NationStates Jolt Archive

Since people always seem more interested in things happening to people of their own nationality (eg in news reports you generally hear an emphasis put on the number of (in my case British) casualties over other nationalities, is it fair to assume that the majority of people are, to some extent at least, racist?

I think you mean somewhere along the lines of "nationalist."

*sings* Everyone's a little bit racist...

Oh for sure, some people just admit it, some people play off it, others try to deny it....but its always there.

I think it is hardwired in the human brain. For the most part people keep a lid on it in a way that society can function without major problems.

Meh ... I can't stand Whitey ... but life somehow goes on.

If they are, they will never admit to it. :eek:

Our brains are hardwired to think of people in an US and THEM system (according to a recent Discovery Magazine). I'm pretty sure that racism, however, isn't part of that. Racism is the belief that there is a tangible, genetic difference between human beings of different backgrounds... meaning different races. As we *know* there is only one human race, and there is no measurable difference between us, on a genetic level, Racism is clearly disproven.

... but yes, a lot of people still are racist.

Meh ... I can't stand Whitey ... but life somehow goes on.I'm black in my pants. Can we still be friends? ;)

I'm black in my pants. Can we still be friends? ;)

Rofl! Who could refuse?

I try not to worry about what other people are thinking (as long as they are not thinking about killing me!) but I'm not a racist.

However I do think that some cultures are better than others (for example, a culture that endorses Liberty is better than a culture that endorses stonning women to death as whores because they were raped).

After today, I know for a fact that some part of me is a racist...

I was walking home from school, by my lonesome, and I went through a Safeway parking lot. A group of about 10 black kids stepped off a bus, and, naturally, they had to hassle the lone white kid, the easy target. Naturally, I couldn't hit back, since if I dared resist, they'd all jump in. Fucking pussies.

Long story short, it didn't escalate into a beatdown, but my left eye feels kinda puffy, and my sense of pride/morals/justice/whatever have taken a major hit. All I could think for the next four or five hours was "Fucking n***ers, if I had a chance, I'd kill 'em all, just hang 'em by their fucking tails..."
I'm really very ashamed for thinking that.

But I'm still fucking furious, and I want some payback...

I try not to worry about what other people are thinking (as long as they are not thinking about killing me!) but I'm not a racist.

However I do think that some cultures are better than others (for example, a culture that endorses Liberty is better than a culture that endorses stonning women to death as whores because they were raped).

That's not racism, that's called MORAL JUDGEMENT. Which, despite what the western "liberal" movement says, is not a bad thing. There are moral standings we can take, and there ARE some things we can reject as evil, without being racist or imperialist.

I love everyone, except tose goddamned Bulgarians. Bastards the lot of them.

After today, I know for a fact that some part of me is a racist...

I was walking home from school, by my lonesome, and I went through a Safeway parking lot. A group of about 10 black kids stepped off a bus, and, naturally, they had to hassle the lone white kid, the easy target. Naturally, I couldn't hit back, since if I dared resist, they'd all jump in. Fucking pussies.

Long story short, it didn't escalate into a beatdown, but my left eye feels kinda puffy, and my sense of pride/morals/justice/whatever have taken a major hit. All I could think for the next four or five hours was "Fucking n***ers, if I had a chance, I'd kill 'em all, just hang 'em by their fucking tails..."
I'm really very ashamed for thinking that.

But I'm still fucking furious, and I want some payback...

I had a similar experience when I was in high school. Some black girls were throwing newspaper at a friend of mine and I told her not to stoop to their level, so they followed me off the bus. I was confronted by one of them and I tried to avoid a fight by just walking away. She threw a soda at me and got in my face when I stopped.

She did a fake swing and I went to block. I remember her saying, "White bitch can't fight" right before I grabbed her by her throat. It was a really lame fight and her friends just stood around, but I would've walked away from that fight feeling the way you did if it weren't for the fact that a black woman chased them off and gave me a ride home. It helped me to remember that an individual does not represent the whole.

After today, I know for a fact that some part of me is a racist...

I was walking home from school, by my lonesome, and I went through a Safeway parking lot. A group of about 10 black kids stepped off a bus, and, naturally, they had to hassle the lone white kid, the easy target. Naturally, I couldn't hit back, since if I dared resist, they'd all jump in. Fucking pussies.

Long story short, it didn't escalate into a beatdown, but my left eye feels kinda puffy, and my sense of pride/morals/justice/whatever have taken a major hit. All I could think for the next four or five hours was "Fucking n***ers, if I had a chance, I'd kill 'em all, just hang 'em by their fucking tails..."
I'm really very ashamed for thinking that.

But I'm still fucking furious, and I want some payback...

So do you hate all black people as a result? Because if you do, that's pretty stupid. That's like hating all Muslims because of 9/11 stupid, only worse, because all you got out of it was a bit of an ass-whipping. Hate the people who did it to you--they're the ones who deserve it. Nobody else does.

I had a similar experience when I was in high school. Some black girls were throwing newspaper at a friend of mine and I told her not to stoop to their level, so they followed me off the bus. I was confronted by one of them and I tried to avoid a fight by just walking away. She threw a soda at me and got in my face when I stopped.

She did a fake swing and I went to block. I remember her saying, "White bitch can't fight" right before I grabbed her by her throat. It was a really lame fight and her friends just stood around, but I would've walked away from that fight feeling the way you did if it weren't for the fact that a black woman chased them off and gave me a ride home. It helped me to remember that an individual does not represent the whole.

*nod* I know what you mean... I was just really pissed off and humiliated.

So do you hate all black people as a result? Because if you do, that's pretty stupid. That's like hating all Muslims because of 9/11 stupid, only worse, because all you got out of it was a bit of an ass-whipping. Hate the people who did it to you--they're the ones who deserve it. Nobody else does.

Before you reply to a post you should read it.

No I think most people are self intrested ... they are more intrested in backing the groups that put them ahead

Weather that be race or nationality or region or what not

i think all people are somewhat ethnocentric and xenophobic, i'm not sure that is exactly the same as racist. infact i kinda think racism is such a divisive and politically charged word, its impossible to definite it in a way that people can agree upon and therefore is of limited value except in polemics.

Before you reply to a post you should read it.
I did read it. I was trying to point out, I guess too obliquely, that you're not really racist, as long as you're only mad at the kids who beat you up. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I did read it. I was trying to point out, I guess too obliquely, that you're not really racist, as long as you're only mad at the kids who beat you up. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

There are no black people in China, nor Native Americans in Serbia. All the knowledge of the world in that.

Most old people are racist. I'm reserving hope for when they die off, though.

Most old people are racist. I'm reserving hope for when they die off, though.

Heh, one day. One day...

I am more of a specieist: I hate most humans.

Since people always seem more interested in things happening to people of their own nationality (eg in news reports you generally hear an emphasis put on the number of (in my case British) casualties over other nationalities, is it fair to assume that the majority of people are, to some extent at least, racist?

First, let's separate out what you're on about.

Racism = the belief in extant biologically distinct human races. This may include the belief that one "race" is superior.

Nationalism = the belief that one's nation is superior.

Ethnocentrism = the belief that one's cutural group is superior.

I'd say most people are racist because they continue to belive that race exists. I'd also say that most people are fairly nationalistic and ethnocentric.



i think all people are somewhat ethnocentric and xenophobic, i'm not sure that is exactly the same as racist. infact i kinda think racism is such a divisive and politically charged word, its impossible to definite it in a way that people can agree upon and therefore is of limited value except in polemics.

It isn't the same. Race is a biological entity and ethnicity is cultural.

Our brains are hardwired to think of people in an US and THEM system (according to a recent Discovery Magazine). I'm pretty sure that racism, however, isn't part of that. Racism is the belief that there is a tangible, genetic difference between human beings of different backgrounds... meaning different races. As we *know* there is only one human race, and there is no measurable difference between us, on a genetic level, Racism is clearly disproven.

... but yes, a lot of people still are racist.

Exactly so.

I think it is hardwired in the human brain. For the most part people keep a lid on it in a way that society can function without major problems.

The us/them divide may be hardwired, but that doesn't mean it has to be centered on race. Ethnicity, sub-culture, economic class, nationality, family, and friendships can all be the basis of the division.

I think it is hardwired in the human brain.

If it is, it is socially programmed, not part of human nature. Children are not racist ... they have to learn it from their parents.

Most old people are racist. I'm reserving hope for when they die off, though.
'Fraid not, I'm the new Breed!
*Sinister Look*

Since people always seem more interested in things happening to people of their own nationality (eg in news reports you generally hear an emphasis put on the number of (in my case British) casualties over other nationalities, is it fair to assume that the majority of people are, to some extent at least, racist?

I think you have fallen into the trap that so many do with the word racist. There are a lot of xenophobic and predjudiced and probably even bigoted people running around. But not many are really racist.

Irrational thoughts constantly pop into our heads. Including racist thoughts.

The difference between a sane person and a racist is that a sane person recognizes these thoughts as irrational and dismisses them.

Yes, I am indeed suggesting that racism is a form of insanity. :)

I don't think people are racist. I think most times 'racist' thoughts come from assigning the natural fear of the unknown to a tangible object. In other words, you instinctively don't like new things, and so your mind finds a 'rational' reason for this dislike, be it their looks, their colour or their height.

I expect Liberated New Ireland would have momentarily hated all one legged people if they had done to him what happened above; it doesn't make him 'disablist'.

I try not to worry about what other people are thinking (as long as they are not thinking about killing me!) but I'm not a racist.

However I do think that some cultures are better than others (for example, a culture that endorses Liberty is better than a culture that endorses stonning women to death as whores because they were raped).


Hehe and that's not a rcist thought then?

Yeah we all are, and as somebody has already pointed out, this is all normal.
On this posters answer though it seems clear to me that, this inherent racism is a cultural based thing.

Because culture A does action 1 then according to those living under culture B, culture A is wrong. This is a racist thought, and a racist line of reasoning.

Given human self-interest and self-centredness, I think most people are at least a little racist, although not to a damaging extent. It is merely an extension of the "us" and "they" mentality. If it leads to discrimination, it is more likely negative (ie disassociation) than positive (ie violence, harassment etc.). Ideological racists (who seek to rationalise racism) are far fewer, and this is by no means an inherent tendency.

Because culture A does action 1 then according to those living under culture B, culture A is wrong. This is a racist thought, and a racist line of reasoning.
No, incorrect. Racism specifically has to do with a person's race. Discrimination against another culture for whatever reason is not racism, unless it is combined with a hatred of people of a certain race. Otherwise it is not racism. Simple as that. The line of reasoning you refer to is common in any form of discrimination.

A dictionary reference to racism:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

You could call discrimination against other cultures culturalism, but it isn't racism, and it isn't necessary wrong either.

Hehe and that's not a rcist thought then?

Yeah we all are, and as somebody has already pointed out, this is all normal.
On this posters answer though it seems clear to me that, this inherent racism is a cultural based thing.

Because culture A does action 1 then according to those living under culture B, culture A is wrong. This is a racist thought, and a racist line of reasoning.
You people...

Racism is very narrowly defined, when defined accurately. Racism means that one believes that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

Learn to use a few more words to express your predjudices.

After today, I know for a fact that some part of me is a racist...

I was walking home from school, by my lonesome, and I went through a Safeway parking lot. A group of about 10 black kids stepped off a bus, and, naturally, they had to hassle the lone white kid, the easy target. Naturally, I couldn't hit back, since if I dared resist, they'd all jump in. Fucking pussies.

Long story short, it didn't escalate into a beatdown, but my left eye feels kinda puffy, and my sense of pride/morals/justice/whatever have taken a major hit. All I could think for the next four or five hours was "Fucking n***ers, if I had a chance, I'd kill 'em all, just hang 'em by their fucking tails..."
I'm really very ashamed for thinking that.

But I'm still fucking furious, and I want some payback...

Now, imagine living in a country where most of the crime is committed by a very small non-white minority ( for ex: Oslo Rape Statistics (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece) ), then imgaine one of your close friends being one of these rape victims. Then you can get some of my mentality.

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/3496/progresspartywebpagevk7.jpg

Everyone is a little racist because of what the human race has known to be true for pretty much their entire existence: People usually act differently if they live in other places, and very often they will look different as well.

We still yawn today because of a neanderthalic impulse, as do we have racist impulses because every time our ancestors met someone from a different area they learned "Hey this person is way different than the people from my area - in fact, all the people from that area are like this!" and that was true, a thousand or two years ago - people were mostly the same if they lived in the same areas. All black people really were bushmen. That's sinced changed, and we're still getting used to it, altering our knowledge.

Not particularly. Xenophobic, yes, but out right racist?

No, thems getting to be a rare breed, thank God for that. The more mixing that goes on, the smaller the world becomes, the harder it is to maintain racism to any great extent.

No, incorrect. Racism specifically has to do with a person's race. Discrimination against another culture for whatever reason is not racism, unless it is combined with a hatred of people of a certain race. Otherwise it is not racism. Simple as that. The line of reasoning you refer to is common in any form of discrimination.

A dictionary reference to racism:


You could call discrimination against other cultures culturalism, but it isn't racism, and it isn't necessary wrong either.


Hey Europa,

Yep granted, but I'm going with the feel of the post rather than the semantics of the post. I feel I know what the OP meant even though she/he didn't actualy put it in your words.

Yes I agree that pointing out the differances against differing cultures is not racism, yet when we engage in this activity do we say 'ohhh you know that North European culture, they all like the sex you know' Or are we more likely to say 'Them Swedes ohh I'd like one of them as an au pair, they're always at it'

So please forgive me in using a wider definition of the word, but you and I both know what we mean.

