What is racism?
Discussion
No-one on PH admits to being a racist yet there are people posting material that many see as racist. An odd phenomenon.
The concept of racism doesn’t seem that difficult to define: a belief that different races exist and that your “race” is superior.
I think people get confused (deliberately in many cases) between how that racist ideology manifests itself, only viewing as racist beliefs and actions more extreme than their own position without recognising that benign racism is still racism eg missionaries trying to “save” black souls in Africa were and still are racist, just not in the same way as the EDL. This is why I say Britain when I was growing up was racist. White people were not on the whole actively being nasty to black people yet it was a self-evident truth to white people that white and black people were different and whites were superior. Ironically this was a view held by my Indian father-in-law who had been brought up in India and although in part hated the British (he mentioned more than once the sting he felt in seeing “no dogs or Indians” signs) yet at the same time he admired them and took inordinate pride in his family having very fair complexion.
Perhaps part of the problem is that racism and “culturalism” get mixed up. I am not a cultural relativist myself. I don’t think all cultures are equal. I am not religious and firmly hold that state and religion should be separate and as a libertarian think that people should be free to do and say what they want (as long as it doesn’t infringe other people’s rights not to be negatively impacted by their actions or words). I am also strongly in favour of equality of opportunity (not outcome) for all irrespective of skin colour, gender, sexual orientation or disability. I can’t help but feel that cultures that have adopted those morals are superior to those that haven’t (particularly as those that currently hold such views have in general transformed over time from cultures that didn’t - so difficult not to see the current views as more “advanced”).
The concept of racism doesn’t seem that difficult to define: a belief that different races exist and that your “race” is superior.
I think people get confused (deliberately in many cases) between how that racist ideology manifests itself, only viewing as racist beliefs and actions more extreme than their own position without recognising that benign racism is still racism eg missionaries trying to “save” black souls in Africa were and still are racist, just not in the same way as the EDL. This is why I say Britain when I was growing up was racist. White people were not on the whole actively being nasty to black people yet it was a self-evident truth to white people that white and black people were different and whites were superior. Ironically this was a view held by my Indian father-in-law who had been brought up in India and although in part hated the British (he mentioned more than once the sting he felt in seeing “no dogs or Indians” signs) yet at the same time he admired them and took inordinate pride in his family having very fair complexion.
Perhaps part of the problem is that racism and “culturalism” get mixed up. I am not a cultural relativist myself. I don’t think all cultures are equal. I am not religious and firmly hold that state and religion should be separate and as a libertarian think that people should be free to do and say what they want (as long as it doesn’t infringe other people’s rights not to be negatively impacted by their actions or words). I am also strongly in favour of equality of opportunity (not outcome) for all irrespective of skin colour, gender, sexual orientation or disability. I can’t help but feel that cultures that have adopted those morals are superior to those that haven’t (particularly as those that currently hold such views have in general transformed over time from cultures that didn’t - so difficult not to see the current views as more “advanced”).
Or maybe it’s just a “group” identity, which we all relate to more.
If we go back far enough, humans lived in groups and protected their own group.
Modern manifestation is football team alliances. Choose a team, friends with everyone else who supports the same team but have a hatred for any one who supports the rival team.
It is why the expression “I’m not a racist as I have a black/white good mate but...” is said so much. People dislike the other group but don’t hate the individuals.
The human mind trying to catch up with the modern world, the human mind isn’t prepared for this accelerated change.
I don’t think it is racism though, it’s the protections of ones own group, with a hint of fear about another group.
If we go back far enough, humans lived in groups and protected their own group.
Modern manifestation is football team alliances. Choose a team, friends with everyone else who supports the same team but have a hatred for any one who supports the rival team.
It is why the expression “I’m not a racist as I have a black/white good mate but...” is said so much. People dislike the other group but don’t hate the individuals.
The human mind trying to catch up with the modern world, the human mind isn’t prepared for this accelerated change.
I don’t think it is racism though, it’s the protections of ones own group, with a hint of fear about another group.
Edited by Tim2k9 on Saturday 18th July 20:20
Racism is a prejudice against a particular group based on an assumption of their race or ethnic makeup.
The problem with the definition is that there's no such thing as race, or at least it can't be defined, so ethnicity is the thing to concentrate on.
It's a common feature of people. It can be learned, and maybe has to be. The evidence is contrary. However, it is a weakness as well as being a failing. It distorts perception and one's ability to assess a situation. You'd think evolution would have eradicated it as it limits, so perhaps it is learned.
It seems as if it was acceptable just a few short years ago. There are many similar situations that exist in normal day-to-say life. As a previous poster suggested, there's football allegiances; Fulham being a better team to follow than ManU. A milder form is rather obvious in the F1 forums on here with people suggesting that A is so much better than B, so much so that they must be the GOAT. All supported by overwhelming subjective evidence.
The universal 'We' are better than 'them' is probably what makes religion so enticing. You can be an absolute failure in everything you do, but your specific religion, or maybe your specific sect within that religion, is better than all the others so you are special, and so are those who believe the same as you.
Racism blocks out logic. A number of christian sects encouraged a distrust, distaste and dislike of Jews, yet the bloke whom they (say they) prey to daily was not only a Jew but related to their greatest king. Perhaps they don't hate Jews, just those who act like Jews.
There's a religious quote that I'm struggling to remember. It boils down to looking inside yourself to find evil, and it's never truer than a dislike, and stronger, of some group other than 'yours', even if your group consists of just the one.
What we need is someone who isn't heir to this common failing to put their point of view. I'm holding my breath.
The problem with the definition is that there's no such thing as race, or at least it can't be defined, so ethnicity is the thing to concentrate on.
It's a common feature of people. It can be learned, and maybe has to be. The evidence is contrary. However, it is a weakness as well as being a failing. It distorts perception and one's ability to assess a situation. You'd think evolution would have eradicated it as it limits, so perhaps it is learned.
It seems as if it was acceptable just a few short years ago. There are many similar situations that exist in normal day-to-say life. As a previous poster suggested, there's football allegiances; Fulham being a better team to follow than ManU. A milder form is rather obvious in the F1 forums on here with people suggesting that A is so much better than B, so much so that they must be the GOAT. All supported by overwhelming subjective evidence.
The universal 'We' are better than 'them' is probably what makes religion so enticing. You can be an absolute failure in everything you do, but your specific religion, or maybe your specific sect within that religion, is better than all the others so you are special, and so are those who believe the same as you.
Racism blocks out logic. A number of christian sects encouraged a distrust, distaste and dislike of Jews, yet the bloke whom they (say they) prey to daily was not only a Jew but related to their greatest king. Perhaps they don't hate Jews, just those who act like Jews.
There's a religious quote that I'm struggling to remember. It boils down to looking inside yourself to find evil, and it's never truer than a dislike, and stronger, of some group other than 'yours', even if your group consists of just the one.
What we need is someone who isn't heir to this common failing to put their point of view. I'm holding my breath.
And why is it always judged from the White perspective.
I believe every skin colour, nation, creed has a distrust of all those who are different.
Classic examples the Indians and the Pakistanis, Blacks in China, Roma and the Romanians, Hutu and Tutsi
A lot of things are now being pushed as racist and I don't think these will ultimately help.
In the US they are beheading statues of Christ and setting fire to churches in the name of BLM
That will only intensify divisions.
I believe every skin colour, nation, creed has a distrust of all those who are different.
Classic examples the Indians and the Pakistanis, Blacks in China, Roma and the Romanians, Hutu and Tutsi
A lot of things are now being pushed as racist and I don't think these will ultimately help.
In the US they are beheading statues of Christ and setting fire to churches in the name of BLM
That will only intensify divisions.
OP this is a fascinating question imo. Sadly it’s difficult to have a debate on such a subject as you always get PH type screams of racist (as per Tryke’s post above) just designed to shut down debate in a woke way.
I’ve always seen racism as a stereotyping of people based on their race. Now I think we all do this at a non-racial level from an early age with regards to different groups of people (as a kid I’d avoid the youths from a neighbouring village who’d give me a beating. Some were no doubt fine but some weren’t so safer to avoid them all.)
As for myself I’m a part of two groups that are much reviled (one especially so here on PH) but it doesn’t bother me (statistically the prejudices are grounded in fact). I think as someone above said I’m one of those where people say “those xxx are a pita but mikes ok”.
Hypothetical question: let’s say all the MikeStoud race complete a survey and some % admit to being alcoholics. At what % is it non-racist to say “that MikeStroud race are a bunch of alcoholics”?
Never?
50% or more?
Something else?
I’m genuinely interested in the answer to this?
I’ve always seen racism as a stereotyping of people based on their race. Now I think we all do this at a non-racial level from an early age with regards to different groups of people (as a kid I’d avoid the youths from a neighbouring village who’d give me a beating. Some were no doubt fine but some weren’t so safer to avoid them all.)
As for myself I’m a part of two groups that are much reviled (one especially so here on PH) but it doesn’t bother me (statistically the prejudices are grounded in fact). I think as someone above said I’m one of those where people say “those xxx are a pita but mikes ok”.
Hypothetical question: let’s say all the MikeStoud race complete a survey and some % admit to being alcoholics. At what % is it non-racist to say “that MikeStroud race are a bunch of alcoholics”?
