Race and Racism

[JediMaster12]

I know that this can be a polarizing topic but with the specific groups brought into mind, I thought that maybe a generalized discussion might help.

 

I am currently in my last quarter. In three months I graduate with a BA in Anthropology (study of man). The one class that I have left to take that is required for me to graduate is what we call a Social and Behavioral Science capstone. The course I chose just happens to be entitled Race and Racism.

 

Growing up I never understood the concept of race nor understood why people didn't like someone because they were different. When high school hit, I could see the differences and the perception of what I was supposed to be when I left high school. Against those perceptions, I am in college and on the point of receiving a degree. The reason I bring this up is because it bears some relation to what Race is.

 

So what is race?

 

The only way I can explain it is from the social science definition. Race is a social construct based upon the perceived physical differences. Society determines where one perceived race ends and where another begins and implies a social hierarchy. For the science buffs: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS TO SUPPORT SUCH DISTINCTIONS. In fact there is more genetic variation within a group than between groups. This leads to ethnicity.

 

Ethnicity refers to the cultural differences learned through socialization. This brings to mind the concept of what culture is. Culture is the group of learned behaviors and ideas of a group.

 

The reason I define these two distinctly is that few people know the distinction between the two though there are times when race and ethnicity overlap. My reason for starting this thread is to gain an idea of what other people think these two terms mean to them. As an anthropology student, I am aware that there are differences between people and their ideas and I try to be the willing the listener which I am most of the time.

 

Racism is an ongoing problem in the world today. Here in the United States we tend to think that those days are over when in fact it is not. There are many who have experienced racism overtly or not overtly. California is one of those states that doesn't overtly show racism like Tennesse might. Like many other behaviors and ideas, it is learned and is therefore passed on to future generations. The negative effects tend to be poor perceptions of the minority groups being targeted and a general acceptance of stereotypes. This is perpetuated not just by the older generations and history, but things like the media perpetuate stereotypes and it becomes the mindset of the population. An example is the stereotype of the gay man. Usually the media portrays gay guys as the ones who talk like valley girls and do that 'girlfriend' move with the index finger. This doesn't hold true for all gay guys. I have met gay guys who act like the other guys I hang out with and I have noticed that athletes like dancers and gymnists have that body that moves in a feminine way. I can see why back in the 60's it wasn't easy for a male dancer. It's mostly anout perception that has us in this rut that we are in now.

 

Now that I have had my say, any comments?

[AJL]

In the past black peoples, their society and culture were widely considered

lesser than that of the white peoples... (do you still...?) Because especially

technologically I think the whites were mostly far more advanced...

 

But nowadays we say there is no difference and we all still think with the

same primitive Stone Age brains... (Which is propably true...)

 

So...

 

Do you consider the knowledge to be part of evolution and developement ??

 

Or do you think we and our societies are and have been all equal because

we all have and have had the same primitive brains ??

[igyman]

I agree with JM12's definition of race when she says that there's no scientific basis to even divide humans into races. Race is something invented by the first explorers and conquistadors to justify their treatment of the people whose skin is of different color. This happened basically because most of those explorers were in search for money and riches and when they saw a technologically less developed people whose skin is, in addition, of some strange different color and who have a huge amount of gold and other riches, they knew what they had to do to get it. Let's also not forget that Christianity had a huge influence on the people of Europe of that time, even the governments and that it was more aggressive and quicker to judge people who have different convictions.

 

So what happened because of all that? A lot of African tribes were enslaved and those people were dubbed the lesser race, which was justified by the color of their skin and their pagan religions. Their sacred artifacts were stolen by the explorers who made a fortune on them. The same principle extended to the American continent after it was discovered. Just yesterday I've read some general stuff about the conquistadors and what I remembered most was the story of Cortés and Montezuma. Montezuma came with his entourage and greeted Cortés in a very friendly manner and their meeting ended with Cortes capturing him and then killing a huge number of Aztecs in the process. In later conflicts Montezuma ended up dead and the Aztec empire destroyed, its riches plundered. Another case is that of Atahualpa, the ruler of the Inca, who was captured by Pizarro and held for ransom. What's worse is that just after the ransom was paid Pizarro ordered Atahualpa to be strangled, for he was no longer necessary. After Atahualpa's death it was easy to conquer and destroy the rest of the Inca Empire.

 

Now, why am I telling all this? Because I think it proves my point on why the concept of races and especially lesser races was invented and why enslaving those people, or killing them was not illegal.

When we're on the subject of modern day racism, I have to state my utter and complete puzzlement on why a racist organization like the KKK is allowed to exist in the US. I mean I know you can't make those people (I'd like to call them something else, but this is a PG-13 forum) change their opinions of the people of different skin color, but you sure as hell can forbid them to publicly promote hatred, racism and inequality. They can be a-holes if they want to, but they should keep their intolerant views to themselves instead of convincing the rest of the world that they are right.

 

That's all from me for now. Gotta get back to studying.

[Jason Skywalker]

Race? Humans don't have races. Dogs have races. Humans just have their skin coloured different. Should we treat them below garbage and discrimine them just because their skin isn't white? I say no. Besides, it wouldn't fit well with me being a "racist" seeing as my dad is of black descency.

 

And those are my 0.02 €. Bear with me, i'm 12.

[Darth InSidious]

We're all roughly as primitive as one another. Skin, hair and eyes aren't going to change that.

[SilentScope001]

Somehow, if you are going to call race "artifical", you may as well question every "artifical" construct as well, like, say, the United States of America. Where is proof that the USA really exist? It does not. No country exist really, they are all artifical constructs within our mind of the citizens of the USA and of the politicans of the USA. Mother Nature is blind to such idiotic thinking that there is a "country" residing in the "middle" of "North America", and doesn't really care where it sends its hurricanes.

 

Coming off from that point, I can understand the appeal of racism, even though I hate it. Artifical constructs help to define people into different groups. And wheter you are black or white, thinking that your group is more better than another group, or all groups in general, make you feel happy and content. You feel superior, and that superiority feeling is what drives racism.

 

And the fear that, if race really means nothing, and everyone finds that out, then everyone is...equal. This means I am equal to an Afghani, who is equal to an Iraqi, who is equal to a Hispanic, who is equal to a Black, who is equal to a White, who is equal...etc. We are all equal...which means, well, nothing, an utterly nihilistic concept. If everyone is free, then how can you appericate freedom? Freedom is meaningless unless you are able to opresss someone, or you belong to a group that you feel is more superior.

 

Luckily, we can elimnate racism without having to elimnate artifical distinictions. We can keep Nationalism, ideologies, political parties, religion, etc. and still have this belief of superiority and 'freedom' meaning something.

[Darth InSidious]

Somehow, if you are going to call race "artifical", you may as well question every "artifical" construct as well, like, say, the United States of America. Where is proof that the USA really exist?

Would you not agree that it exists as a cultural construct, as other countries?

Coming off from that point, I can understand the appeal of racism, even though I hate it. Artifical constructs help to define people into different groups. And wheter you are black or white, thinking that your group is more better than another group, or all groups in general, make you feel happy and content. You feel superior, and that superiority feeling is what drives racism.

I would have to disagree. Personally, I think it is fear of the different that drives racism...

 

And the fear that, if race really means nothing, and everyone finds that out, then everyone is...equal. This means I am equal to an Afghani, who is equal to an Iraqi, who is equal to a Hispanic, who is equal to a Black, who is equal to a White, who is equal...etc. We are all equal...which means, well, nothing, an utterly nihilistic concept. If everyone is free, then how can you appericate freedom?

By exercising it?

 

I'm not sure that total freedom exists, since that would include the freedoms to be enslaved and to enslave...?

[SilentScope001]

Would you not agree that it exists as a cultural construct, as other countries?

 

It's still a construct though, and a construct that really has no basis in reality.

 

I would have to disagree. Personally, I think it is fear of the different that drives racism...

 

Should we divide racism into postive racism and negative rascim, like Orwell divided nationalism into postive nationalism and negative nationalism?

 

Postive racisim is the belief that your race is superior. (White supermastis rallies, Black Nationalists, etc.)

 

Negative racism is the belief that other races are out to get you. (Nazis' fear of Jews)

 

You must be seeing the negative denying aspects of racism while I see the postive affirming effects of racism. They both play a role, and usually "postive racism" has a negative racism tone in it...if your race is the best, all other races must be jealous, no?

 

By exercising it?

 

Everyone has the same rights as you do. So you use a right...but well? Is it good?

 

Let me take an example of a left-wing utopia. Everyone has an equal amount of money, an equal amount of freedom, and an equal amount of property. So everyone is equal. Which means everyone is the same. There is no distinictions.

 

But we need distinctions to mean something. How can someone be proud that they are "rich" if everyone is a millionare? How can someone be proud that they are "smart" if everyone has 200 IQ? How can you be proud that you are "loved by God" if everyone is loved by God? How can you be proud that you are "good" if everyone is sinless? You need the opposite for things to have meaning and to make you feel happy. So you must have slavery to exist so that you can be proud that you are free.

 

I'm not sure that total freedom exists, since that would include the freedoms to be enslaved and to enslave...?

 

I interpert it to say that you and everyone else have a limited, but an equal, amount of freedom. This is what people mean when they want others to be 'free'. Even the Anarchist takes away the freedom to kill and the freedom to enslave.

 

True freedom would be the "Hobbean State of Nature", where everything is chaotic and people are left to fend for their own. Eventually, there will be order that will come from this state of nature, and a government shall be formed.

[AJL]

I'm not sure that total freedom exists, since that would include the freedoms to be enslaved and to enslave...?

 

Freedoms ? Illusions, Mister InSidious, vagaries of perception; the temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect...

[JediMaster12]

In the past black peoples, their society and culture were widely considered

lesser than that of the white peoples... (do you still...?) Because especially

technologically I think the whites were mostly far more advanced...

Taking point from the Out of Africa theory which I believe holds water, technological advancement began in Africa. In Olduvai gorge, yes I am bringing in the Leakeys, came what we now call the Olduvai tool kit which consists of the hammerstone and the anvil and then you hit and get the flakes. It was relatively simple. We don't start seeing the handaxes until later. So to say that knowledge is a part of evolution, I would say yes. Knowledge is learned behavior but it bears correlation to the enlargement of the bipedal apes' brains from the the cup of brains in Australopithecines to the cup and a half from the Homo habilus ('Handy Man'), etc.

 

 

Should we divide racism into postive racism and negative rascim...

An impossiblility much like there is no such thing as a positive stereotype. Stereotypes are meant to depict certain groups in a certain light. I am 3/4 Hispanic, predominately Mexican-American and I look like one. Lucky for me I haven't been called derogatory names like spic and cherry picker but back before Cesar Chavez started the United Farmworkers movement, Hispanic children were encouraged to go to trade school and learn a trade. They weren't encouraged to go to college. The same reality exists were Hispanics are expected to be garbage collectors, gardners, etc. My brother and mother are lucky because they are what you call a white Hispanic. My brother though looks more Italian due to our Sicilian genes and my mother is white because of her Lithuanian German half.

 

What I listed is just a mere example of how within one ethnic group there is more variation. As I may have mentioned before, society defines where racees begin and end. One of my favorite text is called The Mismeasure of Man by Gould. Within in, he brings to light some of the perceived physical differences that were used to justify the put down of groups, particularly people of African descent and these ideas were conceived by men who were considered brillant for their time.

 

One example is the prognathus or projection of the jaw that tends to appear in people of African descent. This was used to say that Africans were the so called 'missing link' between man and ape. Really it was just a form of genetics and if you look at the cranium, you can see it. It is a trait that is useful in identifying ethnicity in forensics. We call it nasal guttering.

 

A famous one was done by measuring the brain capacity with buckshot. Big error taken was that there were no allowances for proportiion with height. This was used to discriminate against females as well by saying that they weren't smart enough. Racism doesn't just occur with ethic groups but with gender as well. Nice isn't it?

[Gargoyle King]

I'm not sure that total freedom exists, since that would include the freedoms to be enslaved and to enslave...?

 

I don't feel "True Freedom" will ever exist, not on an international scale. I believe that as long as their is humanity there will be one group whom destroy ther sense of freedom by their actions. I think that there will always be a sense of a 'heirarchy' in society in that there will always be a group that dominates or precides over another group. If history has taught anything, however, is that those whom threaten freedom of a particular group of people (i.e. Nazis, Saddam) will ultimately fall. My point is that i think that humanity will always strive for a sense of freedom, but will never necessarily achieve a sense of complete freedom.

[JediMaster12]

If history has taught anything, however, is that those whom threaten freedom of a particular group of people (i.e. Nazis, Saddam) will ultimately fall. My point is that i think that humanity will always strive for a sense of freedom, but will never necessarily achieve a sense of complete freedom.

To that I add: Any ideology that needs to attack the thing that least threatens it is an ideology that will not outlive it's own generation. Inclusion, not exclusion, is the key to survival. I don't know how much of this is ideal or not but history has shown that eventually those groups like the Nazi or as where this quote came from, the Afrikaaners will topple because there will be a time when the minority groups will unite to stand up.

To quote another source, 'There is no freedom without the law' I mean that you have to have some form of law and order. To be free to do whatever without regard for anything else is chaos or anarchy. There will always be hierarchy but when that hierarchy violates what people call freedom then that is when it turns into tyranny.

 

I am oversimplifying things but social science in general is complicated because the main focus is society and human beings. Truth be told we are complex beings and it is very difficult to put everythign in nice and neat little columns. That is natural science

[lukeiamyourdad]

Somehow, if you are going to call race "artifical", you may as well question every "artifical" construct as well, like, say, the United States of America. Where is proof that the USA really exist? It does not. No country exist really, they are all artifical constructs within our mind of the citizens of the USA and of the politicans of the USA. Mother Nature is blind to such idiotic thinking that there is a "country" residing in the "middle" of "North America", and doesn't really care where it sends its hurricanes.

 

Or you could be a scientist and not make judgment. I don't believe JM12's use of the word "artificial construct" meant that everything artificial is inherently bad. In fact, society is an artificial construct as well. Politics too. It's a useless debate as they do have a root in reality, it's just we, humans, who created this reality.

 

 

 

 

I believe Tocqueville predicted the US civil war the best. He saw that the only way for the Southern states to actually continue slavery was consider the Africans as subhumans and as such ineligible for the same basic rights as the rest of the population.

 

I've felt racism in my life yes. I'm not white, I'm Asian, not as bad as Muslims or Blacks, but not the best either. At any rate, I'm not complaining about my situation. Alone, I can't stop anyone from being racist. I can't get a Chinese girl's parents to accept my inferior Vietnamese blood (and the fact that I don't worship the Holy Land, Toronto). Not going to make me lose some sleep.

 

Anyway, I believe that with globalization, it might be possible that differences be "ironed out" over time and racism will slowly become less and less important. Hate of cultural differences too.

 

I am oversimplifying things but social science in general is complicated because the main focus is society and human beings. Truth be told we are complex beings and it is very difficult to put everythign in nice and neat little columns. That is natural science

 

Yet people still do it...trying to understand society as a simple thing...

[Achilles]

I've felt racism in my life yes. I'm not white, I'm Asian, not as bad as Muslims or Blacks, but not the best either.

Look on the bright side: at least you're really good at math

 

Anyway, I believe that with globalization, it might be possible that differences be "ironed out" over time and racism will slowly become less and less important. Hate of cultural differences too.

I couldn't agree more. As our collective consciousness is raised, it will become increasingly difficult to sustain in-group bias (insofar that we will begin to recognize all humanity as our "in-group"). The hard part will be letting go of those institutions that promote in-group bias, but I have every confidence that it can be done.

 

Just look at how much the internet has helped to promote international communication on even the lower scales of the economy. Anyone with a PC and internet connection can communicate with people anywhere in the world. A few decades from now, it will be even more difficult not to think globally. But perhaps I'm more optimistic on this point than I should be. Who knows for sure?

[SilentScope001]

An impossiblility much like there is no such thing as a positive stereotype.

 

Er...George Orwell hated postive nationalism, and I used that to base postive racism.

 

When I said "postive racism", I meant the racism that the racists apply to THEMSELVES. The White racist sees his race as great and mighty and powerful and needing to be protected, yadda yadda yadda.

 

It is the symbols that I believe racism is based on, the belief that your race is superior.

 

To that I add: Any ideology that needs to attack the thing that least threatens it is an ideology that will not outlive it's own generation.

 

Hm. No wonder the Roman Empire managed to get itself killed after, say, about 1000 years? And of course, nobody would ever seek to copy such a corrupt empire that oppressed any ethnic group as long as they were not Roman (they even fought a Social War against fellow Italians), and murdered off tons of Jews and Christians. I mean, who would ever seek to borrow the name Senate from the Roman Empire and praise the crimes of the racist Roman Empire?

 

...Oh wait. It's the American Republic.

 

Truth be told we are complex beings and it is very difficult to put everythign in nice and neat little columns

 

You have to though, in order to understand it. Sweeping generalizations and abstract notions are necessary in understanding stuff. Otherwise, we will say:

 

"[iNSERT VERY IMPORATNT ISSUE] is a very complex subject. That is all. Any questions?"

 

Or you could be a scientist and not make judgment. I don't believe JM12's use of the word "artificial construct" meant that everything artificial is inherently bad. In fact, society is an artificial construct as well. Politics too. It's a useless debate as they do have a root in reality, it's just we, humans, who created this reality.

 

Thing is, if everything is artifical, then why should the idea of 'race' be hated and the idea of 'globalization' and 'tolerance' be praised when, in all fairness, neither of them actually exist.

 

I believe Tocqueville predicted the US civil war the best. He saw that the only way for the Southern states to actually continue slavery was consider the Africans as subhumans and as such ineligible for the same basic rights as the rest of the population.

 

Which leads to a more important point. Was the South justified in leaving the Union? We may disagree with their racism, but let us assume for a moment that their premise, that Blacks are inferior and that slaves are property, is correct.

 

If so, and even if not, shouldn't Southerners have the right to DECIDE for themselves how they want to live? Shouldn't Southerners have a right to self-determination? It was this right that caused for the Americans to sign the Declaration of Indepedence...so why is this right not given to Southerners?

 

The Southerners may believe in something we hate, but still, humans should have a right to rule over themselves, and not to have people impose rules and laws upon them, especially from people up North. Isn't that a form of slavery?

 

Anyway, I believe that with globalization, it might be possible that differences be "ironed out" over time and racism will slowly become less and less important. Hate of cultural differences too.

 

But that really wouldn't be the elimination of racism? It would rather be the Human Race becoming...well...one race. Each human seeing itself as superior to everything else. You still have racism, but it is the racism of the human race, the "tolerated" racism, by which the human race, by virtue of its virtues, is allowed to take over the universe.

[JediMaster12]

I don't believe JM12's use of the word "artificial construct" meant that everything artificial is inherently bad.

I never said this. I said that race was a social construct and that was basing off the accepted definition within the social sciences. SilentScope was the one who used artificial in his responses. I never said that it is bad but the concept of race and the reasoning for justification I find to be something not rooted in a science that would be readily accepted is something that I find slightly ridiculous. If you read Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, you would see what I mean. It would be wise if you remember who said what. I never said artificial is bad because when it comes to material things, it does have its uses.

[lukeiamyourdad]

You have to though, in order to understand it. Sweeping generalizations and abstract notions are necessary in understanding stuff. Otherwise, we will say:

 

"[iNSERT VERY IMPORATNT ISSUE] is a very complex subject. That is all. Any questions?"

 

An extremely dumb assumption. You confuse what is vulgarization and what is trying to actually understand complex phenomenons. What people generally try is to vulgarize the subject in order to make it understandable to the majority. As such, when talking to my friends about politics, I dumb things down, not because they're not as smart, but because they might not have such a deep interest nor what I consider basic knowledge to understand some more complicated concepts.

 

Simplification is a necessity but it does not mean that the subtle nuances disappear.

 

 

 

Thing is, if everything is artifical, then why should the idea of 'race' be hated and the idea of 'globalization' and 'tolerance' be praised when, in all fairness, neither of them actually exist.

 

Because they do exist. As such, you might as well say we shouldn't study society or politics because they are artificial constructs. Artificial is not synonymous with inexistent.

 

 

 

Which leads to a more important point. Was the South justified in leaving the Union? We may disagree with their racism, but let us assume for a moment that their premise, that Blacks are inferior and that slaves are property, is correct.

 

If so, and even if not, shouldn't Southerners have the right to DECIDE for themselves how they want to live? Shouldn't Southerners have a right to self-determination? It was this right that caused for the Americans to sign the Declaration of Indepedence...so why is this right not given to Southerners?

 

The Southerners may believe in something we hate, but still, humans should have a right to rule over themselves, and not to have people impose rules and laws upon them, especially from people up North. Isn't that a form of slavery?

 

Right to sovereignty of nations eh? Isn't it morally ambiguous to deny the right to freedom to some people and then on the other hand, claim that you should be free. A clear contradiction in your reasoning and the premise of Blacks being inferior is almost a disgusting rationalization of racism. Only if that was true would your argument have any value. Unfortunately, it isn't so your imaginary world example holds nothing. This is about racism, not sovereignty.

 

 

 

But that really wouldn't be the elimination of racism? It would rather be the Human Race becoming...well...one race. Each human seeing itself as superior to everything else. You still have racism, but it is the racism of the human race, the "tolerated" racism, by which the human race, by virtue of its virtues, is allowed to take over the universe.

 

Isn't it one race and different cultures already? Aren't we superior in many ways to a dog or a rabbit? Or are the dog and rabbit empires going to supplant us with their superior technology in the near future? Certainly, they have abilities we don't, but currently, apart from roaches who can survive everywhere, it's humanity who dominates and does whatever it wants with the world. Unless you're an animalist, I don't see how you can disagree.

 

 

It would be wise if you remember who said what. I never said artificial is bad because when it comes to material things, it does have its uses.

 

My mistake. You did say social construct. I remove what I said

[SilentScope001]

Simplification is a necessity but it does not mean that the subtle nuances disappear.

 

Eventually, however, to understand subtle nuances, you have to simplify it, at least for yourself.

 

Because they do exist. As such, you might as well say we shouldn't study society or politics because they are artificial constructs. Artificial is not synonymous with inexistent.

 

They are artifical, and they do exist, but even with that, you are telling me that one artitifcal construct is better than another artifical construct. They both are artitifical constructs, and really, neither is objective. You can prefer one or the other, but it doesn't matter what you prefer.

 

Right to sovereignty of nations eh? Isn't it morally ambiguous to deny the right to freedom to some people and then on the other hand, claim that you should be free. A clear contradiction in your reasoning and the premise of Blacks being inferior is almost a disgusting rationalization of racism. Only if that was true would your argument have any value. Unfortunately, it isn't so your imaginary world example holds nothing. This is about racism, not sovereignty.

 

/shrugs. I was merely making a questioning on why some people are willing to give freedom to some people (Blacks, to be able to rule themselves) and not freedom to other people (the slaveholders of the Blacks, to be able to rule others). How come we can give freedom to one group and ALSO deny freedom to the other group? That to me, seems quite hypocritical.

 

You treat the Black with more respect than the White Slaveholder. Yes, this may be justifiable for your belief. But I always like understanding other people's viewpoints, and if you accept the premise that blacks are inferior to whites, then what the Slaveholders did was justifiable.

 

But you have to prove to me that the premise is wrong, that we should discard this construct. It is up to each human to decide what is right and wrong, in the end, if everything is artifical and there is no real concrete meaning, therefore, it really did not matter if Blacks are inferior to Whites or Whites and Blacks are equal.

 

Isn't it one race and different cultures already? Aren't we superior in many ways to a dog or a rabbit? Or are the dog and rabbit empires going to supplant us with their superior technology in the near future? Certainly, they have abilities we don't, but currently, apart from roaches who can survive everywhere, it's humanity who dominates and does whatever it wants with the world. Unless you're an animalist, I don't see how you can disagree.

 

1) Here is what I am afraid of: Oppressing the Earth. Tearing the Earth to pieces. Strip-mining it. And then rinsing, and repeating on all the other planets in the solar systems! It is this human-centric viewpoint that would threaten to turn the Human Race into a race that would consume the whole solar system, heck, the whole universe, to sastify itself!

 

Who caused Global Warming? Humans. Who caused the exinticion of many species? Humans. Who pollute the Earth? Humans Who caused the religious wars, the non-religious wars, all wars in general that ruin the Earth's landscape? Humans.

 

...But who causes death? The laws of nature. If it wasn't for death, we would mistake ourselves to be God, and we would go and ravage the worlds, destroying all natural resources, and ruining all the planets.

 

Strangely, I treat the Earth with more dignity than I would treat my fellow species. The Earth is silent, it does not speak and boast of its virtues. It never committed any crimes whatsoever, as it knows what It is doing is necessary. It is older than us. If it wasn't for the Earth, we wouldn't even exists, and then start on this march to global, and later intergalactic conquest.

 

Surely, the Earth is a good planet, and I am not advocating for, say, murdering off all Humans to perseve our nice little planet. But...prehaps maybe we should realize that we AREN'T superior and that we are at the mercy of other forces, that we are pretty weak, and that, in essence, we should pay respect to Nature rather than think ourselves superior, like mini-Gods. I find this sort of racism, the racism of Human Beings, to be quite stupid: Not only is it ignoring facts, such as the fact that we are at the mercy of nature, but it also causes humans to harm nature and pollute.

 

2) Alien xenopohiba. "Let us murder the bugs and the itty-bitty green dudes!" If aliens exist, this is what will happen, we think we're the best and that we'll go out and genocide any who disagree with that. Not exactly conductive to the main goals of tolerance.

[JediMaster12]

Ok I see that SilentScope001 has taken this to involve Mother Earth and human intervention, etc. It would probably be wise to stick with relationships bewteen groups of people. That was my original intention anyway.

 

You treat the Black with more respect than the White Slaveholder. Yes, this may be justifiable for your belief. But I always like understanding other people's viewpoints, and if you accept the premise that blacks are inferior to whites, then what the Slaveholders did was justifiable.

This 'premise' is supported by other things that I have mentioned. One is the biological determinist theory. It's the idea that they are inferior because they were born that way; that it is their genes. Again this is from Stephen Jay Gould's book The Mismeasure of Man. Also there is another good book that the slaveholders have used to justify slavery: the Bible. Yes they have used the Bible. The popular one that I know of comes from Joshua 9:20 "The children of Ham turned black for their sins and shall be unto the rest hewers of wood and drawers of water. They shall be as servants unto us." Nice huh?

 

To take this discussion into modern times with a more current example, what of the assumptions that the federal government of the US that anyone with an Arabic name should be put on the terrorist watchlist? Isn't this some form of racism if you look at it? True that there are no rights being denied except for maybe certain jobs like the military but to single out a group for being what they are, isn't that a form of racism?

[lukeiamyourdad]

They are artifical, and they do exist, but even with that, you are telling me that one artitifcal construct is better than another artifical construct. They both are artitifical constructs, and really, neither is objective. You can prefer one or the other, but it doesn't matter what you prefer.

 

No, I never said something like that. They can be both objective at their base, but humans do put a subjectivity on them. To be honest, I kind of lost you here.

 

 

/shrugs. I was merely making a questioning on why some people are willing to give freedom to some people (Blacks, to be able to rule themselves) and not freedom to other people (the slaveholders of the Blacks, to be able to rule others). How come we can give freedom to one group and ALSO deny freedom to the other group? That to me, seems quite hypocritical.

 

Okay, I suggest you read classics books from Hobbes and Locke.

 

People give up a part of their freedom so they can live in a society, so that peace can exist. Pure freedom, the State of nature, is anarchy among humans. We would live no longer then an antelope.

 

As a matter of fact, why are you following laws? Why can't you just go kill, steal and rape whatever and whoever you want? I mean, why would the government deny you that freedom and give it to people who don't do any of those things?

 

You treat the Black with more respect than the White Slaveholder. Yes, this may be justifiable for your belief. But I always like understanding other people's viewpoints, and if you accept the premise that blacks are inferior to whites, then what the Slaveholders did was justifiable.

 

No, I treat racist black people the same I treat racist white people. As a matter of fact, like I said, your premise is unacceptable because it is absolutely false. It is based on nothing. No scientific evidence points to blacks being inherently inferior then whites.

 

 

But you have to prove to me that the premise is wrong, that we should discard this construct. It is up to each human to decide what is right and wrong, in the end, if everything is artifical and there is no real concrete meaning, therefore, it really did not matter if Blacks are inferior to Whites or Whites and Blacks are equal.

 

Science proved the premise wrong.

 

In fact, you're just trying to say that racism is something good and acceptable. I hope you're white and you live in an all white place because...

It's almost as if you're trying to discredit every social science out there because it apparently is "artificial" and has no "real concrete meaning". What is that supposed to mean? Society does not exist? Politics don't exist? History doesn't exist? None of those things are concrete. Society is the relation between humans, politics is the relation of power between humans in a society and history is what happened between these people throughout the ages. It doesn't "exist". It's not concrete, you don't touch it. It's still there. You can try to deny it all you want but I don't even understand what your point really is.

[SilentScope001]

Ok I see that SilentScope001 has taken this to involve Mother Earth and human intervention, etc. It would probably be wise to stick with relationships bewteen groups of people. That was my original intention anyway.

 

You're right. Sorry.

 

To take this discussion into modern times with a more current example, what of the assumptions that the federal government of the US that anyone with an Arabic name should be put on the terrorist watchlist? Isn't this some form of racism if you look at it? True that there are no rights being denied except for maybe certain jobs like the military but to single out a group for being what they are, isn't that a form of racism?

 

Possibly.

 

No, I never said something like that. They can be both objective at their base, but humans do put a subjectivity on them. To be honest, I kind of lost you here.

 

Globization, liberal democracy, the idea of tolerance and society, everything, is all social constructs. I don't see how a social construct can be "objective" at all.

 

Okay, I suggest you read classics books from Hobbes and Locke.

 

People give up a part of their freedom so they can live in a society, so that peace can exist. Pure freedom, the State of nature, is anarchy among humans. We would live no longer then an antelope.

 

Yes I know about Hobbes and Locke. At least we would still be free, no? But I understand most people dislike the Hobbean State of Nature. I'd like to live there though, it is, to me, the purest expression of freedom, and if freedom is so important, then why give it up?

 

As a matter of fact, why are you following laws? Why can't you just go kill, steal and rape whatever and whoever you want? I mean, why would the government deny you that freedom and give it to people who don't do any of those things.

 

If society creates laws, and we should obey them, then why is it okay for slaves to run away from your masters? Why is it okay for slaves to disobey the laws then? Aren't they breaking the law of the government?

 

Maybe, it's a conflict between two ideas of Freedom: The Freedom of the Slaveholder to enslave, and the Freedom of the Slave to be freed. Which freedom should be preferred then?

 

No, I treat racist black people the same I treat racist white people. As a matter of fact, like I said, your premise is unacceptable because it is absolutely false. It is based on nothing. No scientific evidence points to blacks being inherently inferior then whites.

 

...Didn't you just say Science is 99% only accurate? And, it is easy to rig data to support the racist viewpoints. I've seen it been done against Muslims, claiming that they are inferior because most crimes were committed by Muslims. No mention on how reliable the stats are, but they printed it, and they believed it. So, well, maybe there is scientific evidence, for a given value of "scientific" and "evidence".

 

In fact, you're just trying to say that racism is something good and acceptable. I hope you're white and you live in an all white place because...

 

Nope. Muslim, live in a muliticultural neighborhood, pretty tolerant people. I've been on the receiving end of racism in the past, having been taunted in some months after 9/11, and I will be in the future.

 

I have never ever said racism was good. I just try to understand it, just all. I understand why the Southerns believed this way, and why they wanted to rebel. I do not believe in their premises. But I do respect their viewpoints. Understanding what a person is arguing is not condoing their viewpoints in any way, shape, or form. It's merely a form of respect for your foes and enemy.

 

It's almost as if you're trying to discredit every social science out there because it apparently is "artificial" and has no "real concrete meaning". What is that supposed to mean? Society does not exist? Politics don't exist? History doesn't exist? None of those things are concrete. Society is the relation between humans, politics is the relation of power between humans in a society and history is what happened between these people throughout the ages. It doesn't "exist". It's not concrete, you don't touch it. It's still there. You can try to deny it all you want but I don't even understand what your point really is.

 

If it isn't concerte, if it can easily be made and broken, then one social construct is equally valid as another. Racism is a social construct. Tolerance is a social construct. What is good? What is bad? Why should we prefer one social construct over another? We can't rely on the social constructs to tell us what is good and what is bad, the social constructs of racism and the social constructs of tolerance all claim to be correct.

[BruceLee_Reborn]

Ya know, whatever you religious views are, we all originated from a common ancestor: Christianity=Adam&Eve/Abraham/Noah&family, and evolution=goey ooze. (bs, by the way ) i'm not saying those are the only religions there are, but i'm a Christian, and our, main opposition comes from evolutionists and all those pihutas, so without delving to much into it, i also believe that the only way to be hurt by racism is to actually believe in it. some one calls me white: ok, ya. someone calls martin luther king jr black, he wrights a speech he stole from edison i think. at least the "all men are equal" part.

 

why am i refered to as a lurker? that sounds creepy. hooray 1st post on a sensitive topic that some vet's gonna torch me for.

[Achilles]

why am i refered to as a lurker? that sounds creepy. hooray 1st post on a sensitive topic that some vet's gonna torch me for.

Welcome!

Naw, no torching. I would like to invite you over to the evolution thread so that I can better understand the basis of your argument though

 

Take care!

[lukeiamyourdad]

Globization, liberal democracy, the idea of tolerance and society, everything, is all social constructs. I don't see how a social construct can be "objective" at all.

 

Ok, politics is the relations of power between the individuals in a society. How is that basic element not objective?

 

 

 

Yes I know about Hobbes and Locke. At least we would still be free, no? But I understand most people dislike the Hobbean State of Nature. I'd like to live there though, it is, to me, the purest expression of freedom, and if freedom is so important, then why give it up?

 

No, in all technicality we would be slave to the State of Nature. You consider freedom the ultimate value. That is untrue to an extent. If you think like that, you oversimplify the nature of humans. Humans need freedom but they also need society. Humans have no natural defenses. We don't have a horn, no super speed, no camouflage, nothing but a brain. So humans ganged up so they could survive. Survival being a necessity, humans gave up part of their freedom in order to live a decent life.

 

 

 

 

If society creates laws, and we should obey them, then why is it okay for slaves to run away from your masters? Why is it okay for slaves to disobey the laws then? Aren't they breaking the law of the government?

 

I believe you don't understand some basic principles of democracy. Those laws allowing slavery contradicts the ultimate law, the Constitution. The Constitution allows equal rights to everyone, regardless of ethnicity. No law made in the State can go against the Constitution unless there's a special clause that allows it in said Constitution.

 

Now before you say something like "why should we obey the Constitution?" and something else like that, well, live with it. That's how it works.

 

 

 

 

...Didn't you just say Science is 99% only accurate? And, it is easy to rig data to support the racist viewpoints. I've seen it been done against Muslims, claiming that they are inferior because most crimes were committed by Muslims. No mention on how reliable the stats are, but they printed it, and they believed it. So, well, maybe there is scientific evidence, for a given value of "scientific" and "evidence".

 

Actually, you obviously know nothing of the subtle nuances that must be made when reading such data. Statistics stating these supposed evidence did not follow a rigorous methodology. In fact, it's not worth more then my toilet paper. In fact, you mention people rigging data. How is that science then?

 

You can't stop people from being idiots and believing everything someone who looks like a scientist says. You have no point.

 

 

 

 

 

I have never ever said racism was good. I just try to understand it, just all. I understand why the Southerns believed this way, and why they wanted to rebel. I do not believe in their premises. But I do respect their viewpoints. Understanding what a person is arguing is not condoing their viewpoints in any way, shape, or form. It's merely a form of respect for your foes and enemy.

 

There's a difference in understanding, I think everyone can understand it, but then, why are you arguing with me about this? For the sake of the argument? As a matter of fact, I don't respect their viewpoints at all. I respect caviar leftists who make good arguments. I respect people whose arguments are not pure idiocy. I respect those who believe we should not eat animals. I don't agree with any of them, but I admit that they do have relatively valid arguments. I find it admirable when someone can defend a viewpoint that can be defended. I respect even more those who are ready to back down on there position if it can't be defended. However, racists who justify their problems by attacking others? I have no respect for any of them.

 

 

 

If it isn't concerte, if it can easily be made and broken, then one social construct is equally valid as another. Racism is a social construct. Tolerance is a social construct. What is good? What is bad? Why should we prefer one social construct over another? We can't rely on the social constructs to tell us what is good and what is bad, the social constructs of racism and the social constructs of tolerance all claim to be correct.

 

Frankly, I'm quite tired of your mindless relativism. It almost seems as if you only want to be the biggest relativist in the history of humanity. If you want to know what is good or what is bad, well, find the answer yourself. It's your own morals, not mine.

[SilentScope001]

Ok, politics is the relations of power between the individuals in a society. How is that basic element not objective?

 

I'm thinking more of the different ideas here, and such. Politics could be objective. The ideas of tolerance and racism, however, are not.

 

No, in all technicality we would be slave to the State of Nature. You consider freedom the ultimate value. That is untrue to an extent. If you think like that, you oversimplify the nature of humans. Humans need freedom but they also need society. Humans have no natural defenses. We don't have a horn, no super speed, no camouflage, nothing but a brain. So humans ganged up so they could survive. Survival being a necessity, humans gave up part of their freedom in order to live a decent life.

 

This may all be true, but that still does not discount why one society should be supported or not. Why is one group should be declared morally correct and another group morally incorrect.

 

I believe you don't understand some basic principles of democracy. Those laws allowing slavery contradicts the ultimate law, the Constitution. The Constitution allows equal rights to everyone, regardless of ethnicity. No law made in the State can go against the Constitution unless there's a special clause that allows it in said Constitution.

 

It does. There is a clause within the Constitution that basically allows, for the purpose of represenation, a slave, to be counted as 3/5 of a person, in the "3/5 compromise". This was done because slave owner states were worried of the high population in the North would mean that the Slaveholder states would be locked out of power within the House of Represenatives. This was part of the consitution in order to please slaveholders. There was also another agreement that Conress would not ban the slave trade for a certain amount of time...once that time was passed, the slave trade was banned, but not slavery.

 

The Consitution also allows for people to own property and to not have that property being stolen. If you accept the premise that slaves are property, then you have a basis for allowing the Slave States to state that their ability to hold slaves cannot be not hampered. This was ruled in the Superme Court case of "Dredd Scott".

 

...Now, it is against the Consitution to have slavery. But it was not back then.

 

Now before you say something like "why should we obey the Constitution?" and something else like that, well, live with it. That's how it works.

 

Either that, or just go to a society that does not obey the Consitution. People did have this right, and many slaveholders did excerise it. Near the end of the Civil War, Brazil, still a slaveholding nation, allowed for Southern and Confederate farmers to arrive to South America and bring their slaves. A couple of slaveholders took up that right and fled over there to Brazil, where they suffered from farming troubles and such. Brazil did in the end abolish slavery, but the descendants of the Confederacy still live there today and hold celebrations of the Confederacy past.

 

So, really, I guess my argument has a flaw. If you hate a law, then just leave to a nation that does not have such a law. If you do not move, well, you are consenting to that law, and then you are forced to follow it. The problem is what if every society bans something, but then that means you are out of luck.

 

Actually, you obviously know nothing of the subtle nuances that must be made when reading such data. Statistics stating these supposed evidence did not follow a rigorous methodology. In fact, it's not worth more then my toilet paper. In fact, you mention people rigging data. How is that science then?

 

Science is the framework of gathering evidence. You have a hypothesis, you create an experiment, you test the experiment, you gather conclusions, you rinse and repeat.

 

You believe Muslims causes crime. That is an hypothesis. You create an experiment: Let check stats of criminals who are arrested, and see how many Muslim versus how many non-Muslims are arrested. You gather the conclusion: More muslims are arrested, therefore, Muslims start crime.

 

You can't stop people from being idiots and believing everything someone who looks like a scientist says. You have no point.

 

I have a point. You can't say that you are right and they are wrong, just because you disagree with them, and they believe in different stats. It is up to you to prove they are idiots, but according to them, they are not idiots. I give their word equal standing to your word.

 

There's a difference in understanding, I think everyone can understand it, but then, why are you arguing with me about this? For the sake of the argument?

 

I am arguing because you said that because we created this reality, we must obey this reality, and that the creation of reality does not mean it has no meaning. I disagree, because there are two social constructs and no reason why to prefer either.

 

As a matter of fact, I don't respect their viewpoints at all. I respect caviar leftists who make good arguments. I respect people whose arguments are not pure idiocy. I respect those who believe we should not eat animals. I don't agree with any of them, but I admit that they do have relatively valid arguments. I find it admirable when someone can defend a viewpoint that can be defended. I respect even more those who are ready to back down on there position if it can't be defended. However, racists who justify their problems by attacking others? I have no respect for any of them.

 

You do realize that most people DON'T back down from a debate, and that they are willing to defend something to the death. All positions can theortically be defenisble, if someone wants to.

 

I respect racists because they are human beings, just like us. They have the same access to the faculaties, the abilites to reason, and the same resources that we do. I disagree with their positions, but I must first understand excatly what they are saying. Once I do, I try to counter their points, and once they counter my points I merely say, "I agree to disagree".

 

To do anything else would be to deny racists are smart or claim that racists are idiots that shouldn't be argued with. This, I feel, is hypocrisim. If all humans are equal, then we should treat racists with respect, as well as the non-racist as well. If we do not, then, well? Aren't we too committing the same sins we accuse the racists of, by not being tolerant of other people's ideas, and of calling those who are racists "idiots" who do not deserve to live.

 

Frankly, I'm quite tired of your mindless relativism. It almost seems as if you only want to be the biggest relativist in the history of humanity. If you want to know what is good or what is bad, well, find the answer yourself. It's your own morals, not mine.

 

I already have morals, which may be similar to your own. But you are saying that we should prefer one social construct over another, and you are not given me any reason to do such a thing. You only say that tolerance is "good", but the racist says racism is "good" so that doesn't mean anything.

 

Regardless, it might be best to end this topic, as we now understand our positions. I'll leave. Let agree to disagree.