Now, imagine living in a country where most of the crime is committed by a very small non-white minority

Or imagine people sane enough to know that cultural integration takes three generations and a government that doesn't apologize on behalf of criminals due to cultural differences and prosecutes crimes to the fullest regardless of motivation.

Or imagine ducks waddling around the pondside, tossing M&Ms to groups of humans and chuckling as they squabble over them. I love my imagination. :)

Hey Europa,

Yep granted, but I'm going with the feel of the post rather than the semantics of the post. I feel I know what the OP meant even though she/he didn't actualy put it in your words.

Yes I agree that pointing out the differances against differing cultures is not racism, yet when we engage in this activity do we say 'ohhh you know that North European culture, they all like the sex you know' Or are we more likely to say 'Them Swedes ohh I'd like one of them as an au pair, they're always at it'

Again, this is not racism - merely cultural discrimination, of a sort. It is coincidental that most Swedes happen to be, say, white. If now, on the other hand, you specifically dislike them for being white, then you are racist. If you are trying to help the OP better express their opinion, fair enough. However, confusing the term racism with forms of prejudice that differ from the outset will not help.

Since people always seem more interested in things happening to people of their own nationality (eg in news reports you generally hear an emphasis put on the number of (in my case British) casualties over other nationalities, is it fair to assume that the majority of people are, to some extent at least, racist?

I can't say.

I know a lot of people that are slightly 'racist'... some that are very 'racist', and some that seem entirely colourblind.

I find it hard to believe there can BE 'racist' people in as cosmopolitan a world as we are living in... but people so often disappoint me...

I think people need to realise what racism actually is. There is too much PC b*****s around at the moment which says that if you sing "baa baa black sheep" you are being racist. In my opinion, anyone who thinks that is racist themselves.

I would say I am not racist because whilst their are some Muslim people I dont like and there are some Americans I dont like, there are just as many British people I dont like!!

Some countries have policies that I hate a dispise but the people from that country usually dont have a choice but to accept them. In the same way, we shouldn't be in Iraq but I am helpless to stop it.

I will never judge someone by their race because I have been travelling and met alot of people from different countries who have been amazing. It makes absolutly no difference where someone is from, it matters what they think and believe.

I used to have preconceptions about people before I met them but I have learned to not think like this anymore because until you speak to someone, you will never know what they are like....

Since people always seem more interested in things happening to people of their own nationality (eg in news reports you generally hear an emphasis put on the number of (in my case British) casualties over other nationalities, is it fair to assume that the majority of people are, to some extent at least, racist?

I don't consider that "racism". People are just generally more concerned with things that affect them directly. That doesn't really show an outright prejudice towards any nationality or other group of people.

Again, this is not racism - merely cultural discrimination, of a sort. It is coincidental that most Swedes happen to be, say, white. If now, on the other hand, you specifically dislike them for being white, then you are racist. If you are trying to help the OP better express their opinion, fair enough. However, confusing the term racism with forms of prejudice that differ from the outset will not help.

Heh so what you totaly missed my examples? Yes I agree with you.

Yet as in my example, if I'm talking about the differances in Northen Europe, and Southern European culture, but I say Swedes instead of Northean European culture, and so by doing so equate a culture with a race, am I then not guilty of racism?

If your thoughts and feelings are chaged from person to person based on race, this is racisim yes?

If your thoughts and feelings on are changed from person to person based on culture, whos outward apperance is based on racial differances then this also is racism.

I am a white convert to the Sikh faith, and so I have seen this cultural/rasicm cross. When I as a white man wear my turban, then any stick I get coming to me is not because of my race, but because of the culture of my faith.
Some people see me and think Paki lover, do you suggest that these thoughts cannot come under the term racist?

Or imagine people sane enough to know that cultural integration takes three generations and a government that doesn't apologize on behalf of criminals due to cultural differences and prosecutes crimes to the fullest regardless of motivation.

Or imagine ducks waddling around the pondside, tossing M&Ms to groups of humans and chuckling as they squabble over them. I love my imagination. :)

Oh yeah...like how young 3rd generation immigrants are acting in Netherlands? :rolleyes:

*sings* Everyone's a little bit racist...

I'd hoped that someone would quote Avenue Q. Well done.

"Evlyone's a riddle bit lace-ist!"

Heh so what you totaly missed my examples? Yes I agree with you.

Yet as in my example, if I'm talking about the differances in Northen Europe, and Southern European culture, but I say Swedes instead of Northean European culture, and so by doing so equate a culture with a race, am I then not guilty of racism?
If the majority is indeed of a certain race, not really. It's just coincidental, unless you actively factor race in.

If your thoughts and feelings are chaged from person to person based on race, this is racisim yes?
Yes.

If your thoughts and feelings on are changed from person to person based on culture, whos outward apperance is based on racial differances then this also is racism.
If you are factoring in their race, then yes. If not, no.

Some people see me and think Paki lover, do you suggest that these thoughts cannot come under the term racist?
This is.

Like I said, it is only racism when you actively discriminate against someone solely based on race.

Oh yeah...like how young 3rd generation immigrants are acting in Netherlands? :rolleyes:

Whereas, of course, disenfranchised 'whites' in other nations are all altar boys, right?

After today, I know for a fact that some part of me is a racist...

I was walking home from school, by my lonesome, and I went through a Safeway parking lot. A group of about 10 black kids stepped off a bus, and, naturally, they had to hassle the lone white kid, the easy target. Naturally, I couldn't hit back, since if I dared resist, they'd all jump in. Fucking pussies.

Long story short, it didn't escalate into a beatdown, but my left eye feels kinda puffy, and my sense of pride/morals/justice/whatever have taken a major hit. All I could think for the next four or five hours was "Fucking n***ers, if I had a chance, I'd kill 'em all, just hang 'em by their fucking tails..."
I'm really very ashamed for thinking that.

But I'm still fucking furious, and I want some payback...

If it was a group of white people who attacked you, what would you think? You would want to get THEM back, not everyone white. Surely it should be the same here? Just because they were black, it doesnt mean you have to hate their race instead of just them.

They are racist people; you get white ones as well. Hate them, not the innocent black and white people who hate racism!

Since people always seem more interested in things happening to people of their own nationality (eg in news reports you generally hear an emphasis put on the number of (in my case British) casualties over other nationalities, is it fair to assume that the majority of people are, to some extent at least, racist?
I think pretty much everybody on the planet ends up carrying around some racist thoughts or feelings. I know I have some from time to time. It bothers me, as I hope it bothers most people, but I think it's inevitable to have such feelings of "us versus them" sometimes. What matters is how you choose to act (or not act) on those feelings.

Whereas, of course, disenfranchised 'whites' in other nations are all altar boys, right?

In terms of cultural adaptation, it's one thing to think all women who doesnt wear headscarves are whores and hence "import" wives from mideast, it's another thing to rub a store.
Besides, in which non-white majority, slim white minority country, do whites commit most of the crimes?

I think pretty much everybody on the planet ends up carrying around some racist thoughts or feelings. I know I have some from time to time. It bothers me, as I hope it bothers most people, but I think it's inevitable to have such feelings of "us versus them" sometimes. What matters is how you choose to act (or not act) on those feelings.
Agreed. Like I said, it's ultimately an extension of human self-centredness and the "us" "them" mentality. Hence it isn't always dangerous in the majority of cases. Just present in most people.

In terms of cultural adaptation, it's one thing to think all women who doesnt wear headscarves are whores and hence "import" wives from mideast, it's another thing to rub a store.
Besides, in which non-white majority, slim white minority country, do whites commit most of the crimes?

I'm not the one making the outlandish claims and outrageous stereotypes.

I am thinking, though... the Vikings were from 'down your way', right?

And they were famous for what... flower arranging?

And they were famous for what... flower arranging?
I heard they were also excellent wedding planners and interior decorators! ^^

Agreed. Like I said, it's ultimately an extension of human self-centredness and the "us" "them" mentality. Hence it isn't always dangerous in the majority of cases. Just present in most people.

And it isn't always present, in terms of 'race' either.

Speaking for myself, in a group of people of mixed race, where there may well be racial tensions, the 'us' I would belong to would be the 'us' that was cosmopolitan and accepting, versus the 'them' of xenophobes. Colours of skin, irrelevent.

And it isn't always present, in terms of 'race' either.

Speaking for myself, in a group of people of mixed race, where there may well be racial tensions, the 'us' I would belong to would be the 'us' that was cosmopolitan and accepting, versus the 'them' of xenophobes. Colours of skin, irrelevent.
I was referring to a majority of cases. I do not disagree with you though, the "us" and "them" mentality differs from person to person. For me it is usually more along class, cultural and ideological lines (especially with regard to economics).

In terms of cultural adaptation, it's one thing to think all women who doesnt wear headscarves are whores and hence "import" wives from mideast, it's another thing to rub a store.
Besides, in which non-white majority, slim white minority country, do whites commit most of the crimes?

The thing with that line of thinking, is you'll find that actualy wherever you are it is the poorest of the nation that commit most crimes. So if you live in a country where a minority are the poorest then yes they will commit a lot of crime.

Hey Europa,

Yep again I agree, but lets not get caught up in the vaugeries of the English language huh! We can though just acept that some people use some words without understanding the presice meaning, and that when this ocours it is better to go with the flow then make an endless series of corrections.

As I have stated I was going more with the flow of the post than the actual words used. So bearing that in mind yes, most people are still a little 'racist' and as I have said, this seem quite normal behaviour to me.

Hey Europa,

Yep again I agree, but lets not get caught up in the vaugeries of the English language huh! We can though just acept that some people use some words without understanding the presice meaning, and that when this ocours it is better to go with the flow then make an endless series of corrections.
I prefer knowing what I am talking about, and dispelling ignorance wherever I can. Perception is ultimately reality, and better that people do not rest their "realities" on false perceptions, as far as this is possible. Merely an idiosyncracy of mine...

I will agree on this: almost all people have an "us" vs "them" mentality innate within them, and for the majority this manifests itself in the form of mild racism (at the most leading to negative discrimination). This doesn't require any sophisticated use of the English language.

I heard they were also excellent wedding planners and interior decorators! ^^
You forgot their unsurpassable skill in catering...

Taiyaki to anyone who gets THAT.

I prefer knowing what I am talking about, and dispelling ignorance wherever I can. Perception is ultimately reality, and better that people do not rest their "realities" on false perceptions, as far as this is possible. Merely an idiosyncracy of mine...

Hey I can't fault that. I'm a great beliver in education, and the fact that knowledge holds the key to all sorts of ills. I do wonder though how inherent this mode of thought is within the human animal, and how easy it is to get everybody thinking like this?

What I think is that it is not inherent, critical thought, is not the norm and is a skill that has to be taught to be mastered.

What I think is that it is not inherent, critical thought, is not the norm and is a skill that has to be taught to be mastered.
Definitely. So-called common sense is in fact not common at all. Humans are a mix of rationality with emotionality/instincts, or otherwise put, irrational tendencies. The exact ratio differs from person to person though.

Definitely. So-called common sense is in fact not common at all. Humans are a mix of rationality with emotionality, or otherwise put, irrational tendencies. The exact ratio differs from person to person though.

Yep again I agree, and knowing that then is it better to intuitivly grasp what somebody means if they have not communicated it in a way that is not wholey correct(or to your satisfaction), or to attempt to correct them even though you know that such an attempt may a) not work at all or b) cause some upset?

Agreed. Like I said, it's ultimately an extension of human self-centredness and the "us" "them" mentality. Hence it isn't always dangerous in the majority of cases. Just present in most people.
As long as people are aware of the racism in their thoughts I don't think it needs to be a problem. I have had unkind racist thoughts before, but I notice them and I examine them. I do my best to never act unthinkingly in ways that are disrespectful or hurtful, and this includes keeping an eye on my behavior when it comes to racism.

I have feelings I'm not proud of sometimes. I'm guessing most people do. I don't hold that against anybody, because I think it's part of being human. I don't believe feelings are good or bad, it's what we do with them that can be good or bad. Having a racist feeling can end up being a very good thing if it gets you to examine some of your preconceptions about others and be more careful about your behavior.

As long as people are aware of the racism in their thoughts I don't think it needs to be a problem. I have had unkind racist thoughts before, but I notice them and I examine them. I do my best to never act unthinkingly in ways that are disrespectful or hurtful, and this includes keeping an eye on my behavior when it comes to racism.

I have feelings I'm not proud of sometimes. I'm guessing most people do. I don't hold that against anybody, because I think it's part of being human. I don't believe feelings are good or bad, it's what we do with them that can be good or bad. Having a racist feeling can end up being a very good thing if it gets you to examine some of your preconceptions about others and be more careful about your behavior.

Umm and perhaps that is as true a real meaning of free will as we'll ever get huh!:D

As long as people are aware of the racism in their thoughts I don't think it needs to be a problem. I have had unkind racist thoughts before, but I notice them and I examine them. I do my best to never act unthinkingly in ways that are disrespectful or hurtful, and this includes keeping an eye on my behavior when it comes to racism.

I have feelings I'm not proud of sometimes. I'm guessing most people do. I don't hold that against anybody, because I think it's part of being human. I don't believe feelings are good or bad, it's what we do with them that can be good or bad. Having a racist feeling can end up being a very good thing if it gets you to examine some of your preconceptions about others and be more careful about your behavior.
As long as it doesn't lead to any forms of positive discrimination, it's really harmless. I'm not sure that most people who experience such feelings take an introspective view of them, but as long as they keep to themselves it's no issue. So I agree that actions, and not necessarily thoughts/feelings, are better qualified by value judgements such as good/bad.

I'm not the one making the outlandish claims and outrageous stereotypes.

I am thinking, though... the Vikings were from 'down your way', right?

And they were famous for what... flower arranging?

That was a thousand years ago. We are talking about now. But if you are suggesting that non-white immigrants are acting like Vikings 1000 years ago, u'd understand why I call them backwards.

If it is, it is socially programmed, not part of human nature. Children are not racist ... they have to learn it from their parents.

No, the point is that we, as a race - the HUMAN RACE - *are* hardwired to think divisively about people... again, I'm going to source Discovery Magazine and the BBC radio news from about two or three months ago... it shouldn't be a hard story to find. We think in an US and THEM mentality. This is not inherently racism, but it allows for it.

Hehe and that's not a rcist thought then?

Yeah we all are, and as somebody has already pointed out, this is all normal.
On this posters answer though it seems clear to me that, this inherent racism is a cultural based thing.

Because culture A does action 1 then according to those living under culture B, culture A is wrong. This is a racist thought, and a racist line of reasoning.

Not to repeat myself too much, but just because we think in an US and THEM mentality does not mean we are racist. Ethnocentrist, xenophobic, culturally elitist, and a host of other negative, and occasionally positive ideas come out of our dividing ourselves into groups.

Everyone is a little racist because of what the human race has known to be true for pretty much their entire existence: People usually act differently if they live in other places, and very often they will look different as well.

None of that makes us different RACES. Everyone is a little bit descriminatory, that is hardwired into us (see above), but not RACIST.

On the other hand though, there *is* a lot of Racism in the world, butthat has more to do with ignorance then with the way we are.

The thing with that line of thinking, is you'll find that actualy wherever you are it is the poorest of the nation that commit most crimes. So if you live in a country where a minority are the poorest then yes they will commit a lot of crime.

That's a reasonable assumption and I can understand that when we are talking about economical crimes, like robbing or stealing. But that doesnt explain crimes like rapes. Or crimes like stabbing a man in broad day light because he insulted someone's religion. Or honour-killings. These are all related with the culture of the immigrants instead of their economical status. And as Netherlands and Germany show us, things doesnt get any better with 3rd generation immigrants.

Oh yeah...like how young 3rd generation immigrants are acting in Netherlands? :rolleyes:

There's no such thing. :p

There's no such thing. :p

In Europe, there is. :)

In Europe, there is. :)

No, there isn't. There are just people who want to think there is.

No, the point is that we, as a race - the HUMAN RACE - *are* hardwired to think divisively about people... again, I'm going to source Discovery Magazine and the BBC radio news from about two or three months ago... it shouldn't be a hard story to find. We think in an US and THEM mentality. This is not inherently racism, but it allows for it.
In the majority of cases it does allow for it (among other such discriminatory mentalities), but usually just mild forms of racism as opposed to any such degrees of it that would lead to positive discrimination.

Human species, by the way.

I think most people are just sick and tired of the stereotypes that some people portray. But if you call them out on it, then you are considered racist. PC=BS.

racism is a tactik of devide and concor political opportunism. most people arn't that way inheirently but we are all gullable and many get brainwased into it.

(which is easy to do when that is all you are surrounded by for your entire childhood and much of your adult life as well)

=^^=
.../\...

No, there isn't. There are just people who want to think there is.

No, there are just people who want to think there isnt. Among other things, there are serious cultural differences between third generation immigrants and natives, in Europe, hence the reason for distinction.

Before I went to college, ALL my experiences with blacks were negative. At that point in my life, I was racist, but for good reason. The fact that most blacks aren't really that much different from most whites means little if all YOU see from blacks is hatred because you're white.

That kind of mutual hate is what leads to gang wars on the street, and real wars between countries.

No, there are just people who want to think there isnt. Among other things, there are serious cultural differences between third generation immigrants and natives, in Europe, hence the reason for distinction.

And I contend that there are no third generation immigrants. They are natives. Every bit as native as anybody else living there. The fact that there are cultural and ethnic differences is perfectly natural and normal. What isn't natural and normal are the divisions between people because of those differences. I don't know what's worse; people like you who see those differences as a weakness in their country, or apologists who think that 'they don't know any better' because of those cultural differences. Enforce your laws without bias. The Law ought to be blind to such things.

I hate naggers and puddin.

And I contend that there are no third generation immigrants. They are natives. Every bit as native as anybody else living there. The fact that there are cultural and ethnic differences is perfectly natural and normal. What isn't natural and normal are the divisions between people because of those differences. I don't know what's worse; people like you who see those differences as a weakness in their country, or apologists who think that 'they don't know any better' because of those cultural differences. Enforce your laws without bias. The Law ought to be blind to such things.

The thing you should contend is that you said something very stupid. Go get a dictionary and look up what native means. Is George W Bush a native American? Why are whites in USA who are there for hundreds of years NOT called native Americans? Because they arent native. That's the consenssus of the majority, that's how nativeness is defined. It's just you who's disputing it. As I said, "No, there are just people who want to think there isnt" 3rd generation immigrants.

The Law ought to be blind to such things.
People who act like animals in the jungle have adopted its code and ought to be dealt with like animals. ^^ The Law should show them no mercy. :)

Anyway, I agree with NN on this one with regard to natives/immigrants.

The thing you should contend is that you said something very stupid. Go get a dictionary and look up what native means. Is George W Bush a native American? Why are whites in USA who are there for hundreds of years NOT called native Americans? Because they arent native. That's the consenssus of the majority, that's how nativeness is defined. It's just you who's disputing it. As I said, "No, there are just people who want to think there isnt" 3rd generation immigrants.

Odds are good that nobody alive in Europe today is native by that definition.

Edit: And I don't agree with that definition of 'native american' either. Arrogant ethnic bullshit is arrogant ethnic bullshit regardless of it's source. However, in this case, 'native american' is a term concocted by guilty white people in an attempt to allay some of that guilt.

Odds are good that nobody alive in Europe today is native by that definition.

Edit: And I don't agree with that definition of 'native american' either. Arrogant ethnic bullshit is arrogant ethnic bullshit regardless of it's source. However, in this case, 'native american' is a term concocted by guilty white people in an attempt to allay some of that guilt.

I didnt give you a definition. I just displayed your error.

Odds are good that nobody alive in Europe today is native by that definition.

Edit: And I don't agree with that definition of 'native american' either. Arrogant ethnic bullshit is arrogant ethnic bullshit regardless of it's source. However, in this case, 'native american' is a term concocted by guilty white people in an attempt to allay some of that guilt.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm as "native" as anyone. My ancestors have been here well over a century, and my only connections are here, not "there". The fact that another group of people were here before my ancestors is no longer relevant.

I didnt give you a definition. I just displayed your error.

SInce I don't agree with the definition, I don't agree that I made an error. :p

I try not to worry about what other people are thinking (as long as they are not thinking about killing me!) but I'm not a racist.

However I do think that some cultures are better than others (for example, a culture that endorses Liberty is better than a culture that endorses stonning women to death as whores because they were raped).

I really shouldn't be rolling around laughing at that. It was seeing your post count of ---three--- which did it. Oh, rofl, chuck chuck chuckle! Too good! Noobs these days, they rock.

Most old people are racist. I'm reserving hope for when they die off, though.
I'd say that old people are more unashamedly racist. Based on the few I know, they associate the decline of traditional morals with the arrival of wogs or pakis or whatever. If it wasn't for wogs and pakis, they'd blame the change in society which they resent, which happened some time in their forties or fifties, with the introduction of television in every home, or takeaway food. To be brutally frank, it's just the time they grew old, and began to resent change.
First, let's separate out what you're on about.

Racism = the belief in extant biologically distinct human races. This may include the belief that one "race" is superior.

Oh, crap. That's not what most people mean by racism.
Sure, the term is overused, and misused. Redefining it as some sociological catagory is not going to work. You mean well -- you're talking crap.
You object to the misuse of the term? Fine. Tell us that the term simply means a belief in race, in defining individuals as being 'of a race' and then saying it isn't all right to do that, is addressing the issue with all the honesty of banning the wearing of swastikas. You're fighting the symptoms, and then claiming the disease is cured.

The worst of it, is that modern DNA analysis shows clearly the existence of race. Of huge groups of people who share significant genetic similarities, which persisted over tens of thousands of years in particular regions. You choose whether pale skin is a usefull adaptation to a lack of sunlight, or sociological racism. I frankly don't care - race is a scientific fact.

No, we should not judge an individual by their apparent race. Nor their race by their skin colour or skeleton shape. But to deny race altogether is simply insane: it is a denial of DNA. If you're a DNA luddite, just say so, and state your alternative theory of inheritance: perhaps you believe that each of our genetic inheritances is uniquely assigned by god at the time of our conception. But you need to propose an alternative, if you refute inheritance from parents. You really do.

Irrational thoughts constantly pop into our heads. Including racist thoughts.
Irrational thoughts DO NOT constantly pop into my heads. Don't goofopomorphosize, please.

The difference between a sane person and a racist is that a sane person recognizes these thoughts as irrational and dismisses them.

Yes, I am indeed suggesting that racism is a form of insanity. :)
You're close. Up until the point you throw your hands in the air and call it insanity. You acknowledge that it's too easy, then you say it's too hard.
Insanity is a line of thought that isn't worth following. Sometimes, it's impossible for others to follow. Sometimes, it is just difficult and seemingly not worth the effort. And sometimes, it is just recognizably crazy, ie, difficult and not worth the effort, and known to have been done before. Eugenic racism being a prime example of such.

Pray for us sinners.

I don't think people are racist. I think most times 'racist' thoughts come from assigning the natural fear of the unknown to a tangible object. In other words, you instinctively don't like new things, and so your mind finds a 'rational' reason for this dislike, be it their looks, their colour or their height.

I expect Liberated New Ireland would have momentarily hated all one legged people if they had done to him what happened above; it doesn't make him 'disablist'.
You're good. Ever get the feeling you're being ignored here? Wear it as a badge of honour.
Now, imagine living in a country where most of the crime is committed by a very small non-white minority ( for ex: Oslo Rape Statistics (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece) ), then imgaine one of your close friends being one of these rape victims. Then you can get some of my mentality.

This may come as a shock, but from what I have gleaned of your mentality: you can keep it!!
No, really. If you are a victim of vicarious trauma, you are not coping with it in a healthy way. Avail yourself of your excellent national health services, and get some counselling, psychiatry whatever.
This isn't meant as a put-down. I avail myself of my socially provided psychiatric services, because I acknowledge that some of my thoughts are not healthy. I try not to make others unwittingly share my problem, though I guess many here would say that I don't guard my craziness as well as I should. We listen, but ... we are not your therapist.


OH, CRAP. I haven't even finished replying to page one of three. This is ONE of those THREADS ... it's the thread I missed. I love the thread, I love you all, but life is just too short ... carry on.

I'd say that old people are more unashamedly racist. Based on the few I know, they associate the decline of traditional morals with the arrival of wogs or pakis or whatever. If it wasn't for wogs and pakis, they'd blame the change in society which they resent, which happened some time in their forties or fifties, with the introduction of television in every home, or takeaway food. To be brutally frank, it's just the time they grew old, and began to resent change.



Speaking as a fairly old guy, I'm actually LESS racist than I was in my youth, probably because I've met more people of various races/nationalities.

Besides, everyone knows the decline in morals is all the commies fault! Also, televison & takeawy food. :D

I think most people are just sick and tired of the stereotypes that some people portray. But if you call them out on it, then you are considered racist. PC=BS.

You do have a point, somebody on around page 1 or 2 of this tread suggested that anybody who actualy thinks that there is such a thing as race, is racist.

I've always found this a little odd. When we talk of the work done in autopsy for example it is very, very clear that we can find out what racil background somebody is from, by just examining the body. The skull IS differant depending on where you are born, both in size and shape. As are other features of the skelelton. Yet it will be very interesting to see how many people will now call me racist for pointing this out.

That's a reasonable assumption and I can understand that when we are talking about economical crimes, like robbing or stealing. But that doesnt explain crimes like rapes. Or crimes like stabbing a man in broad day light because he insulted someone's religion. Or honour-killings. These are all related with the culture of the immigrants instead of their economical status. And as Netherlands and Germany show us, things doesnt get any better with 3rd generation immigrants.

Then your wrong. I'm a 3rd generation immigrant but I don't go around commiting crimes in the name of religion (infact most f us are agnostic/atheist) or making a nuisance of myself. In fact I study hard and have a job. Before you say "you're a rarity and statistics show..." I tell you this. I live in a town where about 20% of the population are immigrants with 5% of them 3rd generation immigrants. About 0.1% of them commit crimes. The rest of us are all hard working people who have intergrated with society. So before you think statistics give an accurate viewpoint go to the places that seem to have the "problems" and view them yourself.......and I'm sorry about your friend being raped.

That was a thousand years ago. We are talking about now. But if you are suggesting that non-white immigrants are acting like Vikings 1000 years ago, u'd understand why I call them backwards.

It was a thousand years ago.

So?

Is 'racism' dependent on time, then? Was rape less 'rape-y' a thousand years ago? DId people back then actually enjoy being burned and butchered by cheerful invaders from the North?

Or - could the point actually be that some people are arseholes, some cultures have protected being an arsehole... and it has bugger all to do with the colour of your skin?

Given human self-interest and self-centredness, I think most people are at least a little racist, although not to a damaging extent.

Racism is always damaging to a certain extent. It will always produce sub-optimal societal results both for the discriminator and the person discriminated against.