Never?
50% or more?
Something else?
I’m genuinely interested in the answer to this?
Esceptico said:
I can’t help but feel that cultures that have adopted those morals are superior to those that haven’t (particularly as those that currently hold such views have in general transformed over time from cultures that didn’t - so difficult not to see the current views as more “advanced”).
Morals reflect the culture of the time. History has many examples where, over time, things get worse rather than better.Its all subjective.
MikeStroud said:
OP this is a fascinating question imo. Sadly it’s difficult to have a debate on such a subject as you always get PH type screams of racist (as per Tryke’s post above) just designed to shut down debate in a woke way.
I’ve always seen racism as a stereotyping of people based on their race. Now I think we all do this at a non-racial level from an early age with regards to different groups of people (as a kid I’d avoid the youths from a neighbouring village who’d give me a beating. Some were no doubt fine but some weren’t so safer to avoid them all.)
As for myself I’m a part of two groups that are much reviled (one especially so here on PH) but it doesn’t bother me (statistically the prejudices are grounded in fact). I think as someone above said I’m one of those where people say “those xxx are a pita but mikes ok”.
Hypothetical question: let’s say all the MikeStoud race complete a survey and some % admit to being alcoholics. At what % is it non-racist to say “that MikeStroud race are a bunch of alcoholics”?
Never?
50% or more?
Something else?
I’m genuinely interested in the answer to this?
I’d say it’s the dislike of all individuals in a group based on the stereotyping of that group due to negative experiences with a minority of those associated with that group. I’ve always seen racism as a stereotyping of people based on their race. Now I think we all do this at a non-racial level from an early age with regards to different groups of people (as a kid I’d avoid the youths from a neighbouring village who’d give me a beating. Some were no doubt fine but some weren’t so safer to avoid them all.)
As for myself I’m a part of two groups that are much reviled (one especially so here on PH) but it doesn’t bother me (statistically the prejudices are grounded in fact). I think as someone above said I’m one of those where people say “those xxx are a pita but mikes ok”.
Hypothetical question: let’s say all the MikeStoud race complete a survey and some % admit to being alcoholics. At what % is it non-racist to say “that MikeStroud race are a bunch of alcoholics”?
Never?
50% or more?
Something else?
I’m genuinely interested in the answer to this?
For example
Man from race A assaults me. I then assume that all from Race A are the same and so treat them all as possible attackers, rather than accepting the man who assaulted me is an individual was just a t
t who happened to be from Race A. Or simply hatred due to a lack of understanding and fear of those different from you. I’d say racism covers a wide spectrum, however it won’t go until we stop boxing ourselves into groups and accept we’re all individuals.
MikeStroud said:
OP this is a fascinating question imo. Sadly it’s difficult to have a debate on such a subject as you always get PH type screams of racist (as per Tryke’s post above) just designed to shut down debate in a woke way.
I’ve always seen racism as a stereotyping of people based on their race. Now I think we all do this at a non-racial level from an early age with regards to different groups of people (as a kid I’d avoid the youths from a neighbouring village who’d give me a beating. Some were no doubt fine but some weren’t so safer to avoid them all.)
As for myself I’m a part of two groups that are much reviled (one especially so here on PH) but it doesn’t bother me (statistically the prejudices are grounded in fact). I think as someone above said I’m one of those where people say “those xxx are a pita but mikes ok”.
Hypothetical question: let’s say all the MikeStoud race complete a survey and some % admit to being alcoholics. At what % is it non-racist to say “that MikeStroud race are a bunch of alcoholics”?
Never?
50% or more?
Something else?
I’m genuinely interested in the answer to this?
It's not so much a hypothetical question as one based on an all but impossible premise. There's not possibility of it every happening. The idea of 100% of a race is nonsensical. How could you possible pick all the people when race is indefinable?I’ve always seen racism as a stereotyping of people based on their race. Now I think we all do this at a non-racial level from an early age with regards to different groups of people (as a kid I’d avoid the youths from a neighbouring village who’d give me a beating. Some were no doubt fine but some weren’t so safer to avoid them all.)
As for myself I’m a part of two groups that are much reviled (one especially so here on PH) but it doesn’t bother me (statistically the prejudices are grounded in fact). I think as someone above said I’m one of those where people say “those xxx are a pita but mikes ok”.
Hypothetical question: let’s say all the MikeStoud race complete a survey and some % admit to being alcoholics. At what % is it non-racist to say “that MikeStroud race are a bunch of alcoholics”?
Never?
50% or more?
Something else?
I’m genuinely interested in the answer to this?
On the question itself, you've made a value judgment by using the word admit. It means it is a failing. Therefore you are judging and condemning the MikeStroud race on a single factor. If the result of this survey is that 25% say they are alcoholics, then all you can say is that 25% of a self-identifying racial group say they are alcoholics. If there's a survey, there's little excuse for not using the precise stat.
Further, the statement is comparative. A bunch of alcoholics suggests that the % of alcoholics in that grouping is high, or very high. It would be unreasonable to call a group a bunch of alcoholics if their percentage was, say 10% and the world average was 25%.
On top of that, you'd have to have results from every self-identifying racial group, with a 100% return rate, for the MikeStroud result to have any comparative meaning.
MikeStroud said:
OP this is a fascinating question imo. Sadly it’s difficult to have a debate on such a subject as you always get PH type screams of racist (as per Tryke’s post above) just designed to shut down debate in a woke way.
I’ve always seen racism as a stereotyping of people based on their race. Now I think we all do this at a non-racial level from an early age with regards to different groups of people (as a kid I’d avoid the youths from a neighbouring village who’d give me a beating. Some were no doubt fine but some weren’t so safer to avoid them all.)
As for myself I’m a part of two groups that are much reviled (one especially so here on PH) but it doesn’t bother me (statistically the prejudices are grounded in fact). I think as someone above said I’m one of those where people say “those xxx are a pita but mikes ok”.
Hypothetical question: let’s say all the MikeStoud race complete a survey and some % admit to being alcoholics. At what % is it non-racist to say “that MikeStroud race are a bunch of alcoholics”?
Never?
50% or more?
Something else?
I’m genuinely interested in the answer to this?
I think you are confusing culture with race. The two are not the same. My wife is more English than I am (and has always missed England more when we have lived abroad) yet she was born in India and has brown skin. Culturally she is very English but a lot of people would treat her as Indian because of how she looks. I’ve always seen racism as a stereotyping of people based on their race. Now I think we all do this at a non-racial level from an early age with regards to different groups of people (as a kid I’d avoid the youths from a neighbouring village who’d give me a beating. Some were no doubt fine but some weren’t so safer to avoid them all.)
As for myself I’m a part of two groups that are much reviled (one especially so here on PH) but it doesn’t bother me (statistically the prejudices are grounded in fact). I think as someone above said I’m one of those where people say “those xxx are a pita but mikes ok”.
Hypothetical question: let’s say all the MikeStoud race complete a survey and some % admit to being alcoholics. At what % is it non-racist to say “that MikeStroud race are a bunch of alcoholics”?
Never?
50% or more?
Something else?
I’m genuinely interested in the answer to this?
Context is everything. It is a factual statement to say that Indians in India eat a lot of “curry” (ie Indian food). But not the same as a judgemental statement disparaging Indians because they “all” eat curry.
Tim2k9 said:
Or maybe it’s just a “group” identity, which we all relate to more.
If we go back far enough, humans lived in groups and protected their own group.
Modern manifestation is football team alliances. Choose a team, friends with everyone else who supports the same team but have a hatred for any one who supports the rival team.
It is why the expression “I’m not a racist as I have a black/white good mate but...” is said so much. People dislike the other group but don’t hate the individuals.
The human mind trying to catch up with the modern world, the human mind isn’t prepared for this accelerated change.
I don’t think it is racism though, it’s the protections of ones own group, with a hint of fear about another group.
I agree that the roots of racism lie in our tribal past but your football example is exactly the equivalence of racism to me: football supporters generally believe their club is better and do discriminate against supporters of other clubs. That is irrational but then so is racism.If we go back far enough, humans lived in groups and protected their own group.
Modern manifestation is football team alliances. Choose a team, friends with everyone else who supports the same team but have a hatred for any one who supports the rival team.
It is why the expression “I’m not a racist as I have a black/white good mate but...” is said so much. People dislike the other group but don’t hate the individuals.
The human mind trying to catch up with the modern world, the human mind isn’t prepared for this accelerated change.
I don’t think it is racism though, it’s the protections of ones own group, with a hint of fear about another group.
Edited by Tim2k9 on Saturday 18th July 20:20
Previous said:
Morals reflect the culture of the time. History has many examples where, over time, things get worse rather than better.
Its all subjective.
Rationally and logically I have to accept that because I don’t believe in god and so “morality” is an evolved behaviour and ultimately there is no right or wrong. Yet it feels hard to accept emotionally that western liberal culture is no more worthy than Nazism or ISIS.Its all subjective.
Esceptico said:
eg missionaries trying to “save” black souls in Africa were and still are racist, just not in the same way as the EDL.
Not sure about this one; were the missionaries there because the heathen were black or because they were heathen? They might well have been massive racists but missionary work is just colossally patronising rather than inherently racist. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff