I've seen in some other threads the topic of race and racism give rise to near-infernos. I got to thinking about racism, America and the world. I sometimes think that we Americans are quick to throw around the term racism, adn that most of us fail to understand our own fundamental (and often unique) liberties. I'd like to introduce a calm and reasoned discussion on racism, especially since this board has participants from all over the world, with the goal of understanding a little better how people interact and to foster a little more awareness of our similarities and differences. I'll start first...
NEVER!
Racism has had a nasty history in America; none can deny that. Recent decades have shown remarkable progress. Truly, we are a melting pot of cultures, and one of very, very few such societies.
One often hears racist speech in America, which naturally makes one wonder if racism still owns the night. But I think we often forget that we as a society have the fundamental right of free speech. Even if that speech is hateful or exclusionary, it should be allowed. I despair whenever I hear that a speaker is barred from someplace since not hearing firsthand prevents someone from making up their own mind about the content. If someone wants to found a group espousing racist views, that should be thier right.
Actions, on the other hand, attract the attention of the law. Numerous laws address discrimination. You can't not hire someone just because they're Race X - and the same goes that you can't hire someone just because they're Race X. Business dealings, govenrments etc. all must abide by laws that ideally should be colorblind.
Personal choices, however, are grayer area. If I don't like Canadians, I am fortunate to live in a country where I do not have to wear a toque adn eat backbacon if I want to eat at a diner. If a Canadian happens to own a restaurant, I have the freedom to either not eat there, or suck it up and suck down some syrup. If I express my racist views, that's my choice. If I try to force the diner out of business, that's beyond my personal liberty and brings the law into the discussion.
I believe America is very much leading the world in removing the harmful effects of racism from society. As bad as things have been in the past and as bad as some individual experiences are, racist action is generally not approved in America. FOr contrast, please see my next post.
|
Where does one draw the line on free speech as it relates to hate? The people who are voicing these racists opinions are breeding and raising their children into their hateful world. The child never has a choice...it's all they know (there are a very few exceptions to this ie.-where a child grows up to learn the error of their ways but they are few and far between). I'm all for free speech, but I draw the line when it comes to bigoted remarks...it's not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but in today's brewing powderkeg of racial tensions it's damn close. It seems like America is starting to slip backward when it comes to race relations, and that's unfortunate. And 2BH, from what I saw in Europe, they have done a far better job of removing race from their society than America has (with the exception of the Turks).
Years ago, long before Europe began experiencing its immigration issues, I spent some time studying in Austria and my roommate was an American of Indian ancestry... and by that, I meant he was dark-skinned. One day, we were walking to class and cut across the grounds of a retirement home when I noticed an elderly lady just staring at Niraj. She approached me, completely ignoring him, and asked me if he was "der Schwartzer". Being young, I was slightly embarassed, but I also realized that she had simply never met a dark-skinned person before. Being elderly, I am fairly certain she was set in her ways and likley regarded something different as undesirable, but she was curious enough to ask.
Many would be tempted to call her a racist. She may have been; she was olde enough to have been a young woman during WWII. But while she chose not to associate with Niraj, she did nothing to negatively affect him (other than perhaps his ego, but fortunately his German was quite good enough at the time to understand what she was asking). She didn't try to have him thrown off the grounds, or charge him a special fee or anything like that.
Compare this with an experience I had just a few years ago and which is so commonplace that no-one even bats an eye, but which is blatant racism which would likely horrify Americans who spend much time discussing racism. In Indonesia, there are roughly 330 different ethnic groups, some that I couldn't tell the difference between and some that are very obvious. However, every native of Indonesia knows who is what group and most hold strong opinions about members of each group (within reason - many groups are greatly separated by distance and probably don't have biases, other than "not my group"). It's also common that prices, even for staples like food, vary depending on you race. Let me bold that: The price you pay depends on your race. If one happens to be the same race as the proprietor, you get the "family discount".
Can you imagine the outcry this would cause is the price of a loaf of bread depended on the color of your skin? But this is common in many other parts of the world, and is expected. I was dumbfounded when I first saw this happen, and asked more about it. If I really looked hard one might liken the Hawaii "local price" as something similar, but this is not (usually) exclusive to skin color (in my understanding).