Now, imagine living in a country where most of the crime is committed by a very small non-white minority ( for ex: Oslo Rape Statistics (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece) ), then imgaine one of your close friends being one of these rape victims. Then you can get some of my mentality.


Only if you can show that their race actually has something to do with the rape.

You could call discrimination against other cultures culturalism, but it isn't racism, and it isn't necessary wrong either.

How is it not wrong?

ALL people understand their identities and the indentities of those they meet in terms of their differences and commonalities within groups (race, nationality, gender, age). So necessarily all people are racists. "Racist" has a strong negative conotation but without emotion it's simply a fact that people make snap judgments about other people all the time on account of rapidly accessable information such as race.

Or imagine ducks waddling around the pondside, tossing M&Ms to groups of humans and chuckling as they squabble over them.

Whee!!! :)

Besides, in which non-white majority, slim white minority country, do whites commit most of the crimes?

Whites commit a disproportionate number of white collar crimes. Does this mean they should not be put in positions of authority or they are not to be trusted?

Racism is always damaging to a certain extent. It will always produce sub-optimal societal results both for the discriminator and the person discriminated against.
To varying extents. There are degrees of racism. Mild racism which leads, at worst, to negative discrimination (ie non-association) is not overly damaging. Stronger forms of racism, at worst, lead to positive discrimination (ie violence, harasssment and the like), which is infectious and dangerous. In the former case, the fact that the discriminator suffers losses for their behaviour may discourage such attitudes (for instance refusing to hire a good employee on the grounds of colour will result in pecuniary losses for a racist employer). In the latter, the discriminator is usually irrational anyway, and can cause substantial damage to the victim. So essentially, in the latter case is the cause for concern greatest. We negatively discriminate all the time, sometimes wrongly, sometimes rightly (when you choose to befriend a person and not to befriend another for any reason, this is a form of -ve discrimination) - it's positive discrimination that is usually the real danger.

How is it not wrong?
If you abide by a certain set of principles, and judge certain cultures to not live up to your standards, you have all the right to look down on them. I, for instance, see any culture which allows women to be stoned as belonging in the paleolithic era. We judge people by certain standards all the time. Cultures are not exempt, provided we don't get in the habit of generalising to the point of excluding individuals who deviate from their cultural norms. I am a believer in the philosophy of live and let live and in tolerance, yet this does not mean I will see certain behaviours/ cultural practices as perfectly fine.

To varying extents. There are degrees of racism. Mild racism which leads, at worst, to negative discrimination (ie non-association) is not overly damaging.

It can be incredibly damaging to those who experience it. It can do intense psychological damage ... it strikes at people's very sense of self.


If you abide by a certain set of principles, and judge certain cultures to not live up to your standards, you have all the right to look down on them. I, for instance, see any culture which allows women to be stoned as belonging in the paleolithic era. We judge people by certain standards all the time. Cultures are not exempt, provided we don't get in the habit of generalising to the point of excluding individuals who deviate from their cultural norms. I am a believer in the philosophy of live and let live and in tolerance, yet this does not mean I will see certain behaviours/ cultural practices as perfectly fine.

The only time you should look down on someone is when you are helping them up. The standards you are applying would generally not be universals, but rather standards which derive from your own cultural background. In applying them to other cultures, you are merely manifesting a cultural bias. This is not helpful. It is destructive.

After today, I know for a fact that some part of me is a racist...

I was walking home from school, by my lonesome, and I went through a Safeway parking lot. A group of about 10 black kids stepped off a bus, and, naturally, they had to hassle the lone white kid, the easy target. Naturally, I couldn't hit back, since if I dared resist, they'd all jump in. Fucking pussies.

Long story short, it didn't escalate into a beatdown, but my left eye feels kinda puffy, and my sense of pride/morals/justice/whatever have taken a major hit. All I could think for the next four or five hours was "Fucking n***ers, if I had a chance, I'd kill 'em all, just hang 'em by their fucking tails..."
I'm really very ashamed for thinking that.

But I'm still fucking furious, and I want some payback...
Your reaction is understandable. The fact that you felt ashamed about it is a good thing ... it means you recognize that your reaction was not reasonable. It is no more reasonable to be angry at all black people because those kids were black than it would be to be angry at all white people if they had happened to be white (or as someone else said, all one-legged people). If they singled you out because you were white, then that makes the argument all the more forceful ... because that is how discrimination feels. No-one likes it when it happens to them. No-one should. Thank you for sharing your story.

It can be incredibly damaging to those who experience it. It can do intense psychological damage ... it strikes at people's very sense of self.
All forms of negative discrimination do, whether based on racist motives or not. It is actually less harsh when based on them because it is less personal than if say someone simply dislikes your personality or is unhappy with the work you are doing. That is to say, it is by no means the harshest form of non-association. You cannot force people to like you. The best one can do is express how they feel and not take things personally...

The only time you should look down on someone is when you are helping them up. The standards you are applying would generally not be universals, but rather standards which derive from your own cultural background. In applying them to other cultures, you are merely manifesting a cultural bias. This is not helpful. It is destructive.
I disagree. If a culture contains elements which I personally judge as damaging, I will not condone it. For instance, any culture which would allow manifest oppression of women is not all right by me, and either must be avoided or advised to change its ways (I am not interventionist, hence do not support any form of interference though). My standards are less harsh than those of most, but I will not cut anyone any slack. To me, any modern culture that stifles individualism and freedom is worthless.

<snip>

This may come as a shock, but from what I have gleaned of your mentality: you can keep it!!
No, really. If you are a victim of vicarious trauma, you are not coping with it in a healthy way. Avail yourself of your excellent national health services, and get some counselling, psychiatry whatever.
This isn't meant as a put-down. I avail myself of my socially provided psychiatric services, because I acknowledge that some of my thoughts are not healthy. I try not to make others unwittingly share my problem, though I guess many here would say that I don't guard my craziness as well as I should. We listen, but ... we are not your therapist.


OH, CRAP. I haven't even finished replying to page one of three. This is ONE of those THREADS ... it's the thread I missed. I love the thread, I love you all, but life is just too short ... carry on.

Even if I was a victim of vicarious trauma, I wouldnt need or want your help since obviously you cant read.

Then your wrong. I'm a 3rd generation immigrant but I don't go around commiting crimes in the name of religion (infact most f us are agnostic/atheist) or making a nuisance of myself. In fact I study hard and have a job. Before you say "you're a rarity and statistics show..." I tell you this. I live in a town where about 20% of the population are immigrants with 5% of them 3rd generation immigrants. About 0.1% of them commit crimes. The rest of us are all hard working people who have intergrated with society. So before you think statistics give an accurate viewpoint go to the places that seem to have the "problems" and view them yourself.......and I'm sorry about your friend being raped.

Where did your grandparents immigrate from?

It was a thousand years ago.

So?

Is 'racism' dependent on time, then? Was rape less 'rape-y' a thousand years ago? DId people back then actually enjoy being burned and butchered by cheerful invaders from the North?

Or - could the point actually be that some people are arseholes, some cultures have protected being an arsehole... and it has bugger all to do with the colour of your skin?

What is dependant on time is the fact that some populations develop much faster then others.

Where did your grandparents immigrate from?

India

The best one can do is express how they feel and not take things personally... [QUOTE]

That is a nice sentiment, but not terribly realistic. How can you not take things personally when the reason someone dislikes you strikes at the very core of your being? When they dislike you based on personal characteristics that you cannot change and that make you who you are?

[QUOTE]
I disagree. If a culture contains elements which I personally judge as damaging, I will not condone it. For instance, any culture which would allow manifest oppression of women is not all right by me, and either must be avoided or advised to change its ways (I am not interventionist, hence do not support any form of interference though). My standards are less harsh than those of most, but I will not cut anyone any slack. To me, any modern culture that stifles individualism and freedom is worthless.

Fair enough. Non-oppression of women is probably a universal standard. But individualism is not, and definitions of freedom differ from culture to culture. So the standards you are applying are pretty subjective, not objective. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't apply them. I'm just saying you should be conscious of the fact that they are not universals.

That is a nice sentiment, but not terribly realistic. How can you not take things personally when the reason someone dislikes you strikes at the very core of your being? When they dislike you based on personal characteristics that you cannot change and that make you who you are?
Racism in the form of negative discrimination does not differ too much from other types. People often dislike others for traits that are beyond their control. This is in human nature, and is to a large extent unavoidable. Like I said, you cannot (and should not) force people to like you - it is impossible. People can find plenty of reasons not to like you - it's best just to move on. Thus, it is best to let the person discriminating know how you feel, but to ultimately disregard their opinion. I know some people are more emotional than others, but it's really for the best.

Fair enough. Non-oppression of women is probably a universal standard. But individualism is not, and definitions of freedom differ from culture to culture. So the standards you are applying are pretty subjective, not objective. I'm not saying you can't or shouldn't apply them. I'm just saying you should be conscious of the fact that they are not universals.
Oh, I know this. I am willing to argue them and substantiate them too.

Since people always seem more interested in things happening to people of their own nationality (eg in news reports you generally hear an emphasis put on the number of (in my case British) casualties over other nationalities, is it fair to assume that the majority of people are, to some extent at least, racist?
Ahh! too many Britons in NS,I say we set Brittania on fire, so then they'll be too busy trying to quench the flames! [srcsm]

Yeah, especially those of European descent, its in their blood!

Since people always seem more interested in things happening to people of their own nationality (eg in news reports you generally hear an emphasis put on the number of (in my case British) casualties over other nationalities, is it fair to assume that the majority of people are, to some extent at least, racist?

THAT IS NOT RACISM!!! Most people these days tend to assume that the words prejudiced and racist mean the same thing. (They don't; racism is much more specific.) Just the other day, I heard someone saying that people are racist against Hummer drivers and then started to complain that they are Hummer-racist. Racism refers solely to prejudice against people of a certain race! (Though, it has also come to mean people of a certain religion as well, because, in old times, people used to refer to people of minorities as being in their own race. Additionally, I think this definition stretches to include any group being treated as a different species. (Such as something I heard not too long ago of "If that [stretch of open land behind this neighborhood in Los Angeles] becomes a park, we'll have Mexicans climbing over our fences and attacking our women." That was said by a wealthy lawyer and legal advisor to the residents of the neighborhood surrounding Las Pulgas Canyon. Needless to say, it was very sickening. The United States has a very serious problem with prejudice at the moment, especially against gays, Muslims, and Mexicans.)) In a moment, I will post a handy guide to the different kinds of prejudice.

India

I know there are lots of decent immigrants out there. But I just believe it'd be better if they immigrate to North America or Ocenia instead of Europe. Actually, on per capita basis, they are even more wealthier then EU and with a lower unemployment.

prejudice: beleif in the inferiority of a specific group of people or unfair treatment to them-- this may also include fear and/or critical misunderstanding of that group

racism: prejudice against people of a specific race or religion (viewed as much more serious than ordinary prejudice)

sexism: prejudice against members of a specific gender

homophobia: prejudice against gays, lesbianst, bisexual, and/or transgender individuals

xenophobia: fear of foreigners; usually includes prejudice against those "foreigners"


Hope this helps!!

racism: prejudice against people of a specific race or religion (viewed as much more serious than ordinary prejudice)

This is incorrect. Prejudice against members of a specific religion has nothing to do with racism in and of itself. Christianity, for instance, has members of all races. Being anti-Christian doesn't mean you are against the "race of Christians", because there is no such thing.

Since people always seem more interested in things happening to people of their own nationality (eg in news reports you generally hear an emphasis put on the number of (in my case British) casualties over other nationalities, is it fair to assume that the majority of people are, to some extent at least, racist?

You're refering mainly to nations, not a particular race. If you mean by race, talk about race. But now, a lot of the more developed nations are far more 'diverse' that simply going "Yay America!" isn't saying "Yay (insert race here)".

Being patriotic, however unfashionable it is, is NOT being racist.

If you abide by a certain set of principles, and judge certain cultures to not live up to your standards, you have all the right to look down on them. I, for instance, see any culture which allows women to be stoned as belonging in the paleolithic era. We judge people by certain standards all the time. Cultures are not exempt, provided we don't get in the habit of generalising to the point of excluding individuals who deviate from their cultural norms. I am a believer in the philosophy of live and let live and in tolerance, yet this does not mean I will see certain behaviours/ cultural practices as perfectly fine.

But you are talking about 'culture'... a value which has nothing to do with 'race'.

What is dependant on time is the fact that some populations develop much faster then others.

You prevaricate.

What you are saying means nothing... unless you are saying that some 'races' earn your hate by being less 'evolved' or something... in which case, I'd say you were 'talking through your hat'.

But you are talking about 'culture'... a value which has nothing to do with 'race'.
Ermm, well duh. Those comments you are quoting were made with reference to a small hijack, in which I was clarifying the difference between discriminating against certain cultures and racial discrimination. I know my "isms" well. :p

I think the ones who most firmly insist that 'everyone is a little bit racist' are trying to excuse their own racism.

And not surprisingly I see NN arguing vehemently in this thread...

I know there are lots of decent immigrants out there. But I just believe it'd be better if they immigrate to North America or Ocenia instead of Europe. Actually, on per capita basis, they are even more wealthier then EU and with a lower unemployment.

Why, because your cultures haven't developed enough to be able to handle such immigrantes? [innocentlook]

People often dislike others for traits that are beyond their control. This is in human nature, and is to a large extent unavoidable.

I disagree. It is socially programmed behaviour, not part of human nature. Young children do not exhibit this kind of behaviour. It is learned.

Humans are pack animals just like wolves. The difference is humans can choose who they want in their pack. Wolves are stuck with the pack they are born in.

