Racism

[JWNEWMAN]

1 : 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
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

Racism is considered evil. However, in my travels I've discovered it is very common amongst most races, to believe their race superior. Some have taken that belief and therefor oppressed others. Still others have taken that belief and been more forgiving of others ... giving consideration to what they view as a disadvantage.

I've seen this is many cultures it's universal and natural. It's only evil when it is used to harm. If I were say Green and therefor considered myself superior in intellect because Green people in general have higher scholastic scores would that make me evil or logical?

Personally I don't have any prejudices. I'm not even prejudices against people who are racists as long as it's not mean spirited. I've met white racists and black racists. I have friends in both categories.

The only people I remove myself from are those that hate and desire to harm others based on race. That I believe is evil.

 

[JWNEWMAN]

According to the definition of Racist, does one have to be discriminatory to be a racist? What if one simply believes their race has superior qualities, generally, in certain areas. Is that person therefor a racist?

 

[The Valkyrie]

It depends on what definition you go by.

Disrespecting anyone based on race is highly ignorant in my opinion. Alternatively I suppose simply believing that, factually, one race is somewhat superior isn't necessarily immoral in itself, but a) easily leads to destructive conclusions and b) doesn't seem to be the case with any of the races on our planet. So in order for someone to come to that conclusion, they'd probably have to be selfish and biased.

I mean, each race is so similar. Each race has representatives at the top of intellectual and athletic fields. And there are a variety of small advantages or disadvantages per race. For example, since white people have lighter skin they make Vitamin D from the sun much easier than black people and therefore have statistically reduced deficiencies of that nutrient, but black people have more of a defense against sunburn and skin cancer due to their darker skin. It's due to evolving in two different parts of the world, and neither one is better or worse and the differences are so minor it's barely an issue.

In my opinion, to put so much emphasis on race that one were to claim one were superior to the other would almost always be based on arrogance since there are just so many similarities and as mentioned before, all races have representatives at the tops of various areas. Why would any compassionate, emotionally healthy person be so occupied with racial differences?

If I were say Green and therefor considered myself superior in intellect because Green people in general have higher scholastic scores would that make me evil or logical?

That is bad logic. Even if it were the case that green people have statistically higher IQs doesn't mean that each green person has a superior intellect. You could perhaps be a moderately intelligent green person and along comes a blue person that is above average compared to other blue people and she's smarter than you.

And this barely applies to the real races since, given the same economic conditions and all, there is very little or no mental difference. Any difference would be negligible.

 

[JWNEWMAN]

It depends on what definition you go by.

Disrespecting anyone based on race is highly ignorant in my opinion. Alternatively I suppose simply believing that, factually, one race is somewhat superior isn't necessarily immoral in itself, but a) easily leads to destructive conclusions and b) doesn't seem to be the case with any of the races on our planet. So in order for someone to come to that conclusion, they'd probably have to be selfish and biased.

I mean, each race is so similar. Each race has representatives at the top of intellectual and athletic fields. And there are a variety of small advantages or disadvantages per race. For example, since white people have lighter skin they make Vitamin D from the sun much easier than black people and therefore have statistically reduced deficiencies of that nutrient, but black people have more of a defense against sunburn and skin cancer due to their darker skin. It's due to evolving in two different parts of the world, and neither one is better or worse and the differences are so minor it's barely an issue.

In my opinion, to put so much emphasis on race that one were to claim one were superior to the other would almost always be based on arrogance since there are just so many similarities and as mentioned before, all races have representatives at the tops of various areas. Why would any compassionate, emotionally healthy person be so occupied with racial differences?


That is bad logic. Even if it were the case that green people have statistically higher IQs doesn't mean that each green person has a superior intellect. You could perhaps be a moderately intelligent green person and along comes a blue person that is above average compared to other blue people and she's smarter than you.

And this barely applies to the real races since, given the same economic conditions and all, there is very little or no mental difference. Any difference would be negligible.

Hello,

I appreciated your response and enjoyed the read.

