong and immoral.

Those that pretend to be the most 'tolerant' generally are the most racist, also generally victims of their own policies in that regard. Eventually the 'tolerant' may see that their tokenism of ethnicities is mostly to their detriment.

The only non-racist policy is to ignore race completely. Have set rules and have people follow them, whether they are Indian, White, Black, whatever.

The wearing of the turban is a requirement for the true practice of the Sikh faith. By denying a person the ability to practice his/her faith when it harms no-one else is not an issue of dress-code. In the instance of the turban, the prejudice was against a religious practice, not a matter of race. My example illustrated that prejudice against the practice of a particular religion was treated AS IF it was racism as to outcomes.

If anybody wants to discuss the matter of dress and discrimination it would be better to start a new thread, imo. This thread is about racism and prejudice in the broadest way. But it would be great to have a discussion about a particular detail like dress or any custom, religious practice.

[daddyhominum]

To me, the difference between "ethnic" prejudice (religion, ethnicity, race), and racism coincides more or less with the boundary between thought and action. I can't see how someone who may consider themselves superior to others for any reason, but always acts fairly and equitably, be branded as racist. On the other hand, even "progressive" racial prejudice expressed in public (e.g. a notion that all white people are by definition racist, widely entertained on some progressive sites) would, witout doubt, itself be racist.

A good way to deal with a prejudice (before it evolved into racism) is to bring it in the open. E.g. try to explain rationally, why seeing an officer wearing a turban causes you inconvenience?

Great.

That is what happens in a free society. Debate based on fact and reason.

[daddyhominum]

Should never have happened, most Canadians would agree I'm sure. Most rational people would.

It's not prejudiced or racist to have set limits and restrictions for everyone to follow. Mounties wear the Stetson, not a turban. That ruling never should have happened.

That's not racist, that's having non-discriminatory policies. Can I wear a turban if I wear an RCMP officer, even though I'm not a Sikh? Not likely. So one religion/race has advantage over another. It's wrong and immoral.

I agree 100%. Some legal judgments have slipped down a path of inflating religious freedom into a balloon of special religious privileges.

Again, another topic. I would love to discuss further when and where religious freedom has turned to religious privelege.

Why don't you expand your ideas along with your reasoning in a new thread ?

[daddyhominum]

E.g. try to explain rationally, why seeing an officer wearing a turban causes you inconvenience?

It is simply UNSETTLING to see an RCMP officer wearing a turban and also reflects a disturbing identification pertaining to a foreign nationality rather than Canadian which is also unsettling.

Sikhism is a highly regarded religion practiced in many countries but even the Pujab where the great majority of the adherents live is a nation.

Turbans are also popular in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other Indian states.

The turban certainly does not tell you a person's nationality nor, even his religion for certain.

[Leafless]

So, racism is prejudice always, but prejudice can be racism and it may not be racism when used in a non-racist context. But the statement as quoted above refers to, "bias or prejudice based on dislike of known cultural ore religious traits"

So is prejudice against cultural or religious traits (sic) a context for prejudice that does not represent racism? The Canadian experience suggests that such prejudices may not be racism but nor can they be used to deny a Canadian the full enjoyment of a particular culture or a particular religious practice. Most of you will recall the case of the RCMP officer who wore a turban to work and was eventually confirmed in his right to do so as a practicing Sikh.

So it is plain that prejudice against a culture or a religious practice expressed as a political act in Canada will very likely be treated the same way racism is treated. And in the thread context where this side issue arose, the matter was prejudicial statements towards Arabs and/or Muslims that called for political action. So the use of prejudice and racism were equivalent in the context they were found.

imo

No you are wrong.

Muslim Shariah Law was rejected by the Premier of Ontario Dalton Mc.Guinty who represents Ontario residents.

So according to your logic based on the 'turban issue' makes Mr. Mc.Guinty and the residents of Ontario guilty and labelled racist.

You are the one that is being illogical or unreasonable.

I probably am wrong but nothing in your statement establishes that.

I infer that your argument is that Shariah Law is a 'custom' or 'practice' of Muslims so refusing to enable it was a political act of prejudice.

To establish the error in your statement I only have to demonstrate that a single political entity consisting of Muslims , such as a nation claiming to be Muslim, does not require Sharia law. That is the essence of the null hypothesis to a any generalization(induction). If you believe that all Muslims require Sharia law and some are observed not to do so, then your premise is wrong.

So Ontario did not act with prejudice against Muslims but against some Muslims who wanted to use Sharia law.

Further, I observe that the Premier of Ontario cannot enable any law to supercede Canadian law. I also observe that objections to the proposal were voiced primarily by Muslims, especially women of the Muslim faith.

So, while I am no doubt illogical and unreasonable, your argument fails to establish that as true.

Your argument falls within the confines of a private religion and flows into society forcing your religious complex views on Canadians that they do not have to accept or even respond to.

Why should Canadians have to accept rulings such as the 'turban issue' when the federal government stays clear of concerns of followers of Canada's major religion Christianity in favour of 'for example' homosexual concerns involving gay marriage.

One religion is no more deserving of federal attention than the other but the courts appear to pay attention to Islam while ignoring concerns of it's own major Christian religion.

So what the courts are doing is promoting a racist society one that is not equal.

I for one will never adhere to any court ruling forcing the Canadian public to accept the standards of ANY private religion.

[Leafless]

E.g. try to explain rationally, why seeing an officer wearing a turban causes you inconvenience?

It is simply UNSETTLING to see an RCMP officer wearing a turban and also reflects a disturbing identification pertaining to a foreign nationality rather than Canadian which is also unsettling.

Sikhism is a highly regarded religion practiced in many countries but even the Pujab where the great majority of the adherents live is a nation.

Turbans are also popular in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other Indian states.

The turban certainly does not tell you a person's nationality nor, even his religion for certain.

Again you are dictating your private view concerning YOUR private religion.

The turban is YOUR problem not Canadian societies problem.

[jbg]

Further, I observe that the Premier of Ontario cannot enable any law to supercede Canadian law. I also observe that objections to the proposal were voiced primarily by Muslims, especially women of the Muslim faith.

So, while I am no doubt illogical and unreasonable, your argument fails to establish that as true.

I am glad to see your soicitude for the rights of Ontario Muslim women. How about the propsition that if we allow the practice of Islam here, the Muslim countries should allow the practice of Christianity and Judaism there? How about the proposition that if Canada has embassies in most Muslim countries, that those same countries tolerate embassies of the State of Israel?

Let's be neutral on this.

[daddyhominum]

E.g. try to explain rationally, why seeing an officer wearing a turban causes you inconvenience?

It is simply UNSETTLING to see an RCMP officer wearing a turban and also reflects a disturbing identification pertaining to a foreign nationality rather than Canadian which is also unsettling.

Sikhism is a highly regarded religion practiced in many countries but even the Pujab where the great majority of the adherents live is a nation.

Turbans are also popular in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other Indian states.

The turban certainly does not tell you a person's nationality nor, even his religion for certain.

Again you are dictating your private view concerning YOUR private religion.

The turban is YOUR problem not Canadian societies problem.

What is a "private religion"?

And why do I have a turban problem ??????

[Leafless]

daddyhominum

A private religion is one an individual adheres to, with it's standards not forced on society at large.

The 'turban' is an example of government catering to the demands of a religion to force society to accept that religion's standards.

I said IOW, as far as Iam concerned I will not allow myself to be dictated to by the federal government concerning the standards of a religion to accept a ruling that dictates as in the case of the turban that I must accept it's users dress code especially relating to cases of employment.

The turban should be the responsibility of the user of that religion and not forced on to society to accept it's standards like the Muslims forced the Christians to do concerning a small prayer in public schools which resulted in a ban of that prayer along with Christmas festivities a Christian traditon. I wonder where feds were then to stand up for the religion the country was built on.

For instance there are a hundred ways I could get around from being forced to hire someone who wears a turban without being charged with discrimination.

[Figleaf]

ll

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf