Racism

@manored,

manored wrote:

You cant force people to respect others, but you can persuade. Making laws in favor of the minority to compensate the fact of that the majority doesnt respects it will make the majority angry.

In the short run, yes a racist majority will be enraged with equalizing legislation; this is exactly what happened in the south when segregation was ended. But over time, as people interact more and more, this backlash will subside and people will, in the long run, be more united and accepting of others.

@manored,

manored;35337 wrote:

Making laws in favor of the minority to compensate the fact of that the majority doesnt respects it will make the majority angry.

Morality isn't subject to majority rule. Sometimes you need to do unpopular things if they're the right thing to do, and screw the majority in the process.

@Aedes,

Well, if the majority acts with enough violence toward a morally upright change in the law, the result of the cure might be more harmful than leaving the disease alone.

Timing is extremely important. If the Federal government had passed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act thirty years earlier the south would have gone mad. Don't get me wrong, I wish we could have instituted that legislation in 1865, but without the second world war, the Cold War, and the time needed to shift the racial prejudices of the rest of the nation equal rights legislation would have produced a violent response far beyond the response in the 60's.

I agree entirely that morality is not subject to majority rule, and 99% of the time I'm with you - screw the majority if they oppose what is right. But at the same time, one can imagine where the majority is so strong and so attached to their ways that the change we would like to see is practically impossible in the present and more dangerous than the status quo.

@Didymos Thomas,

One can imagine all kinds of situations, of course. When you do something is just as important as if you do something; but that's a different sort of consideration.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

In the short run, yes a racist majority will be enraged with equalizing legislation; this is exactly what happened in the south when segregation was ended. But over time, as people interact more and more, this backlash will subside and people will, in the long run, be more united and accepting of others.

... so ... is there a generational-timescale feedback loop here? ... that is, equalizing legislation leads to changes in attitudes which are then more accepting of equalizing legislation which leads to changes in attitudes which are then more accepting of ... ad infinitum?

@OctoberMist,

Paul, that idea presumes that the environment is otherwise static, which isn't the case. Relations between groups can certainly get worse too under situations of hardship.

@paulhanke,

Integration isn't the only issue to be considered. What aspect of society does not influence perspective?

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Paul, that idea presumes that the environment is otherwise static, which isn't the case. Relations between groups can certainly get worse too under situations of hardship.

... true ... but to-date, this cycle seems to be in operation in the "American Experiment" - beginning with the overreaching legislation that "all men are created equal" and the subsequent (though drawn out) efforts to eliminate the obvious hypocrisy therein ... that last "ad infinitum" was an overreach of my own Wink

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

In the short run, yes a racist majority will be enraged with equalizing legislation; this is exactly what happened in the south when segregation was ended. But over time, as people interact more and more, this backlash will subside and people will, in the long run, be more united and accepting of others.

I believe tough that making the people believe the equality and demand a change is a better, or rather, safier way to end racism. This would be done with anti-racist propraganda and school education.

Aedes wrote:

Morality isn't subject to majority rule. Sometimes you need to do unpopular things if they're the right thing to do, and screw the majority in the process.

I think you are being too inflexible here. What is good? what is moral? Nobody does evil believing they are doing evil, they believe they are doing something good or at least justificable. If you go against the will of the majority you are being dictadorial, doesnt matters how good what you are doing seens to you. Not that dictadorship is bad on itself but its not democracy, what, as far as I know, is the main form of goverment these days.

Its true that the government sometimes has to do unpopular things, but if it is for the good of the whole the population may trust then because they understand better... but that doesnt works for morals, nobody can claim to have superior morals.

@manored,

manored;35488 wrote:

I think you are being too inflexible here. What is good? what is moral? Nobody does evil believing they are doing evil, they believe they are doing something good or at least justificable. If you go against the will of the majority you are being dictadorial, doesnt matters how good what you are doing seens to you. Not that dictadorship is bad on itself but its not democracy, what, as far as I know, is the main form of goverment these days.

On the other hand, we could follow more closely your line of reasoning and decide that, authority be damned, let's let the masses do what they want. There would be no rule of law, no order, and we would have chaos. Do you really think that nobody does evil believing they are doing evil?

Quote:

Its true that the government sometimes has to do unpopular things, but if it is for the good of the whole the population may trust then because they understand better... but that doesnt works for morals, nobody can claim to have superior morals.

So then people like Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler both had sets of morals that were not inferior to anyone else's? If no one could claim that a superior set of morals did exist, then it must have been unjust when we brought them to trial for their crimes...they must have believed what they were doing was right, so therefore it was wrong to impose judgment?

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

On the other hand, we could follow more closely your line of reasoning and decide that, authority be damned, let's let the masses do what they want. There would be no rule of law, no order, and we would have chaos. Do you really think that nobody does evil believing they are doing evil?

So then people like Charles Manson and Adolf Hitler both had sets of morals that were not inferior to anyone else's? If no one could claim that a superior set of morals did exist, then it must have been unjust when we brought them to trial for their crimes...they must have believed what they were doing was right, so therefore it was wrong to impose judgment?

People want to obey authority. Do you think that the fact we believe they should is somehow preventing then from doing otherwise? Smile

I am not saying we shouldnt fight for our beliefs, but rather that we should understand that the belief of others is as correct for then as ours is for us... "I am right/correct/moral and you arent" is not an argument, nor a valid excuse in the eyes of others.

@manored,

Racism, as hating someone solely on their skin, is unnatural. Being alerted or judging someone of a different skin is natural. (Neither of these include a persons social environment though)

For example, my old Rottweiler did not feel comfortable around black people. We never bred him this way, and he wasn't what you would think of as the stereotypical Rottweiler who attacks people randomly. Anyways, he has been around white people his whole life and one time our next door neighbor came over, he lowered his head and growled. He wouldn't let him in the house. We have also had people come over who where white and looked rather trashy and my dog was alerted and sniffed them continuously, but he let them.

No one person is the same. Groups of people are even more different. We all have adapted differently over the thousands or so years. People don't fully use evolution to explain differentiations of humans, like they do in animals. (Even more mind boggling is how people are so ignorant to the obvious)

For example, if we were to talk about dogs we could all point out obvious differences. A little White West(ie) Terrier is nothing more than an ankle biter when compared to a Rotty or a Pit, but neither of those dogs could catch varmints like a Westie could. Different dogs for different things.

When comparing people though, the obvious natural defenses will be put up. The typical speak of "all humans are created equally" is simply not true. True, we are more adaptable to differences than dogs, but socially and intellectually we are different. I think by people embracing and thinking everyone is equal does the opposite of what is truly intended. It's a belief that will only lead to a smack in the face.

Asians, Alaskan Natives, and Whites are all shorter compared to blacks due to the cold climate they inhabited. Shorter bodies equals decreased amount of blood loss in extremities. Blacks are taller and bigger for more surface area to perspiration. They are also obviously black so they aren't likely to get skin cancer. We are all intellectually different as well based upon what we used our noggin for.

People are different. The only way I think we can end unjustified racism (which is taught) is by teaching people we are different; and there are reasons for being different. It doesn't make them or you better, it's just the way we adapted differently. Instead of embracing all being the same human beings, we need to embrace our differences and learn to tolerate each. It's thinking backwards that will spin us 180 degrees and get us going forward. :a-ok:

Also I fully understand dogs are not on the same intellectual capabilities as us and cheated the evolution process a bit, it was just an easy way to point out differences. This post is kind of scattered and I tried editing a bit for clarity. Sorry if things aren't fully clear.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

In the short run, yes a racist majority will be enraged with equalizing legislation; this is exactly what happened in the south when segregation was ended. But over time, as people interact more and more, this backlash will subside and people will, in the long run, be more united and accepting of others.

This will not work. You are establishing a set of laws that favor a group of people distinctly by color. Isn't that "racist"? Also the effects that this will have, will make more people conscious about color than subconscious. This also leads to skin before skill hiring. Bigotry hasn't gone anywhere it's just silenced. I wonder how long until that tape is taken off and what would be said after having it on for so many years...

The only way you can make people truly "equal" is by making every skinny person wear weights, smart people wear a device that beeps in your ear every 20 sec, etc. Backwards isn't it?

What would backwards thinking of today's solution of racism result in....?

@Solace,

Solace;33679 wrote:

Racism is a natural evolution of mankind. We embrace the familiar and shun the unfamiliar. It's simply part of our survival instinct.

That being said, there comes a point in the evolution of the man creature when we must move beyond animal instinct and develop sentient understanding. If we, in this day and age, and at this stage of our evolution, still need to generalize entire sections of population, then maybe we should do a little more examination of ourselves before we try to examine others.

exactly.

I've come to see Man's ultimate need (as instilled by nature) is security. This trait exists in all things in nature, it's what ensures the passing of genes from one generation to the next. It's a primordial instinct to fear that which is different from us in any way as being antithetical to security. The way man alleviates that is by achieving dominance over that which is different than he This is where what I believe is the misconception that our actions are motivated by will to power, comes in. The way I see it, the best way to insure security over that which is different is to dominate it so that it follows, or bends to your will. This is a very natural instinct that revolves around the self, which served us well early on in our evolution. You see things kind of like 'racism' in nature as well. Sometimes, elephants in Africa have been sighted killing rhinos for no apparent reason (neither territorial, nor out of feeling immediate threat) other than an assertion of dominance. We cannot say whether this is justified or not, seeing as how nature knows no sense of "good" or "evil" or "justice".

This, however, is one of the key differences between 'man' and 'nature'. We understand concepts like "good" and "evil" and "justice". Something about our consciousness (often referred to as the Soul) transcends basic nature. This is why we must transcend beyond basic "human nature" that is becoming vestigial as we form societies and interact with one another more and more.

Short answer: no, racism is never justifiable.

@Lithium phil,

Lithium;36614 wrote:

This will not work. You are establishing a set of laws that favor a group of people distinctly by color. Isn't that "racist"? Also the effects that this will have, will make more people conscious about color than subconscious. This also leads to skin before skill hiring. Bigotry hasn't gone anywhere it's just silenced. I wonder how long until that tape is taken off and what would be said after having it on for so many years...

The only way you can make people truly "equal" is by making every skinny person wear weights, smart people wear a device that beeps in your ear every 20 sec, etc. Backwards isn't it?

What would backwards thinking of today's solution of racism result in....?

There's a difference in achieving total equality, or making everybody the same (there is a really good short story about that tho. Can't remember the name, but it was similar to what you described) and establishing basic rights that everyone is entitled to simply for being human. When they "equalized" legislation in the South, they were giving those rights back to people who had been stripped of those rights out of ignorance. That's not racism, that is justice.

@Aphoric,

Aphoric wrote:

There's a difference in achieving total equality, or making everybody the same (there is a really good short story about that tho. Can't remember the name, but it was similar to what you described) and establishing basic rights that everyone is entitled to simply for being human.

And I ask you, where are we now? Are we equal? Do blacks still deserve more to be where whites are now? If so, what things specifically do you think need to be addressed?

Aphoric wrote:

When they "equalized" legislation in the South, they were giving those rights back to people who had been stripped of those rights out of ignorance. That's not racism, that is justice.

I think you missed my point. There is no argument here and even after they gained the 14th amendment it still took over 100 years for blacks to be able to go to the same school as whites. Do you think are they equal to whites now though? Where does the pendulum swing now? This doesn't apply to just blacks, but other races other than white. What would be the opposite of the past? Should we avoid it? If not or so, why?

Whites aren't included because we are doing a compare and contrast of the past and the present. (Whites had more rights than others and their rights are still the same by law...)

Aphoric wrote:

I've come to see Man's ultimate need (as instilled by nature) is security. This trait exists in all things in nature, it's what ensures the passing of genes from one generation to the next. It's a primordial instinct to fear that which is different from us in any way as being antithetical to security. The way man alleviates

You are suggesting we get rid of this defense mechanism. Why? Do you see any other solution? Instead of getting rid of it, why not change or alter it? Do you not see it's other purposes? You said yourself it is secure means of making sure we reproduce. Is that not important?

Do you think whites have a defense mechanism solely for black people?

Also do you think men like women just because that's the way things are? Nice breasts, small waist, big hips are just that way because men like that, eh? My point is your natural senses are more important than you think.

Also what is your definition of racism?

@Lithium phil,

Lithium;36626 wrote:

I think you missed my point. There is no argument here and even after they gained the 14th amendment it still took over 100 years for blacks to be able to go to the same school as whites. Do you think are they equal to whites now though? The extreme in both directions is poison. One is just a lot sweeter. Where does the pendulum swing now? This doesn't apply to just blacks, but other races other than white.

Whites aren't included because we are doing a compare and contrast of the past and the present. (Whites had more rights than others, etc)

You are suggesting we get rid of this defense mechanism. Why? Do you see any other solution? Instead of getting rid of it, why not change or alter it? Do you not see it's other purposes? You said yourself it is secure means of making sure we reproduce. Is that not important?

Do you think whites have a defense mechanism solely for black people?

Also do you think men like women just because that's the way things are? Nice breasts, small waist, big hips are just that way because men like that, eh? My point is your natural senses are more important than you think.

I figured I wasn't getting the whole picture on the equality thing, but i decided to speak on it anyway. i = awesome:a-ok:.

As far as our "defense mechanism," have you considered the idea that maybe reproduction for every individual is no longer a necessity? there are 5.8 billion people on the planet right now, according to the UN (and you know they didn't count everybody). Experts are projecting that by the year 2050 there will be roughly 7.9 billion. In a world that currently wrestles with global warming, increasing crime rates, starvation in developing countries, thinning ozone layer, do we need that many people? Man has already found ways to fend off natural selection through processes like sterilization, vaccination, and antibiotics, along with countless other methods for the sustainment of human life past natural departure. These are only a few of the basic natural conditions that man has transcended.

Also, think about how much of a negative impact that "defense mechanism" has made. In 2006, the Annie E. Casey Foundation reported that approximately 32% of children in America are being raised in single-parent family structures. I would argue (based on scientific evidence and personal experience) that a single parent household is not a proper environment to raise a fully developed individual. At the very least I'd say a child raised in a single-parent household is much less likely to be offered the same opportunity as a child with two parents at home. Why does this happen? I posit that a lot of the time people become emotionally attached to one another (due to that primordial need to reproduce) have children too early, and find out after the fact that they don't like the person with which they were bumping uglies. This is just cases in America. And I'm not even talking about children in foster care, orphanages, or adoption agencies.

I have no idea why you asked me if whites have a mechanism solely for black people tho, man simply has a defense mechanism for those different than himself.

And men like women with supple breasts and wide hips because those are the prime conditions for reproduction. The feminine physique is also a beautiful compliment to the masculine physique. However, everyone's personality develops differently, and a relationship must delve deeper than the simple physical compliment into the personal compliment in order to truly prosper as a couple. I assert that the problem is that our actions are misguided by this primordial instinct that I still assert must be transcended if we are to truly prosper as a species.

My point is your natural senses are more cumbersome than you think.

@Aphoric,

Aphoric wrote:

As far as our "defense mechanism," have you considered the idea that maybe reproduction for every individual is no longer a necessity?

It will always be a necessity. If another Black Plaque came and this time wiped 2/3 of the earth away and we didn't have the desire and/or will to reproduce then we would become extinct.

Our short term problems would be solved, but nature doesn't care about that. It's only long terms problems that prompt change. Racism that is taught, is a long term problem. A social problem, but nonetheless one that needs correcting.

When we find a vaccine for the common cold should we try and make our immune systems extinct?

Quote:

there are 5.8 billion people on the planet right now, according to the UN (and you know they didn't count everybody). Experts are projecting that by the year 2050 there will be roughly 7.9 billion. In a world that currently wrestles with global warming, increasing crime rates, starvation in developing countries, thinning ozone layer, do we need that many people?

Nope, your right we don't. However, nature will always win. We are sprinting on a treadmill and soon we will run out of breathe and trust me when we smack down on our face, it will hurt.

Quote:

Man has already found ways to fend off natural selection through processes like sterilization, vaccination, and antibiotics, along with countless other methods for the sustainment of human life past natural departure. These are only a few of the basic natural conditions that man has transcended.

We're cheaters. We don't want to live the way we were intended. However, that doesn't mean we can change ourselves physically. We still are able to reproduce at a very young age and always have been.

Quote:

Also, think about how much of a negative impact that "defense mechanism" has made. In 2006, the Annie E. Casey Foundation reported that approximately 32% of children in America are being raised in single-parent family structures. I would argue (based on scientific evidence and personal experience) that a single parent household is not a proper environment to raise a fully developed individual.

Was it the "defensive mechanism"? Or is it what society (man) teaches? Look back 50-70 years. Were divorce rates the same as they are today? What is the only thing that has changed?

Quote:

At the very least I'd say a child raised in a single-parent household is much less likely to be offered the same opportunity as a child with two parents at home.

They don't have to the same opportunities physically? What did one of their legs didn't fully develope?

If this isn't the case, then this isn't natures fault. This is mans fault. This is what man has caused by living in a society that doesn't promote hard work ethic and solving your problems rationally.

For example: "What you don't like that girl? Well, don't worry just move on, afterall there are other fish in the sea."

Women aren't special anymore and treated as toys. Society promotes this, not nature. Nature doesn't tell you how to act or what choices to make other than protecting yourself and assuring the survival of your genes.

Quote:

Why does this happen? I posit that a lot of the time people become emotionally attached to one another

Emotional attachment is a apart of human instinct, correct. Nature intended this. The why is below.

Quote:

have children too early, and find out after the fact that they don't like the person with which they were bumping uglies. This is just cases in America. And I'm not even talking about children in foster care, orphanages, or adoption agencies.

Early compared to what? Our life expectancy? We are cheaters. We were never intended to be able to double our life expectancy. This isn't natural. We created these problems, not nature. What do you want, more cake and the ability to lose weight at the sametime?

Quote:

I have no idea why you asked me if whites have a mechanism solely for black people tho, man simply has a defense mechanism for those different than himself.

It was to show that being prejudice and is not what moderns refer to as "rascism" because it doesn't single out one group of people.

It serves as a wider range of functions than solely thinking black people are evil.

We have already come to the conclusion that this is not true. However isn't this what society thinks thats what the typical "racist" is comprised of.

There is something "wrong" with you if you think now a days differently. Everyone is the same now. Isn't this what is taught?

Example: Billy doesn't believe in the Holocaust. He doesn't think it happened the way it is taught. He doesn't think he is racist or "anti-semetic" because his best friend actually happens to be Jewish, but honestly, what will his classmates think of him if he expressed his views?

This is what society teaches. It doesn't teach to tolerate differences, it teaches to think and be the same because they think that we are the same when we aren't.

Quote:

And men like women with supple breasts and wide hips because those are the prime conditions for reproduction. The feminine physique is also a beautiful compliment to the masculine physique. However, everyone's personality develops differently

Are traits and personality differ? If so, is the differ extreme?

Quote:

and a relationship must delve deeper than the simple physical compliment into the personal compliment in order to truly prosper as a couple. I assert that the problem is that our actions are misguided by this primordial instinct that I still assert must be transcended if we are to truly prosper as a species.

I have explained this before as why this is not nature's fault. This is mans fault. We are not teaching that we should solve problems and work them out. "There are other fish in the sea" is example of this.

You never answered my question about whether blacks are the same as whites now. Why did you avoid this?

@Aphoric,

Aphoric wrote:

My point is your natural senses are more cumbersome than you think.

Oh I couldn't agree more! But which of the following statements is it true for? Man drags natural senses, or natural senses drag man?

@Solace,

Solace wrote:

Racism is a natural evolution of mankind. We embrace the familiar and shun the unfamiliar. It's simply part of our survival instinct.

I disagree. Racism is not part of the natural evolution of mankind. Often, when things exist for long periods of time generations and generations it is assumed to be natural or evolutionary.

I also agree that definition of racism is to shun the unfamiliar. I believe that through racism and colonialism races became very familiar with each other. Inspite of familiarity, racism can still exist.

On another note...

Can logical arguments be made that are racist? Sure. Nietzsche made plenty, and he was not the only.

Can racism be justified? I am not convinced.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know