From my experience and frank conversations wit people of various races I believe racism is normal. It's sort of like belonging to a team. It's even true amongst the sexes. Women in general truly believe they are intellectually superior to men and men almost universally think women are illogical creatures. I'm talking about what people say when others aren't listening - confidential stuff, etc.

 

[The Valkyrie]

Hello,

I appreciated your response and enjoyed the read.

From my experience and frank conversations wit people of various races I believe racism is normal. It's sort of like belonging to a team. It's even true amongst the sexes. Women in general truly believe they are intellectually superior to men and men almost universally think women are illogical creatures. I'm talking about what people say when others aren't listening - confidential stuff, etc.

Yes, it's rather common behavior to form groups and generate a tribal or "us vs them" mentality. It is what has kept humans alive for so long back long ago. Sometimes those instincts can be beneficial, but sometimes they can be harmful. The common things to form exclusive groups around are race, religion, gender, and nationality. Then there are things like sports teams and even what kind of car you drive.

This kind of behavior is good in some instances, but should likely not be encouraged when it comes to more extreme scales as it can lead to ignorance and weakness.

Men and women have statistically different ways of thinking. It's not concrete, though, because some women think more similarly to men and some men think more similarly to women, but in general, there are differences.

Females typically are more emotional, think with both sides of their brain, are good at multi-tasking, and have a tendency toward nurturing and cooperating.

Males typically are less emotional, think mostly with one part of their brain at a time (more focused), are not as good at multi-tasking, and have a tendency to be competitive and rougher.

One gender thinking the other is intellectually inferior or illogical typically comes down to someone being lazy when it comes to understanding the person they are trying to deal with.

Women and men can be illogical in some ways and logical in others. For example, men tend to be drawn towards more of the engineering/scientific fields where logic is highly valued. But a counter example is that men are more prone to getting into a fist fight over something stupid and commit far more crime.

Intellectually, the genders are about equal. Average IQ difference is small or non-existent, but due to men having XY chromosomes instead of XX chromosomes, men are more likely to be on either side of the intellectual curve (mentally challenged or genius level).

The takeaway message is to value differences and acknowledge similarities instead of focusing on which is better. Having one gender would be boring, the differences make it interesting. It's ok for my partner to be confused when I cry during a movie, and it's ok for me to be confused about why working on his car is so fun for him.

 

[JWNEWMAN]

Some of the people I enjoy dialogue with are elderly black males. Those who aren't afraid to speak their mind. They are simply passed fear or intimidation about what others think. It's a real eye opener and even refreshing. The gentlemen I'm thinking of aren't bitter or angry they are simply bluntly honest. I think they genuinely like me as a person but, my color will always be an issue for them because of their experience.

Yes, if there were only one gender it would be no fun at all.

I've done some self testing and apparently my brain tendencies don't seem to be so one sided. I'm a jumper.

Left/Right Brain? Genetic Sex Differences I liked this article as well.

 

[shinbits]

If I were say Green and therefor considered myself superior in intellect because Green people in general have higher scholastic scores would that make me evil or logical?

it wouldn't in of itself make you evil. Given that two people of any race, if raised the same way in the same area and given the same opportunities, can do equally well on tests, it wouldn't be logical to make that conclusion.
[/quote]

According to the definition of Racist, does one have to be discriminatory to be a racist? What if one simply believes their race has superior qualities, generally, in certain areas. Is that person therefor a racist?

Yes. See point number 1 in the defintion you posted for racism.

 

[MacFall]

I don't even believe in such a thing as "race". I write "human" on any form that has a race section.

 

[JWNEWMAN]

I don't even believe in such a thing as "race". I write "human" on any form that has a race section.

I like that...

I just see so many attacks primarily against whites regarding racism. Yet, it's a universal reality that, people tend to see themselves (their race) as superior to others.

My exposure to so many different cultures and races has made this reality self evident. The only people I have issues with are those who hate and are against others because of their races and or religion.

It's fortunate that I've had these opportunities through that lens it's easy to see that all races are equal in that to a degree (not in a negative way) they are racist.

When I studied Martial Arts it was the same thing. "Tae Kwon Do" is best, "No, Jujitsu" "No, Kempo" "No Akido" son on and so forth...

What do we see today MMA the best is all those techniques fused together.

 

[JWNEWMAN]

Racism is evil

Depends on your definition.

I know elderly black men who have serious trouble trusting whites. In that respect they are racist, yet, these are among the best people I know.

 

[quatona]

If I were say Green and therefor considered myself superior in intellect because Green people in general have higher scholastic scores would that make me evil or logical?

Neither.

 

[JWNEWMAN]

Neither.

The reason I ask these questions is because of the popular tendency right now in the media to use the term racist when referring to a particular demographic. It made me think of people who I've met who are racist on various sides of the issue. Some of those people are among those I most respect.

There are a lot of reasons why people have varying degrees of "racism." Which does not in my definition include any aspect of degrading other human beings.

Amongst elderly blacks, especially black men, I've seen racism that I perfectly understand. That is, given their history. Also I see it in mostly middle aged to older whites. Their experience too (mostly southerners in my experience) shapes their opinions.

However, though their are these opinions amongst these groups that, in various ways the other race is inferior I find among these people of both races those who hold no visible animosity - just an opinion of differences in qualities of people based on experience.

The elderly (giant) black gentleman that used to escort me to my car was very fond of the young white man (a curiosity) living in the run down (in a predominantly black area) hotel in the city. He was very vocal about not liking white cops. In his experience white authority figures routinely treated black males unjustly.

Then you have the white cop who, sees what goes on in the poor sections of the inner cities where the population is mostly black. His opinion of the whole black community can easily be skewed by his experience with most of the black public he confronts day after day.

What's difficult to understand if you are or once you've been immersed in and surrounded by such negative behavior is, that, it's not universal. Though it is in your own experience.

Once burned it is difficult for a persons opinion to heal.

 

[quatona]

The reason I ask these questions is because of the popular tendency right now in the media to use the term racist when referring to a particular demographic. It made me think of people who I've met who are racist on various sides of the issue. Some of those people are among those I most respect.

That´s all fine and well, but since I don´t operate with concepts like evil all I meant to say was that your - hypothetical - conclusion was illogical.

There are a lot of reasons why people have varying degrees of "racism." Which does not in my definition include any aspect of degrading other human beings.

Amongst elderly blacks, especially black men, I've seen racism that I perfectly understand. That is, given their history. Also I see it in mostly middle aged to older whites. Their experience too (mostly southerners in my experience) shapes their opinions.

However, though their are these opinions amongst these groups that, in various ways the other race is inferior I find among these people of both races those who hold no visible animosity - just an opinion of differences in qualities of people based on experience.

The elderly (giant) black gentleman that used to escort me to my car was very fond of the young white man (a curiosity) living in the run down (in a predominantly black area) hotel in the city. He was very vocal about not liking white cops. In his experience white authority figures routinely treated black males unjustly.

Then you have the white cop who, sees what goes on in the poor sections of the inner cities where the population is mostly black. His opinion of the whole black community can easily be skewed by his experience with most of the black public he confronts day after day.

What's difficult to understand if you are or once you've been immersed in and surrounded by such negative behavior is, that, it's not universal. Though it is in your own experience.

Once burned it is difficult for a persons opinion to heal.

I found the movie L.A.Crash covering this issue in an extraordinary and excellent way.

Personally, I don´t find categories like race or nationality particularly useful.

 

[JWNEWMAN]

That´s all fine and well, but since I don´t operate with concepts like evil all I meant to say was that your - hypothetical - conclusion was illogical.

What was my original conclusion? Wasn't I asking a question?

Also, you don't operate with concepts like evil? What is it then when a man rapes, tortures, kills a young woman he doesn't even know? What concept does that fall under.

I found the movie L.A.Crash covering this issue in an extraordinary and excellent way.

Yes, that was a good depiction of the human condition and contradictions.

Personally, I don´t find categories like race or nationality particularly useful.

Race is useful in when describing a person. Also often in understanding a particular points of view. Regardless, these are realities. The question is not should we use them term race rather, how to elevate our thinking above that very real bar raised by the reality of differences that do exist (at least speaking in generalities) amongst people of different races?

Race is sometimes an important factor to consider: Race is definitely a factor in medical diagnosis and treatment, for instance. Race is also certainly a factor in critical job placement considerations: For instance places where because of the "climate" within a demographic placing personnel of the "wrong" race there might endanger that person's life or the life of others.

Race is certainly to be considered.

For instance if one is to marry outside of their race. Serious consideration should be given before doing regarding the difficulties such a choice would incur. Yes, it could create opportunity, Yes it could be a good thing. However, it will certainly create complications unless you live in a bubble.

You can't just ignore how other people act. Especially if they are aggressive and hostile towards your actions.

 

[quatona]

What was my original conclusion? Wasn't I asking a question?

Here, this is the part of your post that I quoted and responded to:

If I were say Green and therefor considered myself superior in intellect because Green people in general have higher scholastic scores would that make me evil or logical?

The terms "therefore" and "because" imply the attempt (of the hypothetical Green) to conclude logically. And since you explicitly asked if this conclusion was logical, I gave you my response: No, it is not.

Also, you don't operate with concepts like evil? What is it then when a man rapes, tortures, kills a young woman he doesn't even know? What concept does that fall under.

"Rape", "torture", "the killing of a young woman".
"Crimes"
"Things I strongly dislike"

Yes, that was a good depiction of the human condition and contradictions.

Which character in this movie would you describe as "evil"?

Race is useful in when describing a person. Also often in understanding a particular points of view. Regardless, these are realities. The question is not should we use them term race rather, how to elevate our thinking above that very real bar raised by the reality of differences that do exist (at least speaking in generalities) amongst people of different races?

I disagree. The question, to me, is: "What significance does it have?", and I reserve the prerogative to say "It has no significance to me.", any more than any other phyical trait has.
Of course, the fact that a lot of people give it significance must be acknowledged.
Just like when the headline of the most popular newspaper is about the marriage of celebrities X and Y: A lot of people will find it significant, it will be the topic in many work places etc. Yet, I personally don´t find it significant.
If tomorrow, say, haircolour would be given significance in that e.g. blondes will be persecuted for being blonde, this becomes a societal reality that I can´t ignore. However, I will still keep to my conviction that haircolour is insignificant.
Or, IOW, I understand that people are free to take care that their self-fulfilling prophecies really come true, but it´s not my job to help them with that.

Race is sometimes an important factor to consider: Race is definitely a factor in medical diagnosis and treatment, for instance.

Not to forget that I can´t lie in the sun as long as a black person.

Race is also certainly a factor in critical job placement considerations: For instance places where because of the "climate" within a demographic placing personnel of the "wrong" race there might endanger that person's life or the life of others.

A good example for what I have tried to say above: It becomes a factor because and when people consider it a factor.

You can't just ignore how other people act.

This I agree with, and I don´t recall saying anything to the contrary.
I can, however, refuse to adopt their ideas, their worldview or their sense of significance.

Especially if they are aggressive and hostile towards your actions.

If someone is hostile towards me I will deal with that on an individual basis.

 

[JWNEWMAN]

The terms "therefore" and "because" imply the attempt (of the hypothetical Green) to conclude logically. And since you explicitly asked if this conclusion was logical, I gave you my response: No, it is not.

If Green persons were tested for jumping skills against purple people and it was discovered on average Green people jumped 50% higher then purple people, it would therefor be logical for the Green person to conclude Green people generally speaking can jump higher then purple people. Logical.

"Rape", "torture", "the killing of a young woman".
"Crimes"
"Things I strongly dislike"

Evil means: morally reprehensible. So murder is not immoral or reprehensible?

Which character in this movie would you describe as "evil"?

All people are evil in this sense: we all have morally reprehensible urges at times. We all have these conflicts. In order for a person to be evil he/she would have to succumb to what is reprehensible without repentance. In other words wholly accept/approve morally reprehensible behavior.

I disagree. The question, to me, is: "What significance does it have?", and I reserve the prerogative to say "It has no significance to me.", any more than any other phyical trait has.

There are differences and they are significant. If you really feel there is not significance then, go live in an all black neighborhood. Be the only white person. Go to an all black church. There are differences. People are not color blind.

However, I do agree it is good to look at people with equal acceptance and not pre-judge character based on race. However it is foolish not to consider statistical information when considering the level of involvement one might have with a person based on general information.

For instance certain races have a higher rate of aids in their population. For that reason I wouldn't date that race. I'd be careful who I dated regardless. One takes a chance when associating with anyone. It is something to consider. If you get involved with a person then you get involved with their past - were they promiscuous? You are also that much closer to their family friends and associates. By association you can put yourself in danger.

Of course, the fact that a lot of people give it significance must be acknowledged.
Just like when the headline of the most popular newspaper is about the marriage of celebrities X and Y: A lot of people will find it significant, it will be the topic in many work places etc. Yet, I personally don´t find it significant.
If tomorrow, say, haircolour would be given significance in that e.g. blondes will be persecuted for being blonde, this becomes a societal reality that I can´t ignore. However, I will still keep to my conviction that haircolour is insignificant.
Or, IOW, I understand that people are free to take care that their self-fulfilling prophecies really come true, but it´s not my job to help them with that.

People don't generally kill one another over celebrity relations. But they do over race relations. It is highly significant. Ignoring doesn't solve anything.

A good example for what I have tried to say above: It becomes a factor because and when people consider it a factor.

It's already a well established deep rooted factor. Saying "it isn't for me" doesn't do anything to enlighten and it simply isn't true you're just ignoring reality.

This I agree with, and I don´t recall saying anything to the contrary.
I can, however, refuse to adopt their ideas, their worldview or their sense of significance.
If someone is hostile towards me I will deal with that on an individual basis.

You're looking at this issue like it's only significance is your point of view. This is a world-wide problem. Today, people are still being mistreated even persecuted and killed in different parts of the world simply because of their race, nationality, religion, etc., but, according to you it isn't significant.

 

[nolongerhome]

I suspect quatona's non-belief in evil is probably similar to mine - evil is something which is transcendently immoral. If you don't beleive that there is such a thing as trascendent immorality, as objective right and wrong, then evil ceases to be a useful concept.

Evil can of course be used in a non-transcendent way, but because of the connotations I prefer to not contaminate my discussions with faulty concepts, even if only through connotation.

I don't believe that there is "evil" in the world, understoof as an immoral force. I don't believe that any person is evil. That is not to deny that people do bad things.

On race and nationality, I think what was meant was that race and nationality are not necessarily significant - they only become significant, and only cause problems, when people decide to make them significant and the basis for violence, persecution, etc.

But quatona is obviously free to come in and dispute my interpretation of what was meant

 

[quatona]

If Green persons were tested for jumping skills against purple people and it was discovered on average Green people jumped 50% higher then purple people, it would therefor be logical for the Green person to conclude Green people generally speaking can jump higher then purple people. Logical.

Yes, but that wasn´t the conclusion you posted. The Green person in your hypothetical "therefor considered myself superior" (emphasis added). That was illogical, because a statistical comparison of two groups doesn´t allow conclusions on individual members of those groups.

Evil means: morally reprehensible. So murder is not immoral or reprehensible?

I have no use for terms like "immoral" or "reprehensible" either.
There are things I like and things I don´t like. In most cases I can even explain what I like about things and what I don´t, and why. (I don´t like murder - just in case you had any doubts about that)

Also, there are things that are legal and others that are illegal.

Furthermore, there are societal agreements about acceptable and inacceptable conduct that aren´t legally regulated, though.

Lastly, there are structural rules (rules that are picked arbitrarily, just for the benefit of having a practically useful - often even necessary - agreement: Driving on the right isn´t considered a better solution than driving on the left; but it´s good to pick one and only one of the options)

These are the concepts I am able and willing to operate with in this context.

Wouid you be willing to reword your question using these categories, for me?

All people are evil in this sense: we all have morally reprehensible urges at times. We all have these conflicts. In order for a person to be evil he/she would have to succumb to what is reprehensible without repentance. In other words wholly accept/approve morally reprehensible behavior.

Thanks for giving me your views and explaining your concepts.
It does not really answer the question as I meant it, but it´s not that important. So I´ll put it to rest, ok?

There are differences and they are significant. If you really feel there is not significance then, go live in an all black neighborhood. Be the only white person. Go to an all black church. There are differences. People are not color blind.

As I already said, if enough people give significance to something it will become an issue. That, however, doesn´t prompt me to give it significance beyond acknowledging that many people give it significance.
For some reason you don´t seem to be arguing against my position but against something else. I´m sorry that I can´t explain it better.

However, I do agree it is good to look at people with equal acceptance and not pre-judge character based on race. However it is foolish not to consider statistical information when considering the level of involvement one might have with a person based on general information.

Let´s not call each other "foolish" for disagreeing, ok?

For instance certain races have a higher rate of aids in their population. For that reason I wouldn't date that race.

I have never dated a race. I always dated individuals.

People don't generally kill one another over celebrity relations. But they do over race relations. It is highly significant. Ignoring doesn't solve anything.

I didn´t mean to equate the media story and race. I felt that was obvious. It was merely an attempt to illustrate how significance is generate by the fact that many people consider something significant. I acknowledge the fact that a lot of people find race significant (and I acknowledge that this fact alone can even render a complete non-issue a societal issue, but personally I don´t follow the popularity of this stance.

It's already a well established deep rooted factor. Saying "it isn't for me" doesn't do anything to enlighten and it simply isn't true you're just ignoring reality.

I acknowledge reality quite fine, thank you.

You're looking at this issue like it's only significance is your point of view. This is a world-wide problem. Today, people are still being mistreated even persecuted and killed in different parts of the world simply because of their race, nationality, religion, etc., but, according to you it isn't significant.

Yes, people are being mistreated, persecuted and killed for their race. Again: I acknowledge these facts. They tell me that plenty of people give significance to race, and I give significance to "mistreatment because of race" but not to race itself.
If tomorrow people whose index is longer than their ringfinger would be mistreated, persecuted and killed for that fact, I still wouldn´t consider "longer index than ringfinger" significant. However, I would give significance to the fact that people kill each other for the length of their fingers.

I must admit that I am getting a little tired of ever again explaining my position and finding you time and again addressing a position I don´t hold.
We seem to suffer from a bad case of miscommunication.

 

[quatona]

Thanks for trying to help.

I suspect quatona's non-belief in evil is probably similar to mine - evil is something which is transcendently immoral. If you don't beleive that there is such a thing as trascendent immorality, as objective right and wrong, then evil ceases to be a useful concept.

Evil can of course be used in a non-transcendent way, but because of the connotations I prefer to not contaminate my discussions with faulty concepts, even if only through connotation.

I don't believe that there is "evil" in the world, understoof as an immoral force. I don't believe that any person is evil. That is not to deny that people do bad things.

I can agree with a lot of this.
However, personally I don´t even feel any need to explain why some concepts have no use for me. Rather, I would expect someone who wants me to operate with their concepts to show me how and what for they are useful.

On race and nationality, I think what was meant was that race and nationality are not necessarily significant - they only become significant, and only cause problems, when people decide to make them significant and the basis for violence, persecution, etc.

Yes, that´s it, in a nutshell.

 

[lordbt]

(I don´t like murder - just in case you had any doubts about that)

Why not? If its not evil, not immoral, and not even reprehensible, whats not to like about it?