The pack can and does change based on the enemy at the moment. A high school or college can be a pack if a big game is being played against another high school or college pack. Or it can shrink to those that go to my church, or those that I drink with on Saturday night. Or it can expand to "the west" vs. the rest of the world, or Christian nations vs. Muslim nations.

The human animal survived because the pack protected individuals from other packs. Of course it is easier to pick out the players if one pack wears a different uniform than the other pack. Or just different skin than the other pack.

Why, because your cultures haven't developed enough to be able to handle such immigrantes? [innocentlook]

Whatever works...

I disagree. It is socially programmed behaviour, not part of human nature. Young children do not exhibit this kind of behaviour. It is learned.
And here I will disagree. Various mammals, such as lions or wolves or apes, select friends and enemies, or however they may be described. They too discriminate in certain ways (Good Lifes put it rather well). It is vital to their societal functions. This is no result of conditioning. Many behavioural psychologists and biologists studying human nature agree that this is part of said nature. and not a result of nurture (the basic "us" and "them" mentality is human nature, although some biases may be due to nurture). A creature that is unable to distinguish between allies and enemies, or to select desirable traits in allies and mates, wouldn't last very long anyway. It's part of nature. Humans simply exhibit more complex forms of this "us" and "them" mentality. Some forms of this mentality (e.g. racism) can be discouraged (albeit not always), but the base mentality will always exist within humans so long as they are social beings - it really depends on what a human sees as "us" and "them, which partially can be influenced by nurture, but is largely due to their own makeup and personality (which is genetically influenced).

By merely spending more time with a friend whose company you prefer, you are (perhaps inadvertently) discriminating in a way. Or are your preferences for a friend only the result of social conditioning, and perhaps not the result of some innate human mentality? My point is the criteria by which you choose may indeed be influenced by nurture, as well as genes, but the core mentality behind discriminating in human relations is basic instinct. As for young children, as soon as they begin forming social relationships, they too begin selecting friends and such, ergo discriminate in a way.

To help you realise exactly what I mean by discrimination:
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.
I am referring to instance 4, which is the word's proper and more general meaning, essentially choosing based on tastes. Only recently did the word acquire so narrow a meaning as bigotry.

The only time you should look down on someone is when you are helping them up. The standards you are applying would generally not be universals, but rather standards which derive from your own cultural background. In applying them to other cultures, you are merely manifesting a cultural bias. This is not helpful. It is destructive.

Are you saying that you never make snap judgments about people, based solely on what they look like? Coz If you are I'm sorry I just don't belive you.

I don't know how old you are so I'm not sure how relevant some of this will be, but can you honestly say that you can answer no to all of these questions.

You have never automaticly checked that your possesions are safe about your person when walking down the road and coming face to face with a dozen hooded youth(of whatever colour)

You have never been approached by two good looking, well dressed youths in the street, and automaticy said no to them and carrried on walking(Even though you cannot be sure that they are Mormons)

You have never suddenly crossed the road to aviod a group of drunken people exiting a pub, because of the type of cloths that ther wear.

We all make snap judgments, and it is not wrong because it is normal. It becomes wrong when we act on the more negative of these judgements. Having the thought is not wrong, acting on it can said to be.

I think the ones who most firmly insist that 'everyone is a little bit racist' are trying to excuse their own racism.

And not surprisingly I see NN arguing vehemently in this thread...

I'll take umbridge to that I certianly do not fit that profile, and I am one of those saying that yes everybody is a bit racist. Even you are, cept I guess your too scared to admit it?

To fear the unknown or that which is differant, far from being wrong is a perfectly normal human response. To automaticaly want to cross the road when faced with a gang of racialy differant youths, is a normal 'Racist' behaviour. To act on that fear in a beligerant way towards those youths is bad 'Racist' behaviour. Can you not see the differance?

But you are talking about 'culture'... a value which has nothing to do with 'race'.

How can that be true? When we talk about differing cultures normaly we mean cultures from not our own country, so what about that does not include race then? When we want to talk of how the modern day Romans love their mothers, we say Italian culture, and we talk about Italians, and how Italian's love their mums.

I disagree. It is socially programmed behaviour, not part of human nature. Young children do not exhibit this kind of behaviour. It is learned.

Umm interesting, that may be the case but have you got the proof for that?

I ask because I have thought that perhaps, young children don't show these signs for the same reason that young children do not have pubic hair. They have not yet developed that way.

The human brain does not stop developing until the onset of the 20's, and even then it could be said that it carries on maturing for the rest of the human life.

So is it learnt behaviour, or is it natural development?

Are you saying that you never make snap judgments about people, based solely on what they look like? Coz If you are I'm sorry I just don't belive you.

I have. And I am always ashamed afterward. Because I know that the thought is unreasonable.


I don't know how old you are so I'm not sure how relevant some of this will be, but can you honestly say that you can answer no to all of these questions.

You have never automaticly checked that your possesions are safe about your person when walking down the road and coming face to face with a dozen hooded youth(of whatever colour)

Yes.


You have never been approached by two good looking, well dressed youths in the street, and automaticy said no to them and carrried on walking(Even though you cannot be sure that they are Mormons) [QUOTE]

No.

[QUOTE]
You have never suddenly crossed the road to aviod a group of drunken people exiting a pub, because of the type of cloths that ther wear.


No, I avoid drunks generally, regardless of race or otherwise. Except when I am drunk myself.


We all make snap judgments, and it is not wrong because it is normal. It becomes wrong when we act on the more negative of these judgements. Having the thought is not wrong, acting on it can said to be.

Having the thought is not wrong. Not recognizing that it is wrong is.

Umm interesting, that may be the case but have you got the proof for that?

I ask because I have thought that perhaps, young children don't show these signs for the same reason that young children do not have pubic hair. They have not yet developed that way.

The human brain does not stop developing until the onset of the 20's, and even then it could be said that it carries on maturing for the rest of the human life.

So is it learnt behaviour, or is it natural development?
For proof I can only offer my decades of experience working with children. They do not differentiate people based on irrelevant personal characteristics. When they do begin to exhibit racist or discriminatory attitudes, they are mimicing their parents or other role models ... the words are literally taken right out of their mouths. It is not a matter of maturity, but rather of learned behaviour.

For proof I can only offer my decades of experience working with children. They do not differentiate people based on irrelevant personal characteristics. When they do begin to exhibit racist or discriminatory attitudes, they are mimicing their parents or other role models ... the words are literally taken right out of their mouths. It is not a matter of maturity, but rather of learned behaviour.


Again you be right, I really don't know, I was just following another line of reasoning, but again your years of experiance only show that as children get older they start to develop racist tendancies, it does nowt to show where they come from.

That the words children use are copied from others is largly irrelevent. Have you noticed in your experiance a pattern to this development of racist attitude in children?

I can also offer personal proof. I have never brought my children up to think anything else but the colour of the skin has no bearing on what sort of a person somebody is.

Yet two years ago my oldest boy almost got mugged by two black boys just down the road from us. He was walking down the road when he saw two hoodies(sorry I hate these media terms but I guess most people know what I mean by the word) approaching him, he told me that he just got scarred as soon as he saw them and couldn't understand why that was, then when the asked him for his phone ect he took off before it all got heavy(good lad that he is)

Now I know that he didn't get this from me nor his mother, nor his school friends, his school at that time was(and still is) a highly multicultural/race school in SE London, so if he did learn this, I would like to know form where.

Yet two years ago my oldest boy almost got mugged by two black boys just down the road from us. He was walking down the road when he saw two hoodies(sorry I hate these media terms but I guess most people know what I mean by the word) approaching him, he told me that he just got scarred as soon as he saw them and couldn't understand why that was, then when the asked him for his phone ect he took off before it all got heavy(good lad that he is)

Now I know that he didn't get this from me nor his mother, nor his school friends, his school at that time was(and still is) a highly multicultural/race school in SE London, so if he did learn this, I would like to know form where.

Thank you for sharing that story. I feel bad for your son. That kind of stuff makes you feel terrible.

As I said, I think it is still learned behaviour ... from parents or other sources. I went to an incredibly multicultural school, yet I still learned lots or racist attitudes; from white kids and otherwise. As you said, the media portrays these things in a certain way ... maybe your son got it from there?

And here I will disagree. Various mammals, such as lions or wolves or apes, select friends and enemies, or however they may be described.

Yet, as has been pointed out before, of the above, only human beings have the capacity to reason. Surely we can find a way to behave better than wolves, lions and apes?

Thank you for sharing that story. I feel bad for your son. That kind of stuff makes you feel terrible.

As I said, I think it is still learned behaviour ... from parents or other sources. I went to an incredibly multicultural school, yet I still learned lots or racist attitudes; from white kids and otherwise. As you said, the media portrays these things in a certain way ... maybe your son got it from there?


Heh yeah perhaps, and perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, as I say you may be right, I certianly don't know enough to make up me mind. Strange though innit, the mind I mean, you can already tell which way I lean and I have just admitted that I don't have enough data to make up me mind, *sigh* predisposition perhaps?

You're quite welcome, make me feel bad, hehe naaaa it's all part of life, and I'd rather he get into these little scraps and learn how to fight or aviod them now, than enter the adult world all wide eyed and innocent.(read target)

Heh yeah perhaps, and perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, as I say you may be right, I certianly don't know enough to make up me mind.

Nor do I. And I appreciate that you are the rare person on NS who is prepared to admit that. I really do.


Strange though innit, the mind I mean, you can already tell which way I lean and I have just admitted that I don't have enough data to make up me mind, *sigh* predisposition perhaps?

Who knows? My experience may just be "confirming" my predispositions too.


You're quite welcome, make me feel bad, hehe naaaa it's all part of life, and I'd rather he get into these little scraps and learn how to fight or aviod them now, than enter the adult world all wide eyed and innocent.(read target)

Agreed. It is so tough to raise kids to be good enough to strive for the best, yet be bad enough to deal with the real world.

Yet, as has been pointed out before, of the above, only human beings have the capacity to reason. Surely we can find a way to behave better than wolves, lions and apes?
...

Think before you respond rather than offering regurgitated responses to the effect "we are better than animals" to try and refute my points. Yes, humans can reason, and therefore they can eliminate some forms of discrimination, at least to the point of not acting on their sentiments. However, the "us" and "them" base mentality exists in all social animals, and is the result of an animal choosing social organisation over solitary life, in order to orientate itself. It is not base, but rather essential and unavoidable to be able to discriminate between social peers. Animals do it free of bigotry; in a way, their discrimination is based solely on rationality (ie which mate will bear me the best offspring and other such considerations), since they are free of the intricacies which typify human societies.

I am not saying bigotry is natural; I am saying that the instinct it is based off is (the instinct to discriminate, or better, to choose and differentiate). There is a difference.

We are a higher form of animal, but animal nonetheless. Denying our genetic makeup and instincts is like denying gravity. It is denying reality.

In the majority of cases it does allow for it (among other such discriminatory mentalities), but usually just mild forms of racism as opposed to any such degrees of it that would lead to positive discrimination.

Human species, by the way.

We are in agreement that the way the brain is built allows for, and perhaps encourages racism in us. As to your correction, no. Humanity is both a Race - ONE race - and a species.

The thing you should contend is that you said something very stupid. Go get a dictionary and look up what native means. Is George W Bush a native American? Why are whites in USA who are there for hundreds of years NOT called native Americans? Because they arent native. That's the consenssus of the majority, that's how nativeness is defined. It's just you who's disputing it. As I said, "No, there are just people who want to think there isnt" 3rd generation immigrants.

This is just plain wrong on every point. YOU go look up the word native, because clearly you don't understand it, but since you are clearly not going to on your own, I'll do it for you:

(From Dictionary.com)
na·tive (nā'tĭv) pronunciation
adj.

1. Existing in or belonging to one by nature; innate: native ability.
2. Being such by birth or origin: a native Scot.
3. Being one's own because of the place or circumstances of one's birth: our native land.
4. Originating, growing, or produced in a certain place or region; indigenous: a plant native to Asia.
5.
1. Being a member of the original inhabitants of a particular place.
2. Of, belonging to, or characteristic of such inhabitants: native dress; the native diet of Polynesia.
6. Occurring in nature pure or uncombined with other substances: native copper.
7. Natural; unaffected: native beauty.
8. Archaic. Closely related, as by birth or race.
9. Biochemistry. Of or relating to the naturally occurring conformation of a macromolecule, such as a protein.

n.

1.
1. One born in or connected with a place by birth: a native of Scotland now living in the United States.
2. One of the original inhabitants or lifelong residents of a place.
2. An animal or plant that originated in a particular place or region.

That's just a little bit larger then you probably felt it would be, I'll bet. I'm also not using the word 'thought' as you clearly did not think at all.

prejudice: beleif in the inferiority of a specific group of people or unfair treatment to them-- this may also include fear and/or critical misunderstanding of that group

racism: prejudice against people of a specific race or religion (viewed as much more serious than ordinary prejudice)

sexism: prejudice against members of a specific gender

homophobia: prejudice against gays, lesbianst, bisexual, and/or transgender individuals

xenophobia: fear of foreigners; usually includes prejudice against those "foreigners"


Hope this helps!!

This is incorrect. Prejudice against members of a specific religion has nothing to do with racism in and of itself. Christianity, for instance, has members of all races. Being anti-Christian doesn't mean you are against the "race of Christians", because there is no such thing.

RACISM is a PSEUDOSCIENCE - or the belief in the pseudoscience - that postulates that there are vital genetic differences between Human Beings of different orrigins or appearances.

One does not need to be descriminatory to be a racist, one must only believe that different ethnicities are different races. Since most people actually seem to think that, it seems to me that many people *are* racist... and a lot of them are also descriminatory because of it.

How can that be true? When we talk about differing cultures normaly we mean cultures from not our own country, so what about that does not include race then? When we want to talk of how the modern day Romans love their mothers, we say Italian culture, and we talk about Italians, and how Italian's love their mums.

I don't know which country you live in, so I can't speak to your specific case...

When I was still living in the UK, I noticed two very clear 'cultures' based on geography, and a number of lesser divisions based on more specific geography. This was true regardless of skin colour... although some of the divisions also had marked 'ethnic' issues.

Now I live in rural Georgia, and the town where I work has a number of distinct 'racial' cultures, and another of those 'race-irrelevent' divides based around 'old families' and 'new families'... the established names versus the Yankees or 'Floridiots' (their term, not mine) that have moved out here to retire, etc.

Culture sometimes divides along 'colour' or nation lines... but far from always.

We are in agreement that the way the brain is built allows for, and perhaps encourages racism in us. As to your correction, no. Humanity is both a Race - ONE race - and a species.
This is incorrect. To give you an analogy, cats are a species (not a race), yet various breeds of cat (e.g. Siamese) are called races or pedigrees of cat. Humans cannot be called a race as a whole. Only a species.

RACISM is a PSEUDOSCIENCE - or the belief in the pseudoscience - that postulates that there are vital genetic differences between Human Beings of different orrigins or appearances.

One does not need to be descriminatory to be a racist, one must only believe that different ethnicities are different races. Since most people actually seem to think that, it seems to me that many people *are* racist... and a lot of them are also descriminatory because of it.
Here is a dictionary definition:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

The Oxford Dictionary concurs with this definition. Racism is specifically the aforementioned. I agree though that racism needn't be discriminatory - this, however, removes its sting. Simply believing differences exist isn't somehow "evil"... If people choose to negatively discriminate, it is their problem, and perhaps their loss - I will, however, strongly oppose all forms of positive discrimination.

Whether or not the belief is based on pseudo-science is something I will have to do more reading of my own to determine. It's probably true that a lot of people, perhaps the majority, hold these beliefs.

I don't know which country you live in, so I can't speak to your specific case...

When I was still living in the UK, I noticed two very clear 'cultures' based on geography, and a number of lesser divisions based on more specific geography. This was true regardless of skin colour... although some of the divisions also had marked 'ethnic' issues.

Now I live in rural Georgia, and the town where I work has a number of distinct 'racial' cultures, and another of those 'race-irrelevent' divides based around 'old families' and 'new families'... the established names versus the Yankees or 'Floridiots' (their term, not mine) that have moved out here to retire, etc.

Culture sometimes divides along 'colour' or nation lines... but far from always.



Agreed!

We are a higher form of animal, but animal nonetheless. Denying our genetic makeup and instincts is like denying gravity. It is denying reality.

People really, I have been through all o fthis before, but there is no such thing as gravity.

This is incorrect. To give you an analogy, cats are a species (not a race), yet various breeds of cat (e.g. Siamese) are called races or pedigrees of cat. Humans cannot be called a race as a whole. Only a species.


Here is a dictionary definition:



The Oxford Dictionary concurs with this definition. Racism is specifically the aforementioned. I agree though that racism needn't be discriminatory - this, however, removes its sting. Simply believing differences exist isn't somehow "evil"... If people choose to negatively discriminate, it is their problem, and perhaps their loss - I will, however, strongly oppose all forms of positive discrimination.

Whether or not the belief is based on pseudo-science is something I will have to do more reading of my own to determine. It's probably true that a lot of people, perhaps the majority, hold these beliefs.

Read the definition for racism you gave, and the one I gave, and you will see that they agree completely ... although I feel mine was more specific because I addressed the orrigins in pseudoscience.

ANYWAY, we basically agree on that.

As to Humanity being a race or not, in a purely biological/taxonomological sense, you are %100 correct. A species is limited to/defined by those who are capable of interbreeding, and a race is a gentically divisible subset of that group. However, in English when not discussing biology or taxonomy specifically, it is accurate and acceptible to take a wider view and accept Humanity as a race because we are not completely alone as feeling beings, and socially the ability to procreate is not the defining limit.

I'll take umbridge to that I certianly do not fit that profile, and I am one of those saying that yes everybody is a bit racist. Even you are, cept I guess your too scared to admit it?


No, I'm not racist.


To fear the unknown or that which is differant, far from being wrong is a perfectly normal human response. To automaticaly want to cross the road when faced with a gang of racialy differant youths, is a normal 'Racist' behaviour. To act on that fear in a beligerant way towards those youths is bad 'Racist' behaviour. Can you not see the differance?

Crossing the road when faced with a GANG is normal and acceptable behaviour, regardless of if they are "racialy differant."

To do so when they are racially different, but not when they are racially similar, IS racist. Maybe you can see the difference.

No, I'm not racist.



Crossing the road when faced with a GANG is normal and acceptable behaviour, regardless of if they are "racialy differant."

To do so when they are racially different, but not when they are racially similar, IS racist. Maybe you can see the difference.

You are not a little bit racist, you have never had a racist thought in your head ever?

You are not a little bit racist, you have never had a racist thought in your head ever?

A racist is "a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others." I don't have that belief.

A racist is "a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others." I don't have that belief.

No a racist is a person who treats a person dfferantly because of their race.
We all treat people who are differant from us differantly, it is human nature. YOU are no exception.

The differance between a good person and a bad person thoughh is how we deal with these thoughts, and what actions we chosse to take.

I'll say it again, thinking racist thoughts is not the bad thing, but acting on them is.

No a racist is a person who treats a person dfferantly because of their race.
We all treat people who are differant from us differantly, it is human nature. YOU are no exception.

Ah, of course. I am a racist because I am a racist because I am a racist. Because you say so. ;) Good argument, I look forward to your next thread on how most people are pedophiles who want to commit incest.

Ah, of course. I am a racist because I am a racist because I am a racist. Because you say so. ;) Good argument, I look forward to your next thread on how most people are pedophiles who want to commit incest.

*sigh* Heh soooo you just waded in without reading the whole thread then?

Okay it goes like this.

If you interact with somebody from a differant racial background and you think of them differantly than you would think of somebody from your own racial background. Then that is a rasict thought, because your thinking, in this case is only directed by the fact that they are differant from you. This though is quite normal, and forms part of the them and us thought process that you and I can not escape.

If you treat somebody from a differant racial background than yours differantly, then you are also guilty of racist actions. Even if that means you offer a black man jerk chicken instead of steak for dinner.

That you have had these thoughts and acted in this manor is not a cause for argument, we all have, therefore we are all a little bit racist.

Again though this is quite normal human behaviour.

If though you have not managed to control these thoughts, and decide that because a man is black man it is fine to beat him up, then you are also guilty of racism, excepting in this case, you deserve to be slapped around until you come to your sense.

*sigh* Heh soooo you just waded in without reading the whole thread then?

Okay it goes like this.

If you interact with somebody from a differant racial background and you think of them differantly than you would think of somebody from your own racial background. Then that is a rasict thought,

No it isn't. I guess you're using a definition of "racism" specifically designed so that it applies to everyone.

If you broaden definitions like that, you can make any claim that "everyone" is. Doesn't make it so, and it just winds up de-valuing the word.

No it isn't. I guess you're using a definition of "racism" specifically designed so that it applies to everyone.

If you broaden definitions like that, you can make any claim that "everyone" is. Doesn't make it so, and it just winds up de-valuing the word.


So you mantain that if you think about somebody differantly because of their race, it isn't racist? That if you even once indulge in sterotyping that this isn't racist? That if you tell a joke about the Irishman, the Englishman, and the Scotsman then this too is not racist?

So you mantain that if you think about somebody differantly because of their race, it isn't racist?

YOU are saying that if anyone acknowledges that someone of a different ethnicity IS of a different ethnicity, that is a "racist thought" and therefore that person is racist.

So yes, I do maintain that if I think of a black man as a black man and not a Japanese man, that does not make me racist.

That if you even once indulge in sterotyping that this isn't racist? That if you tell a joke about the Irishman, the Englishman, and the Scotsman then this too is not racist?

Who says I've even told such jokes? You just assume it.

YOU are saying that if anyone acknowledges that someone of a different ethnicity IS of a different ethnicity, that is a "racist thought" and therefore that person is racist.

So yes, I do maintain that if I think of a black man as a black man and not a Japanese man, that does not make me racist.

Who says I've even told such jokes? You just assume it.

Naaaaaa, and now I can't make up my mind wether you are being delibrity silly or not.

That's not what I said at all read the word which I type.

I asked if you maintain that:

' if you think about somebody differantly because of their race, it isn't racist?'

I.E. You have a black freind over to dinner and without even thinking you cook Jerk Chicken. That is basing what you think he might like for dinner on the colour of his skin, do you not think that is a little bit racist?

I asked if you thought:

'That if you even once indulge in sterotyping that this isn't racist?'

I.E. You see a small group of English football fans being rowdy outside a pub just after England have lost, and you cross over the road to aviod them. That is acting on the racist thought that all English footie fans are thugs. Would you not consider that a little bit racist?

I also asked:

'If you tell a joke about the Irishman, the Englishman, and the Scotsman then this too is not racist?'

I.E. You tell a joke makeing fun of somebodys racial group. for example: Do you know how copper wire got invented? Two Scotsmen arguing over a penny. You would also say that this joke is not racist?

I asked you to answer some questiojs, I assumed nothing.

' if you think about somebody differantly because of their race, it isn't racist?'

I.E. You have a black freind over to dinner and without even thinking you cook Jerk Chicken. That is basing what you think he might like for dinner on the colour of his skin, do you not think that is a little bit racist?


What you are asking and your example are two different things. You said, earlier, that

If you interact with somebody from a differant racial background and you think of them differantly than you would think of somebody from your own racial background. Then that is a rasict

Of COURSE people think of people from a DIFFERENT racial background DIFFERENTLY from those of the SAME. That doesn't mean everyone is a racist.

And your example is one of racial discrimination based on racial stereotypes. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an example of me assuming black people eat chicken. Do let me know if you can.


I asked if you thought:

'That if you even once indulge in sterotyping that this isn't racist?'

I.E. You see a small group of English football fans being rowdy outside a pub just after England have lost, and you cross over the road to aviod them. That is acting on the racist thought that all English footie fans are thugs. Would you not consider that a little bit racist?

You won't find me committing that example either. But since when is "English" a race? I don't consider it one.


I also asked:

'If you tell a joke about the Irishman, the Englishman, and the Scotsman then this too is not racist?'

I.E. You tell a joke makeing fun of somebodys racial group. for example: Do you know how copper wire got invented? Two Scotsmen arguing over a penny. You would also say that this joke is not racist?

One can tell a racist joke without being a racist. Kind of like how I can tell a 'homophobic' joke without having an aversion to homosexuals.

And your example is one of racial discrimination based on racial stereotypes. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find an example of me assuming black people eat chicken. Do let me know if you can.


There is a very big difference between prediction and prejudice. We cannot meet and get to know everyine in the world well enough to know their personal likes and dislikes, or anything else about the vast majority in depth. WE HAVE TO PREDICT.

If I had an Italian coming to my house the first instinct would be to serve pasta. A stereotype, yes, but stereotypes are based on logic. It is a logical conclusion to go from the general to the specific as long as we recognize that the specific will never conform to all of the general. While the circles on the graph will generally overlap there will be a part of every individual circle outside of the general. Prejudice would occur if my Italian guest would tell me he didn't like pasta, but I served it anyway because as an Italian he MUST like pasta. Without the ability to logically go from the general to the specific we couldn't function in society. You walk into a store and generally the person behind the cash register is there to take your money for a purchase. But one day you could go to the store and the person behind the register is a robber. The general that we assume in a minority of cases isn't true.

So it is not prejudice to say generally Italians like pasta, Asians like rice, Black Americans like chicken, Germans like beer, Scotch like whiskey, Americans like hamburgers. The prejudice would be if you said that every Italian must like pasta, every Asian must like rice, every Black American must like chicken, every German must like beer, every Scot must like whiskey, every American must like hamburgers.

The secret is to recognize sameness while still allowing for variation.

We are in agreement that the way the brain is built allows for, and perhaps encourages racism in us. As to your correction, no. Humanity is both a Race - ONE race - and a species.


Species and race arent the same thing. Many scientists belive races exist, while many dont. There is no scientific consenssus. While some deny it, some produce race-specific drugs.



This is just plain wrong on every point. YOU go look up the word native, because clearly you don't understand it, but since you are clearly not going to on your own, I'll do it for you:

(From Dictionary.com)
na·tive (nā'tĭv) pronunciation
adj.

1. Existing in or belonging to one by nature; innate: native ability.
2. Being such by birth or origin: a native Scot.
3. Being one's own because of the place or circumstances of one's birth: our native land.
4. Originating , growing, or produced in a certain place or region; indigenous: a plant native to Asia.
5.
1. Being a member of the original inhabitants of a particular place.
2. Of, belonging to, or characteristic of such inhabitants: native dress; the native diet of Polynesia.
6. Occurring in nature pure or uncombined with other substances: native copper.
7. Natural; unaffected: native beauty.
8. Archaic. Closely related, as by birth or race.
9. Biochemistry. Of or relating to the naturally occurring conformation of a macromolecule, such as a protein.

n.

1.
1. One born in or connected with a place by birth: a native of Scotland now living in the United States.
2. One of the original inhabitants or lifelong residents of a place.
2. An animal or plant that originated in a particular place or region.

That's just a little bit larger then you probably felt it would be, I'll bet. I'm also not using the word 'thought' as you clearly did not think at all.

<snip>


While there are "by birth" references, the emphasis is on origin. Hence, white Americans arent native Americans. White Australians arent native Australians. If you are going to call Bush a native American, they'll probably laugh at you. Native Americans are the original people who inhabited Americas. Similarly, Native Europeans are the original people who inhabited Europe (i.e: whites).

If I had an Italian coming to my house the first instinct would be to serve pasta.

Not mine. :p I'm terrible at making pasta.

No, if I have people coming over for food, it's usually BBQ with lots of beer.

Mostly beer.

And no, I don't choose German beer if I know someone there has German background. (I choose German beer cuz its good.)

...

Think before you respond rather than offering regurgitated responses to the effect "we are better than animals" to try and refute my points.


Or stop drinking before I post (and recycling responses I got in other forums) ... :)


Yes, humans can reason, and therefore they can eliminate some forms of discrimination, at least to the point of not acting on their sentiments. However, the "us" and "them" base mentality exists in all social animals, and is the result of an animal choosing social organisation over solitary life, in order to orientate itself. It is not base, but rather essential and unavoidable to be able to discriminate between social peers. Animals do it free of bigotry; in a way, their discrimination is based solely on rationality (ie which mate will bear me the best offspring and other such considerations), since they are free of the intricacies which typify human societies.

I am not saying bigotry is natural; I am saying that the instinct it is based off is (the instinct to discriminate, or better, to choose and differentiate). There is a difference.

We are a higher form of animal, but animal nonetheless. Denying our genetic makeup and instincts is like denying gravity. It is denying reality.

If what you are saying about other animals is true (and I have to defer to you here as I have not taken a biology class since high school and my observations to date have been based solely on my interactions with humans) then I am still not sure that proves that bigotry is part of human nature. An instinct to discriminate based on relevant characteristics does not necessarily support the action of discrimination based on irrelevant characteristics.

No a racist is a person who treats a person dfferantly because of their race.
We all treat people who are differant from us differantly, it is human nature. YOU are no exception.


This isn't true.

I do not treat people differently for reason of skintone. Of course, I do treat people differently... because everyone IS different, but I don't treat them differently BECAUSE of their 'race'.

Some people are alright. Some people are arseholes. It's a universal truth... it applies no matter what colour skin you have.

To treat the arseholes like arseholes, is to 'treat them differently' because they act like arseholes. It doesn't matter if the are 'black', 'white' or green.

Originally Posted by Peepelonia

No a racist is a person who treats a person dfferantly because of their race.
We all treat people who are differant from us differantly, it is human nature. YOU are no exception.

This isn't true.

I do not treat people differently for reason of skintone. Of course, I do treat people differently... because everyone IS different, but I don't treat them differently BECAUSE of their 'race'.

Some people are alright. Some people are arseholes. It's a universal truth... it applies no matter what colour skin you have.

To treat the arseholes like arseholes, is to 'treat them differently' because they act like arseholes. It doesn't matter if the are 'black', 'white' or green.
Agreed.

Also, Peepleonia's argument seems to imply that if you would so much as include a person's skin color in a description of them, you would be racist. For instance, if I am trying to point out to my friend a certain other person in a crowd and I say, "That good-looking black guy by the mailbox," that would make me racist. To claim that any acknowledgment of differences in physical appearance is racist is as nonsensical as saying that telling someone whether one's friend Pat is a man or a woman makes one a sexist.

Acknowledging the existence of a difference is not the same as letting that difference determine how you treat a person or think about a person.

Agreed.

Also, Peepleonia's argument seems to imply that if you would so much as include a person's skin color in a description of them, you would be racist. For instance, if I am trying to point out to my friend a certain other person in a crowd and I say, "That good-looking black guy by the mailbox," that would make me racist. To claim that any acknowledgment of differences in physical appearance is racist is as nonsensical as saying that telling someone whether one's friend Pat is a man or a woman makes one a sexist.

Acknowledging the existence of a difference is not the same as letting that difference determine how you treat a person or think about a person.

Exactly. If I see a person with the most beautiful satiny black skin, I am appreciating an aesthetic. The same if I'm lusting over milkwhite English never-seen-the-sun (what I would poetically call 'translucent') skin.

If I treat them differently because of that skin colour, I am crossing a line that simply 'noticing' doesn't cross.

So you mantain that if you think about somebody differantly because of their race, it isn't racist? That if you even once indulge in sterotyping that this isn't racist? That if you tell a joke about the Irishman, the Englishman, and the Scotsman then this too is not racist?

Peeplona... we've been discussing THIS all day. HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT DIFFERENT RACES. To believe they are - THAT is Racism. The idea that there is a diference between a Chinese person, and a French person, on a genetic level, THAT is racism. It's a pseudoscience.

Ethnocentrism *is* built into us to some degree, but that is not the same thing.

Species and race arent the same thing. Many scientists belive races exist, while many dont. There is no scientific consenssus. While some deny it, some produce race-specific drugs.

While there are "by birth" references, the emphasis is on origin. Hence, white Americans arent native Americans. White Australians arent native Australians. If you are going to call Bush a native American, they'll probably laugh at you. Native Americans are the original people who inhabited Americas. Similarly, Native Europeans are the original people who inhabited Europe (i.e: whites).

No, genetically there are NO seperate races within Humanity. There are some genetic traits that are common amoung groups of people and uncommon amoung others, but these exceptions are never a constant amoung a group, nor ever limited. For example, Taysachs is a genetic defect, and it is predominantly found amoung Ashkenazi Jews, but carriers are found worldwide, and among people of all races and ethnicities.

Biologically, there is a level of Genetic disparity at which you can call a group a seperate race, and that is not reached within Humanity. If you want numbers, I can get them, but so can you.

As to being a 'native,' you highlighted the parts you liked, and in some cases OUT OF CONTEXT. My point was that ALL the listed definitions are valid. You can't simply accept part of the definition to the exclusion of the rest and insist that's a valid arguement.

Peeplona... we've been discussing THIS all day. HUMAN BEINGS ARE NOT DIFFERENT RACES. To believe they are - THAT is Racism. The idea that there is a diference between a Chinese person, and a French person, on a genetic level, THAT is racism. It's a pseudoscience.

Ethnocentrism *is* built into us to some degree, but that is not the same thing.



No, genetically there are NO seperate races within Humanity. There are some genetic traits that are common amoung groups of people and uncommon amoung others, but these exceptions are never a constant amoung a group, nor ever limited. For example, Taysachs is a genetic defect, and it is predominantly found amoung Ashkenazi Jews, but carriers are found worldwide, and among people of all races and ethnicities.

Biologically, there is a level of Genetic disparity at which you can call a group a seperate race, and that is not reached within Humanity. If you want numbers, I can get them, but so can you.

As to being a 'native,' you highlighted the parts you liked, and in some cases OUT OF CONTEXT. My point was that ALL the listed definitions are valid. You can't simply accept part of the definition to the exclusion of the rest and insist that's a valid arguement.


You seem to be unaware of the fact that I had acknowledged the "by birth" definition. And I explained why "by origin" definition takes precedence.
And there are no scientific consenssus on the lack of human races. Many scientists believe races exist. Your own explanations dont change this fact.

And there are no scientific consenssus on the lack of human races. Many scientists believe races exist. Your own explanations dont change this fact.
YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN THAT!

As much as you try, and try, and try, and try to change and dodge and make remarks about the reading skills of others, you still have never bothered to, you know, show this mysterious community of scientists who back you up.

YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN THAT!

As much as you try, and try, and try, and try to change and dodge and make remarks about the reading skills of others, you still have never bothered to, you know, show this mysterious community of scientists who back you up.

I did right at the begingin of this tread post about the differances in skull structure that pathologist use to determin the country of origin or the ethenticity of a dead body. There are claerly defined differanse in the skeletal structure along ethnic lines. To eqaute it to the animal kingdom, the Human species IS split between differant breeds, that is why me an English white bloke does look differant from an Eskimo. The realisation of this, is not racist, but treating people differantly because of their race is.

I did right at the begingin of this tread post about the differances in skull structure that pathologist use to determin the country of origin or the ethenticity of a dead body. There are claerly defined differanse in the skeletal structure along ethnic lines. To eqaute it to the animal kingdom, the Human species IS split between differant breeds, that is why me an English white bloke does look differant from an Eskimo. The realisation of this, is not racist, but treating people differantly because of their race is.
Wanna try it at the genetic level?

Wanna try it at the genetic level?

Are you trying to tell me that if I was to get a blood sample from you, and never lay eyes on and had no idea what ethnic background you come from I would not be able to tell from your DNA what ethenticity you hailed from?

Coz if you are that's just carzy talk.

YOU STILL HAVEN'T SHOWN THAT!

As much as you try, and try, and try, and try to change and dodge and make remarks about the reading skills of others, you still have never bothered to, you know, show this mysterious community of scientists who back you up.


You still havent shown most of scientists dont believe in Race neither. Do they even have those surveys? Meanwhile:


Race and Crisis

By Jenny Reardon, Brady Dunklee, and Kara Wentworth*

Race, it seems, is new again. Every few decades for at least the past six, biologists have come forward with new data that they claim will finally reveal the truth about the biological meaningfulness of race in the human species. Each time a novel and powerful science is behind the purported revelation: population genetics in the 1950’s, molecular biology in the 1970’s, the genome sciences in the 1990’s and today. Armand Marie Leroi, in his March 14th 2005 editorial for the New York Times “A Family Tree in Every Gene,” joins this long tradition with his answer to the question about the biological reality of race in the human species: “races are real.”

We are not concerned that Leroi is going to settle the question and end debate. Nor do we seek here to “correct” Leroi, thereby providing our own answer to the race question in biology. Instead, we want to pose what we believe is the more urgent question at this time: Why is race new again? Why, in 2005, have we returned to the question of the biological meaning of race in the human? Why the cyclical return of these old debates? Focusing on these questions, we argue, reveals a much deeper problem. More than any given answer to the question about the biological meaning of race, even one published in the New York Times, it is how we have posed the question, and thus formed all our answers, that should give us cause for gravest concern.

Since the Nazi atrocities, nearly every effort to address “the race question” in biology has presumed that scientists can and should refine their use of race so as to advance scientific knowledge and exclude “social” discrimination (Reardon 2005). Such endeavors have taken for granted that science can and should be strictly delineated from society. Thus, no matter the particularities of any given claim (race is biologically meaningful when it is used to study human evolution; race is not biologically meaningful when the goal is to understand mental traits; etc.), most assume that science can and should be distinguished from ideology, that natural order exists in a separate domain from social order, and that scientific racism results from the latter (ideology, social order) posing as the former (science, natural order). It is this bifurcated conceptual framework, one that delineates science from society, and not any particular answer to “the race question” itself (e.g., the Leroi op-ed), that presents a great danger to both scientific inquiry and democratic governance. This danger, we demonstrate below, follows from the proclivity of such a framework to produce controversies—such as the ones generated by the 1994 publication of the The Bell Curve, and the one emerging over the Leroi op-ed, in which this essay participates—controversies that give extreme views about race leverage in scientific and public discourse (Herrnstein 1994; Leroi 2005).

Of course, all of the post WWII efforts to erect a protective wall between biology and society were intended to preclude just these sorts of breaches: Herrnstein and Murray’s assertion of innate racial IQ differences; Leroi’s celebration of a racial “gallery,” and so on. Political leaders and scientists alike built institutions and knowledge practices upon conceptual structures that separated biology from society precisely to ensure that social biases did not creep into the potent zone of science and create the conditions for the next biologized legitimation of discrimination (Reardon 2005). Why did their efforts fail?

Because, as much sociological and historical analysis of science has revealed, biology never existed separate from society (see, for example, Haraway 1991, Latour 1993, Jasanoff 2004). Efforts to clarify and delineate these two domains—and contravene racism—created split and distorted vision.

In particular, the effort to separate biology from society encouraged social scientists and humanists alike to turn a blind eye towards science. Thus, while scholars of society became very adept at bringing to light the constructed character of claims about race when they perceived them to have “social” origins, most did not bring these same critical skills to bear when they deemed the claims to be the product of legitimate science. Perhaps the most striking and important case of this oversight is social scientists’ and humanists’ embrace of the claim that gained media prominence in the mid-1990s: “scientists say race has no biological basis” (Alvarado 1995; Flint 1995; Hotz 1995). A closer, critical look at this claim reveals that scientists, like the noted human population geneticist Luca Cavalli-Sforza, were not arguing in these moments that all concepts of race had no biological meaning, only those concepts of race produced in society (Cavalli-Sforza 1994; Cavalli-Sforza and Bodmer 1999 [1971]); Reardon 2005). But rather than interrogating how scientists (in particular, geneticists) made their claims about the biological meaningless of race, sociologists, philosophers, and historians simply enrolled them in their efforts to prove that race was a social construction (Gates 1986; Appiah 1990; Fields 1990; Gilroy 2000). If scientists proved that race had no biological basis, then it had to be, they argued, social.

This approach to interpreting race encouraged biologists, social scientists and humanists alike to view biology as a distinct realm of knowledge production that should be policed for social and societal taint, but that normally functioned independent from society. Thus social scientists and humanists seldom monitored biologists’ concepts of race, as they fell outside their purview. Neither did biologists attend to the politics or the social embeddedness of their uses of race, for they considered their work scientific, and not social or political. As a result, concepts of race continued to be used in science that received virtually no sociological or humanistic attention; scientists continued to view their uses of race concepts as asocial and apolitical. Thus, the political and social valences of biologists’ work remained invisible to them, while the very existence of this work was unknown to most sociologists and humanists.

This bifurcated system remained viable as long as what it concealed remained palatable. However, once the scientific concepts of race, and the political and social ideas in which they were entwined, became extreme—meaning shared by few, and staking out positions generally taken to be racist—then both the scientific concepts of race, and the politics in which they were entangled, became impossible to ignore. At this point, the system broke down into crisis and controversy.

Over the years, sociologists and humanists have experienced these controversies as the periodic return of the idea of race in science. Biologists have experienced them as the periodic politicization of their work. For both sides, a crisis emerges. For the sociologists and humanists, it is that biological race has risen again. For the biologists, it is that something extreme enough to be recognized as political has emerged within their purportedly apolitical discipline. Both are the direct consequence of a system of thought that delineates the social and the political from the biological. Sociologists and humanists can only encounter race’s return when they fail to see it all along; biologists can only experience a shock of politicization when the ongoing political dimensions of their work are out of view.

Pitfalls of Crisis

These periodic crises of race and science create difficulties both for biologists and social scientists and humanists that extend beyond their subject matter, particularly when the crises spill over into the popular press. Once the politics of race and science reach far enough beyond the sensibilities of most biologists that they become impossible to ignore, and once these politics catch the attention of social scientists and humanists for the same reason, the only responsible course of action seems to be to attack, because the stakes seem too high, and the affront too great. For example, few thought that Herrnstein and Murray’s conclusions in The Bell Curve could be negotiated with. Instead, they were roundly condemned as racist and unscientific.

Such attacks have their attractions. In earlier drafts, we initially took Leroi’s bait and critiqued the antiquated political sentiments, the misrepresentations of current science, misunderstandings of sociological and humanistic knowledge about race, and the severity of medical and ethical implications presented in the piece. But the pleasure of this critique was accompanied by a vague uneasiness derived from our own disciplinary habits. Science and technology studies de-centers debunking and attack in favor of analyses that care for the science they critique. We were caught between our outrage and our training, and worse, found it impossible to make the arguments we wanted to without reifying the division between science and society. In each case we accused the author of biological incorrectness or political offense, thus reinforcing the divisions that enabled this controversy in the first place, and that Leroi’s op-ed seemed to make inevitable.

We have come to the conclusion that these attacks entail great risk. They hide from view the wide range of scientific views and debates about the proper meaning and use of race in science (Lewontin 1972; Marks 1995; Goldstein and Chikhi 2002; Risch, Burchard et al. 2002; Rosenberg 2002; Burchard, Ziv et al. 2003; Cooper, Kaufman et al. 2003; Collins 2004; Jorde and Wooding 2004; Mountain and Risch 2004; Royal and Dunston 2004). Practicing scientists hold a wide diversity of views on this topic, but a claim on one extreme of this range, and the subsequent attack on that extreme position, creates two competing and opposite factions where there were none before.

These two poles of the debate easily become positive and negative. Those expressing the extreme views make positive assertions. Everyone else attacks and attempts to negate these assertions rather than affirming one or proposing an alternative. And negating is always a weaker position.

In his New York Times op-ed, Leroi reinforces this polar model by establishing a false sense of two sides of the debate. In particular, he cites a recent supplement to the journal Nature Genetics as an opening salvo against the purported misguided consensus that human races do not exist in nature. In his depiction, the Nature Genetics authors face the truth and overcome a decades-long denial of the existence of race. But this depiction of the race and genetics debates misrepresents the Nature Genetics supplement at the center of Leroi’s arguments, and the broader context in which it is situated. Nature Genetics, in “Genetics for the Human Race,” does not support Leroi’s claims that “[r]ace is merely a shorthand that enables us to speak sensibly, though with no great precision, about genetic rather than cultural or political differences.” In fact, the Nature Genetics editors say “the use of race as a proxy is inhibiting scientists from doing their job of separating and identifying the real environmental and genetic causes of disease” [emphasis ours] (2004). The authors by and large are highly critical of the validity of the use of “race” in biology, especially in non-medical applications. No one in the supplement claims to be able to “write the genetic recipe” for racial groups, nor advocates “naming the painters” of the human “gallery” (Leroi 2005). Several authors, especially Mildred Cho and Pamela Sankar, in their article on forensic genetics, caution strongly that this sort of thinking is in fact socially and scientifically dangerous (Cho and Sankar 2004). Even Neil Risch, the Stanford geneticist whose controversial 2002 analysis of pre-existing data Leroi celebrates, maintains a commitment to the contingency—or “social construction” if you will—of racial groupings. Risch, writing with Mountain, in the Nature Genetics supplement states: “Racial and ethnic categories are proxies for a wide range of factors, potentially genetic and nongenetic” (Mountain and Risch 2004, S52). He and Mountain stress the limited, but valuable expedience, of these categories in fighting disease disparities.

Thus, any consensus among these Nature Genetics authors that “race is real” is the product of Leroi’s own making—and a very useful product indeed. It fuels the polarization (either you believe “race is real,” or you don’t) that in turn creates the statistical artifact upon which Leroi depends. Once there are two sides, responsible journalism and civil discourse dictate that each side should be given equal time and equal weight—Leroi, for example, should have a chance to respond to this Social Science Research Council website. Further, those who disagree with the instigators of controversy feel pressure to close ranks so that they might present the image of a unified front of opposition. This ends up giving even greater equivalence to the “opposite side.”

Possibly worse, a range of traditional and newer tools becomes newly available to the creators of the controversy, once it is up and raging. One is the Galilean victimization narrative in which a small vanguard group or individual is cast as being persecuted by the powerful Orthodox forces for their/his allegiance to the Truth. Another is a related anti-PC maneuver, in which the provocateurs deride those who disagree with them for having political bias, while they present themselves as politics-free. Both are operative in the Leroi editorial. In this piece, Leroi casts the Nature Genetics authors as a new wave of critical thinkers who are bold and clear-headed, capable of penetrating the ideological veil, despite peer pressure from the “liberal-minded” majority who are mired in political correctness, and thus unable to see the biological reality of race.

The result is a backhanded transfer of the burden of scientific proof, as well as a transfer of questions about credibility: by playing the Galileo and the PC cards, provocateurs put everyone else on the defensive regarding their facts and their objectivity, respectively. Anyone who argues against Leroi risks being labeled political. And in science, where much of one’s credibility hinges both informally and formally on being viewed as apolitical, this presents a serious risk. Indeed, scientists might choose not to respond to Leroi not because they agree with them, but because they do not want to be viewed as stooping to politics. In conversations with genome scientists we have heard evidence to support this impression.

The result of these controversies and the rhetorical traps they present is an oversampling and overweighting of a small vocal minority in scientific circles, both of which are further empowered by the majority’s response to it.

A Way Out

What can we do in the face of this dilemma? We cannot say that those biologists who have taken a position on race opposed to Leroi’s are not informed by politics, or—to rise to Leroi’s red-baiting—ideology. We cannot say this, because all scientists are political beings, and all knowledge production is a political process. We do not mean this in the sense of vulgar Lysenkoism, in which ideology operates as a blindfold. We mean it in the rich tradition of Foucault and critical science studies: at the same time as we produce power and knowledge, knowledge and power produce us (Foucault 1980; Haraway 1991; Rabinow 1996; Hacking 1999; Jasanoff 2004; Reardon 2005).

Instead, we propose that all involved view this entanglement not as an obstacle to overcome, but as the very life of the creative work of scientists. If scientists, sociologists and humanists regularly and rigorously attended to the politics of scientific knowledge production, then they could resist the binary rhetoric upon which Leroi’s very argument is founded and create a new form of discourse that opposes the false crises of race and biology. In so doing, we could change the question at the center of the race and science debates from “Is race real?” or “Who’s right about race?” to ”How does race happen?”

By asking this question, we would account for, and be accountable to, the patterns of language and practice that scientists use to produce race. We would gain a vision and vocabulary of the ways in which scientific production of race is always entangled with the production of subjects in society, and thus a human activity with great consequence for scientists and non-scientists alike.

The benefits of focusing on the engines and gears of scientific racialization, and the human actions such racialization enables, are manifest. Meaningful conversations that do not reduce to yes or no answers, or to polarized statements like “race is genetic” or “race is a social construct,” become possible. Fewer scholars are silenced, and the views of the vocal periphery are situated as several among many, all firmly grounded in their politics (Haraway 1991). A broader sampling of both scholarly and non-academic thought ensues, limiting the artifacts produced by a polarized system.

When “politics” is no longer an accusation, but a subject of inquiry, examination can replace recrimination. As a result, the multiplicity of biological concepts of race, and the human hand in creating, valuing and using them, come into view. Such acts of visualization open up more avenues for intervention. Seeing and acting reflectively heightens our ability to produce knowledge that is effective, while being caring, cognizant of and responsive to the diversity of the human species—not just at the genetic level, but at the cultural and moral level as well.

Lessons from Genomics

Claims about the revolutionary import of genomics are by now commonplace. However, rarely acknowledged are the revolutionary changes afoot in the very words and conceptual structures we use to communicate and interpret genomics. Nowhere is the need to recognize these conceptual shifts more urgent than in the race and science debates. In this domain of genomics discourse, we ignore with peril questions about the meaning and proper use of fundamental categories—such as racist, anti-racist, science, society, ideology, truth. In the past, it may have been possible to credibly sort racist, ideological statements about the biological meaningfulness of race produced in society from objective, scientific ones about the biological meaninglessness of race. But when biologists (including, but by no means limited to, Leroi) insist on their commitments to anti-racism just as strongly as the biological meaningfulness of race, the conceptual grounds for evaluation are no longer stable (Cavalli-Sforza 1994; Risch 2002).

Genome scientists’ frequent appeal to constructivist language can also indicate important conceptual dissonance (Dunklee 2003). It is common to read in genomics writing that race is a social construction. Yet at the same time, and often in the same paragraph, claims are made that race is genetically meaningful (Foster 2003).

Leroi, for example, argues for the biological reality of race while stating that “there is nothing very fundamental about the concept of the major continental races; they're just the easiest way to divide things up (Leroi, 2005).” Is this claim “social” or “biological?” How do these seemingly contradictory statements resolve themselves? How should we understand these juxtapositions?

While we might take this intermingling as instructive to the process of disciplinary integration that we advocate, such patterns of language do not warrant optimism. Without sustained attention to the ways in which categories that order human genetic diversity are produced, invocation of constructivism may amount to tokenism, and may block the very openings for human agency that social constructivist thought was intended to enable. But whatever the shortcomings of this use of constructivist language, it does indicate that a system of thought that divides race into the social and the natural is no longer tenable in a genomic age.

The power of genomics is open to question. Whether this emergent form of technoscience can fulfill its promise to ameliorate human suffering and promote human freedom remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that genomics is remaking the human along changing axes of racial differentiation. A system rooted in the division of biological and social, science and society, is ill-equipped to understand, let alone intervene in these productions.

That system’s dividing walls are already bursting at the seams. Rather than view moments like the current controversy as aberrations—freaks of discipline like the physiological mutants Dr. Leroi chronicles in his book (Leroi 2005)—we hope this might be a moment when scientists, social scientists and humanists can all recognize the limits and dangers of how we pose and answer questions about race and science. In the place of artificial divisions and cyclical crises, we advocate for a new, critical and caring biopolitics.


http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Reardon/

You seem to be unaware of the fact that I had acknowledged the "by birth" definition. And I explained why "by origin" definition takes precedence.
And there are no scientific consenssus on the lack of human races. Many scientists believe races exist. Your own explanations dont change this fact.

I know you acknowledged that both definitions of "native" were true, but you dismissed one based on... nothing substantial. You insisted there was precedence, and you gave no explanation as to why you believed so that amounted to anything more then that you want it to be true. In fact, your earlier discussion of Native Americans being called "native" while no one else is, is nothing but a political farce. I am not alone in believeing that while these people should be free to maintain their culture the same as everyone else, they should no longer be separated from the rest of society, as it does them no good, and much harm, and is in no way just.

As to races, yes, there are scientists who misuse the word, the same as there are laypeople who misuse the word. Race, in the context of a subspecies, is a biological term. In a non-biological sense, it has social implications, and in that sense some people might justify referring to people of different "races." However, it is A MEASURABLE FACT that between no groups of humans do any genetic differences exist that would justify defining them as seperate races. Any genetic differences that exist cross between groups commonly enough that they do not by themselves separate us from one another in that way. You can contradict me all you like, but you will just be wrong.

I did right at the begingin of this tread post about the differances in skull structure that pathologist use to determin the country of origin or the ethenticity of a dead body. There are claerly defined differanse in the skeletal structure along ethnic lines. To eqaute it to the animal kingdom, the Human species IS split between differant breeds, that is why me an English white bloke does look differant from an Eskimo. The realisation of this, is not racist, but treating people differantly because of their race is.

Those are tendencies that are not accurate enough to express certainty. Sure, Nords (just as an example) usually had skulls of a specific shape, and they had fair hair, etc etc etc, but that does not/didn't mean that there were no nords who didn't look like Celts, and it didn't/soesn't mean there were no Celtsthat didn't look more like they were Semitic.

Could a short native american have skin pigmentation and eyes slanted enough that he or she looked southeast asian in orrigin - yes it COULD happen.

Judging the orrigins of a body post-mortem is an art that does not deal in certainty, but in gathering evidence that, when put together, leads to a reasonable certainty, but never a complete and total certainty.