My point is that Americans are given to hyperbole. I'm tempted to start a simlar thread on the use of Naziism, or suggest anyone calling some agency Nazi should be forced to spend a week ina concentration camp then see if they still think any segment of American government is Nazi-like. Back to point, I think we are too quick to accuse and too slow to work toward partnership and understanding. Screaming "racist!" draws attention and gets news time, but quietly working to calmly allow integration of different groups into partnerships of their mutual choosing is boring. Maybe we should be more boring and get our excitement from rolling dice...
I want to address racism in America too. Moving to the South from a mostly white state, I was still startled to see how ... separate ... blacks and whites can be. I think there is a lot of distrust and a lot of "it's better we just not associate", especially when both populations are large enough that they don't need to. And that works for some people, and seems to be their choice. I personally think they may be missing out and I am pleased to not that the majority of people with whom I interact are perfectly fine with integration.
I have noted that even among the highest levels of society here (at least that I've seen) there is some stunning ignorance of other groups or institutions. Some mere months after I moved here, I found myself as the unwittingly ambassador of a historically minority institution to a group of wealthy, white social movers and shakers who had spent their whole lives less than five miles from the same institution. That was awkward, but the key was, they were willing to listen... maybe not drive into that part of town yet, but they seemed reassured it wasn't a hotbed of chaos or some imagined horror.
I've certainly seen racist behavior first-hand. I've occasionally been a "victim" of racism (or sould I say "subject", a much more appropriate term for most). But more often, in those situations I have changed minds by simply not being what people's preconceptions of me were. Sometimes there was no changing minds. On rare occasions I used good judgement to get out before the impending violence flared. Most of the time, I firmly believe that calm, rational response is far superior to hysterics and playing the victim. Not all, but most.
Where does one draw the line on free speech as it relates to hate? The people who are voicing these racists opinions are breeding and raising their children into their hateful world.
I do not draw the line at all. All speech should be allowed. However, we should strive to make sure all children have access to solid education, where the emphasis is on logic, communication and critical thinking, in other words, the 3Rs.
You and I have both likely noted the seeming explosion of home-schooling where such standards can be worked around, allowing cults to indoctrinate their children. I think this is in part a response to the changes in the educational system over the past 40 years, but that is a topic for another thread.
I would note that children tend to rebel. Is it the AMish who send their children out in to the world to experience for a year before deciding whether to stay in the fold? Isn't the Mormon mission trip aerving a similar purpose? Only if the children are kept completely sheltered their whole lives will they not be curious. SOme may side with their racist upbringing, others may turn into anti-racism activists. I suspect the majority will fall somewhere in the middle and be embarrased about some of the things thier parents told them.
And 2BH, from what I saw in Europe, they have done a far better job of removing race from their society than America has (with the exception of the Turks).
2BH = To be honest?
I'm not sure I agree. I think Americans are much more open about thier problems and much more vocal. And the Turks were an issue in the 90s. Now there are issues with Eastern Europeans, Moroccans, and many more. I read an interesting piece about the quiet racism in France that led to teh violent protests and eruptions a few years back. Essentially the entire immigrant population and their descendants were marginalized into second-class citizens. Numerous accounts were relayed about young men whose grandparents had originally immigrated, but they were still treated horribly. The list of abuses is too long to describe, but untli that eruption of protest, we certainly saw no sign of it (we being Americans in general). Also, football matches are notorious for racist jeers, to teh point where governing bodies had to step in with penalties and an entire ad campaign was devised to combat racism
I just think Europe has done a much better job of keeping things quiet and giving the appearance of calm. And after all, aren't first-time travelers to the U.S. stunned by our openness?
Where does one draw the line on free speech as it relates to hate? The people who are voicing these racists opinions are breeding and raising their children into their hateful world. The child never has a choice...it's all they know (there are a very few exceptions to this ie.-where a child grows up to learn the error of their ways but they are few and far between). I'm all for free speech, but I draw the line when it comes to bigoted remarks...it's not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but in today's brewing powderkeg of racial tensions it's damn close. It seems like America is starting to slip backward when it comes to race relations, and that's unfortunate. And 2BH, from what I saw in Europe, they have done a far better job of removing race from their society than America has (with the exception of the Turks).
Few people will disagree that racism should not be taught to children.
But, what should we do when people are labeling things as racist that are not racist and telling us we can't say them? That is an unfortunate occurrance that happens all the time.
Note: "we" and "people" are general usage terms.
|
|
Where does one draw the line on free speech as it relates to hate? The people who are voicing these racists opinions are breeding and raising their children into their hateful world. The child never has a choice...it's all they know (there are a very few exceptions to this ie.-where a child grows up to learn the error of their ways but they are few and far between). I'm all for free speech, but I draw the line when it comes to bigoted remarks...it's not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but in today's brewing powderkeg of racial tensions it's damn close. It seems like America is starting to slip backward when it comes to race relations, and that's unfortunate. And 2BH, from what I saw in Europe, they have done a far better job of removing race from their society than America has (with the exception of the Turks).Few people will disagree that racism should not be taught to children.
But, what should we do when people are labeling things as racist that are not racist and telling us we can't say them? That is an unfortunate occurrance that happens all the time.
Note: "we" and "people" are general usage terms.
Racial slurs-no go
Someone of x race is inferior-no goNo daughter/son of mine is gonna date a x-no go
PC b+&%$!~&-questionable
All the gays are evil-no go
All seems to be common sense stuff to me. Do you have examples of that to which you are referring?
Where does one draw the line on free speech as it relates to hate? The people who are voicing these racists opinions are breeding and raising their children into their hateful world. The child never has a choice...it's all they know (there are a very few exceptions to this ie.-where a child grows up to learn the error of their ways but they are few and far between). I'm all for free speech, but I draw the line when it comes to bigoted remarks...it's not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but in today's brewing powderkeg of racial tensions it's damn close. It seems like America is starting to slip backward when it comes to race relations, and that's unfortunate. And 2BH, from what I saw in Europe, they have done a far better job of removing race from their society than America has (with the exception of the Turks).Few people will disagree that racism should not be taught to children.
But, what should we do when people are labeling things as racist that are not racist and telling us we can't say them? That is an unfortunate occurrance that happens all the time.
Note: "we" and "people" are general usage terms.
Racial slurs-no go
Someone of x race is inferior-no go
No daughter/son of mine is gonna date a x-no go
PC b%#@!@%@-questionable
All the gays are evil-no goAll seems to be common sense stuff to me. Do you have examples of that to which you are referring?
I have seen it explicitly stated (in numerous media) that advocation for smaller government is racist.
I have seen it described as racism for smaller companies in narrow appeal fields to not go to extensive lengths to target demographics outside of their current narrow range when they want their business to grow but are not in a financially stable position that would allow them to take risks and cater to new demographics. The logic being that if they weren't bigoted they would realize the potential for growth and move upon it. But, these people always overlook that actually achieving that potential is a risk that might be unsafe for a smaller company to take. Note: Larger companies more often have the capital to attack new demographics and sometimes smaller companies succeed but that doesn't mean it would be a wise move for another company...I have seen the same reasoning used for changing attributes of a game's packaging with the intent of drawing in females and arguments that if they (these smaller companies without full resources) did not see it this way it was because they were incompetent at business or just sexist.
I have seen it described as bigoted for a dm to not bother taking the time to intentionally integrate non-traditional families (i.e two dads, two moms, or trans-gendered parents) into the families he sporadically includes in the campaign world when he has a group of players that he has played with a long time who are not interested in gender exploration through their D&D. In fact, it was stated that the dm SHOULD change his dm style to incorporate them and that he was a part of society's problems because he didn't take the time to do so in his games on his own personal time. This is completely separate form such demands for companies to include such themes in their products.
That is all for now.
Where does one draw the line on free speech as it relates to hate? The people who are voicing these racists opinions are breeding and raising their children into their hateful world. The child never has a choice...it's all they know (there are a very few exceptions to this ie.-where a child grows up to learn the error of their ways but they are few and far between). I'm all for free speech, but I draw the line when it comes to bigoted remarks...it's not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but in today's brewing powderkeg of racial tensions it's damn close. It seems like America is starting to slip backward when it comes to race relations, and that's unfortunate. And 2BH, from what I saw in Europe, they have done a far better job of removing race from their society than America has (with the exception of the Turks).Few people will disagree that racism should not be taught to children.
But, what should we do when people are labeling things as racist that are not racist and telling us we can't say them? That is an unfortunate occurrance that happens all the time.
Note: "we" and "people" are general usage terms.
Racial slurs-no go
Someone of x race is inferior-no go
No daughter/son of mine is gonna date a x-no go
PC b**!@%%#-questionable
All the gays are evil-no goAll seems to be common sense stuff to me. Do you have examples of that to which you are referring?
Should the above list be illegal or is it just socially unacceptable?
I just think Europe has done a much better job of keeping things quiet and giving the appearance of calm. And after all, aren't first-time travelers to the U.S. stunned by our openness?
I don't entirely agree, I'm European, but that doesn't mean even close to the same thing as being American. Europe isn't a monolith, it's a collection of, sometimes very different, cultures and people.
This leads me to my point, racism in anything but its most clear cut form, as listed by Xpltvdeleted, is harder to pin down than one might think. Becasue it's not the same everywhere. And certainly different in society between Europe and America, but also between different countries in Europe. Even within France, Paris is often considered among the most intolerant places in Europe, and ironically alot of negative French stereotypes come from a subset of society mostly focused in one city.
Similarly in Thailand, different social mores, so after a point you have to be careful to examine what racism is, and I don't honestly beleive there is one answer for everyone. The world is messy, and foggy at the edges. There are no simple, one-fits-all answers. Though I wonder in Thailand it seems like each subgroup is on a roughly equal footing, where as Western World anti-black racism is usually part of a clearly espoused hierarchy.
Should the above list be illegal or is it just socially unacceptable?
I vote the latter, to be honest.
|
Damn you halfling moneylenders are all the same!
Realy though...racism is an irrelevent concept. String theory invalidates religion and evolution. There is no US v. THEM, no ME. v. YOU. Its a frewakin lie created out of utter ignorance of absolute truth. Racism is a teddybear the ignorant cuddle out of fear of absolute truth.
|
|
Should the above list be illegal or is it just socially unacceptable?
I would love nothing more than for it to be illegal to teach your children these things; racism and bigotry have no place in any society. OTOH, I (unfortunately) recognize that this is a slippery slope and bigots have the right via the first amendment to teach their children to hate anything and/or everything that they want them to.
|
|
Should the above list be illegal or is it just socially unacceptable?I would love nothing more than for it to be illegal to teach your children these things; racism and bigotry have no place in any society. OTOH, I (unfortunately) recognize that this is a slippery slope and bigots have the right via the first amendment to teach their children to hate anything and/or everything that they want them to.
The problem is you are on a slippery slope...RACISM built every single culture and Civilization. The Chinese, the Japanese, The Zimbabwe...and hundreds of other little cultures that isolated themselves from the different and built on that. We venerate the spoils of racism in the recognition of nationality, the sovereignty of states, the achievement of cultures past and present, and even future. We are not done profiting from racism, and we are too stupid to comprehend the absolute and terrible truth.
I have seen it described as racism for smaller companies in narrow appeal fields to not go to extensive lengths to target demographics outside of their current narrow range when they want their business to grow but are not in a financially stable position that would allow them to take risks and cater to new demographics. The logic being that if they weren't bigoted they would realize the potential for growth and move upon it. But, these people always overlook that actually achieving that potential is a risk that might be unsafe for a smaller company to take. Note: Larger companies more often have the capital to attack new demographics and sometimes smaller companies succeed but that doesn't mean it would be a wise move for another company...I have seen the same reasoning used for changing attributes of a game's packaging with the intent of drawing in females and arguments that if they (these smaller companies without full resources) did not see it this way it was because they were incompetent at business or just sexist.
I have seen it described as bigoted for a dm to not bother taking the time to intentionally integrate non-traditional families (i.e two dads, two moms, or trans-gendered parents) into the families he sporadically includes in the campaign world when he has a group of players that he has played with a long time who are not interested in gender exploration through their D&D. In fact, it was stated that the dm SHOULD change his dm style to incorporate them and that he was a part of society's problems because he didn't take the time to do so in his games on his own personal time. This is completely separate form such demands for companies to include such themes in their products.
I think it might be worth drawing a distinction between personal racism and institutionalized racism. The former seems to be growing less socially acceptable in most parts of the U.S., which I'm sure most would agree is a good thing. Institutionalized racism is another matter, however.
It's difficult to have a conversation that acknowledges the racial prejudices and discrimination reflected in many social and cultural institutions, because they frequently devolve into mis-communications wherein one party believes he or she is being accused of personal racism or bigotry by association.
Does it reflect a racist social norm that so few of the top Fortune 500 executives are minorities? Probably. Does that mean that every Fortune 500 executive is a racist? Absolutely not. Does it reflect a racist social norm when a published RPG adventure contains only 'white' humans? Probably. Does that mean that every person who produces or runs such an adventure is personally racist? Absolutely not.
But it's easy to see how commenting on the general social tendency can make people believe they're being personally accused of racism, I think.
Which is not to say that I think we should stop commenting on it. Nobody ever learned anything by staying comfortable, IMO. Unless our society has people who are willing to challenge institutionalized injustice (on any grounds, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), then those injustices are going to remain unexamined and enshrined as part of our culture. On the other side, I think it's important for majority groups (and I include myself in this group when it comes to racial issues) be willing to examine the privilege they're granted by virtue of *being* part of the majority group, and recognize when that privilege creates unfairness. That's a hard thing to do, but ultimately valuable.
|
I want to address racism in America too. Moving to the South from a mostly white state, I was still startled to see how ... separate ... blacks and whites can be.
Funny. I've seen almost the exact oposite, myself. I come from the South, and in a few of the almost exclusively-white states that I have been to, what I've witnessed is that many white people there, while not displaying blatant racisim, just have no clue how to react to a black person. Whereas in the South, they've generally grown up next to each other in a post-civil rights world for a good generation or so now, so they are less awkward around each other.
Frankly, I consider the whole "the South is the most racist place in the US, because it's full of redneck hicks" thing to be almost as deplorable an example of discrimination as is racism. Yes, there is some racism in the South. And yes, there's probably more than in the North. You won't find as many instances of racism in North Dakota as in Louisiana, but that's largely because there actually are black people in Louisiana.
Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton need to be muzzled, because their hyper-sensativity and overreactions are doing far more to hurt their cause then they are to help it.
This has been a non-PC post by yours truly. If you have a problem with it, that sucks for you, 'cos you're wrong.
Hrm. Racism. Hrm.
In my experience, the biggest thing going against racism is that, in today's economic world, it's simply not profitable anymore. Actually, scratch that, it CAN be profitable, but that's mainly on a cents scale, not dollars. If you have a product, you are going to need to get it into as many hands as possible to turn a profit, and if that means you have to turn your magazine/ad campaign/what have you into a late 80's/early '90's benetton ad, then so be it.
Personal opinion, however, does not care about money, and so here is where a lot of racism(at least in America) still thrives. As I've said in a long, lost thread, I think ignorance is the main part of the problem. People who go mainly by what they see on tv(and youtube, I guess), or in the most casual of relationships(I saw some (x) people on the street doing this, and they seemed good at it. I guess all of them are!) and seriously believe what they see are perhaps a little dim, but tend to take their experiences seriously and will hold onto this stimuli until proven otherwise. If you live in the middle of nowhere and are not likely to see someone other than your own racial background on a regular or intimate(not necessarily sexual) basis, then this could be problematic.
Of course, those who zealously hold to beliefs that have been proven racist(by this, I mean are actively detrimental to those of other races: all (x) people sell drugs, [we] must get them out of the neighborhood to preserve it; only (x) people should have (insert legal right here), the presence of (x) people or the fact that they are recieving it keeps my people from having it) are a much more serious problem. Not necessarily because they think this way, but because they hold onto such beliefs in the face of evidence that states otherwise because they WANT to, not because they are set in their ways. This type of active hatred or distrust is usually met with stiff resistance on all fronts, even those of their own people(or the group that they encourage).
But the biggest problem, at least in my opinion, comes from those who ARE racist(or hold on to some seriously biased beliefs) and refuse to acknowledge it, either wittingly or unwittingly. This comes from my own personal experience, and in my case, it was a guy actively hiding his racist beliefs by simply not using slurs within earshot of others. However, I've seen other cases too, and they primarily start with someone stating that they aren't racist because they don't do any of the things agreed upon above(don't use slurs, don't keep others from dating outside of their race, etc), although they do express such opinions quietly. People who define racism almost exactly as it has been described above and feel that so long as they dont' do that, they aren't racist. Sometimes these feelings are wrapped up in patriotism(AZ is a poor example, but the only current one I could come up with), other times it's with a side of poorly worded logic(been on any internet forum lately? ;-D ),sometimes it's a bad defense of free speech(I'm Anti-PC, so I can say whatever the hell I want and you can't do anything about it because I said I'm not racist, so there), other times it's just plain xenophobia(the guy sitting on a porch with his shotgun waiting to shoot anyone outside of his race who shows up stating that he's defending his property). To me, this is where the problem is, because as long as someone thinks they don't have a problem, they will continue their behavior unabaited.
I think it might be worth drawing a distinction between personal racism and institutionalized racism. The former seems to be growing less socially acceptable in most parts of the U.S., which I'm sure most would agree is a good thing. Institutionalized racism is another...I have seen it described as racism for smaller companies in narrow appeal fields to not go to extensive lengths to target demographics outside of their current narrow range when they want their business to grow but are not in a financially stable position that would allow them to take risks and cater to new demographics. The logic being that if they weren't bigoted they would realize the potential for growth and move upon it. But, these people always overlook that actually achieving that potential is a risk that might be unsafe for a smaller company to take. Note: Larger companies more often have the capital to attack new demographics and sometimes smaller companies succeed but that doesn't mean it would be a wise move for another company...I have seen the same reasoning used for changing attributes of a game's packaging with the intent of drawing in females and arguments that if they (these smaller companies without full resources) did not see it this way it was because they were incompetent at business or just sexist.
I have seen it described as bigoted for a dm to not bother taking the time to intentionally integrate non-traditional families (i.e two dads, two moms, or trans-gendered parents) into the families he sporadically includes in the campaign world when he has a group of players that he has played with a long time who are not interested in gender exploration through their D&D. In fact, it was stated that the dm SHOULD change his dm style to incorporate them and that he was a part of society's problems because he didn't take the time to do so in his games on his own personal time. This is completely separate form such demands for companies to include such themes in their products.
I'm curious if your model of racism includes intent.
Can an institution or group be racist if none of it's members are racist?
Ooh, I am excited at how this disucssion is going. Kthulu and Freehold DM make me think about some points. I think we have a triumvirate of Racism vs. Bias vs. Ignorance, and unfortunately the latter two are often shoe-horned (incorrectly) as racism.
In the example of people in mostly white states suddenly encountering a black person and not knowing how to act... I would have to say that one would be hard-pressed to declare racism there, assuming of course they didn't try to run him out of town or somesuch. I would classify that as ignorant, much like my previous example of the Elderly Austrian woman seeing the first dark-skinned person of her life. If they meet that ignorance with an open mind and generally treat the different person civilly, then I think we avoid racism, even if they don't know exactly how to proceed or misunderstand some culture.
I think bias could be defined as personal behavior that does not harm others. If I choose to only associate with others of my particular religion/ethnicity, I may be missing out on social interaction, but I am not harming others who are different.
I think we should reserve racism as the favoring of one race over another, and should work to combat that (as have been doing for quite some time now). Fair hiring/housing/economic policies for all.
I'm curious if your model of racism includes intent.
Can an institution or group be racist if none of it's members are racist?
I can't make a generalization, but I will share a very recent personal experience. I teach at a university. I noticed in one of my classes that my white students were getting much higher grades than my black students... consistently. I started examining my own grading scales just to make sure there wasn't some unseen bias there. What I found is that half of the white students were 'non-traditional", returning to college after work experience while none of the black students were. Non-traditional students are generally more diligent and well-prepared, no matter their race. Also, looking into the individual bakcgrounds, certain students did seem to come from 'better' schools, again leading to a stronger preparedness for the class material. What really convinced me is that in another class, my white students were at the bottom of the grade scale.
What amazed me most is that I thought to examine my grading methods to hunt for unintended bias. Had I found it, woudl it be racism? I would say no, since it was unintentional, unless I did nothing to correct it once found.
I think institutions can (and do) exhibit bias, and I believe it is important to have a diverse array of voices within an institution when making policy. I also think those voices should be chosen wisely and not just including X so there is someone of race X there. Ideally, the more logical and reasoned people would be examining these policies.
I also note that this is primarily addressed in government which is there to serve the people. In business, the primary goal is usually to make money, so this goal gets shoved down a few notches. As society progresses, I think that goal will increase in priority.
I want to address racism in America too. Moving to the South from a mostly white state, I was still startled to see how ... separate ... blacks and whites can be.Funny. I've seen almost the exact oposite, myself. I come from the South, and in a few of the almost exclusively-white states that I have been to, what I've witnessed is that many white people there, while not displaying blatant racisim, just have no clue how to react to a black person. Whereas in the South, they've generally grown up next to each other in a post-civil rights world for a good generation or so now, so they are less awkward around each other.
Frankly, I consider the whole "the South is the most racist place in the US, because it's full of redneck hicks" thing to be almost as deplorable an example of discrimination as is racism. Yes, there is some racism in the South. And yes, there's probably more than in the North. You won't find as many instances of racism in North Dakota as in Louisiana, but that's largely because there actually are black people in Louisiana.
Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton need to be muzzled, because their hyper-sensativity and overreactions are doing far more to hurt their cause then they are to help it.
This has been a non-PC post by yours truly. If you have a problem with it, that sucks for you, 'cos you're wrong.
My experience is quite similar. I grew up in smallish west Texas towns in the 70's. Black and white populations in school were pretty integrated. We went to class, played football, showered after gym, and went to school dances together. It was just the norm. Possibly the best teacher I ever had was a black man in sixth grade who went on to be the principal. The only kind of segregation I recall was more geographic than social. In fourth grade we got bussed to San Jacinto Elementary because of the concentration on Hispanic students in that school, but it's not like we didn't have Hispanic kids in our school, so ironically we were bussing Hispanic kids to San Jacinto in the name of integration. In that time and context there wasn't a sharp cultural distinction either. The Hispanic kids spoke English as well as any other Texas kid. We played together at recess. We were just kids, not black kids or brown kids or white kids, just kids.
I'm not saying we didn't know about racism or that kids never said hateful things, but it wasn't just the teacher who would say something like that wasn't OK to do, but kids would correct and police each other too. Keep in mind I would have started preschool in Texas in about 1971, so this is not some recent development.
I find the stereotype of presumed southern white racism to be it's own form of bigotry and ignorance.
This article has some insights on how free markets mitigate bias and racism.
The conservative case against racial profiling in the war on terrorism
Racism can take many forms. The obvious form is the Neonazi Skinhead beating up foreign-looking people on the street, or the same Neonazi bunch demonstrating their tenets in public. Even this obvious form is still seem far too often in Germany for my tastes - I had a Neonazi demonstration right through my street a few years ago, and perhaps again this year. Of course, they are not so stupid as to chant their racist songs openly, as this would be a felony according to German law - given our history, this is probably right. But a democratic society has to suffer these demonstration in the name of free speech and freedom of assembly, as long as there are no solid reasons to rule otherwise.
Then again, conservative politicians had a tenet that Germany is no immigration country, and repeated that for many years like a mantra. In truth, Germany has always been an immigration country, and will likely be a long time. By denying that fact, the immigrants that were there were poorly integrated for many years, even decades. The effect is that many immigrants, especially those from Turkey, the various Balcan States and former Soviet Union, have worse education than german people. This in turn leads to immigrant children having less chances to get a good job or university education, and a higher than average criminal ratio among these groups. This of course leads to the immigrants being seen as disruptive elements. So, a mislead political dogma lead to the exclusion of the immigrants and to a latent or sometimes open racism. Mind you, some turkish people live here in the 3rd generation already, and their integration can still be quite shaky.
That a turkish-descended woman was made social secretary in the Federal State of Lower Saxony just a few days ago was without precedent, and resulted in extreme high media interest in her. Add a few ill-advised interviews on her part, and the right wing in the conservative party is all up in arms again - it was even asked if she as an avowed muslima could swear an oath upon god to help her in her duties. She had to remind these "good christians" that it is the same god that is revered by jews, christians and muslims. This is for me a sign of latent racism.
Racism is IMO coming back again because it provides an easy answer in a very complex world. Lost your job? The (X) are to blame, they do it cheaper. Drugs ruin society? Blame the (X). Prices for (Y) are on the rise? That´s because all those (X) buy all (Y). And so on. The world has become a hugely and frighteningly complicated network of mutual dependencies over the last 150 years, not to mention that has become quite crowded. Understanding even a part of it is a monumental task, so easy explanations are popular. Racism is one such explanation, it is the old "us vs. them", only that nowadays there are a lot "thems" and seemingly ever fewer "uses".
Stefan
|
Where does one draw the line on free speech as it relates to hate? The people who are voicing these racists opinions are breeding and raising their children into their hateful world. The child never has a choice...it's all they know (there are a very few exceptions to this ie.-where a child grows up to learn the error of their ways but they are few and far between). I'm all for free speech, but I draw the line when it comes to bigoted remarks...it's not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but in today's brewing powderkeg of racial tensions it's damn close. It seems like America is starting to slip backward when it comes to race relations, and that's unfortunate. And 2BH, from what I saw in Europe, they have done a far better job of removing race from their society than America has (with the exception of the Turks).
You may be interested to know Canada does not have nor believe in full freedom of speech. We have hate speech laws, wherein you can be fined for racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks. There was quite a big outcry when it first came out because it meant you couldn't read certain sections of the bible aloud in public. In fact Ann Coulter came to the university of Ottawa recently to speak, she was warned beforehand of our hate speech laws and if she engaged in that behaviour she would be cut off and fined. Frankly our law says you don't get the luxury of being a bigot in public, it's why the westboro baptist church was turned away when they tried to come here in 2005 to protest the passing of country wide gay marriage. Frankly I enjoy it.
I think it might be worth drawing a distinction between personal racism and institutionalized racism. The former seems to be growing less socially acceptable in most parts of the U.S., which I'm sure most would agree is a good thing. Institutionalized racism is another ...I'm curious if your model of racism includes intent.
Can an institution or group be racist if none of it's members are racist?
I would answer that question with a qualified yes. I believe it's possible for cultural, political, and economic institutions to retain structures and behavioral norms that reflect race-based (or gender-based, etc.) prejudices long past the point where any individual involved in said institution is personally racist (or sexist, etc.), simply because those patterns become so embedded in the structures of the institutions that people who are part of the majority group no longer even notice them.
And it's uncomfortable for people to confront the fact that something they've always taken for granted may unfairly disadvantage other people, so examining that kind of institutionalized racism (sexism, etc.) is very difficult. I think one of the hardest things in the world to do is to own up to the fact that one is privileged by society in some way due to an inherent characteristic (race, gender, whatever), and accept that one is not entitled to that privilege. At least, I find it difficult to do-- although I think it's part of my responsibility as a decent human being to at least TRY to be aware of the ways in which society privileges me and do my best to not take advantage of it unfairly.
Where does one draw the line on free speech as it relates to hate? The people who are voicing these racists opinions are breeding and raising their children into their hateful world. The child never has a choice...it's all they know (there are a very few exceptions to this ie.-where a child grows up to learn the error of their ways but they are few and far between). I'm all for free speech, but I draw the line when it comes to bigoted remarks...it's not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but in today's brewing powderkeg of racial tensions it's damn close. It seems like America is starting to slip backward when it comes to race relations, and that's unfortunate. And 2BH, from what I saw in Europe, they have done a far better job of removing race from their society than America has (with the exception of the Turks).You may be interested to know Canada does not have nor believe in full freedom of speech. We have hate speech laws, wherein you can be fined for racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks. There was quite a big outcry when it first came out because it meant you couldn't read certain sections of the bible aloud in public. In fact Ann Coulter came to the university of Ottawa recently to speak, she was warned beforehand of our hate speech laws and if she engaged in that behaviour she would be cut off and fined. Frankly our law says you don't get the luxury of being a bigot in public, it's why the westboro baptist church was turned away when they tried to come here in 2005 to protest the passing of country wide gay marriage. Frankly I enjoy it.
I'm sorry to hear that you enjoy the restriction of other peoples fundamental human rights.
I would caution you about restricting the rights of unpopular minorities. Time change and yesterdays popular or accepted majority can turn into today's unpopular minority and so forth.
I find it sad when an abused minority in turn thinks it's OK to abuse another minority group.
I think it might be worth drawing a distinction between personal racism and institutionalized racism. The former seems to be growing less socially acceptable in most parts of the U.S., which I'm sure most would agree is a good thing. Institutionalized racism is another ...I'm curious if your model of racism includes intent.
Can an institution or group be racist if none of it's members are racist?
I would answer that question with a qualified yes. I believe it's possible for cultural, political, and economic institutions to retain structures and behavioral norms that reflect race-based (or gender-based, etc.) prejudices long past the point where any individual involved in said institution is personally racist (or sexist, etc.), simply because those patterns become so embedded in the structures of the institutions that people who are part of the majority group no longer even notice them.
And it's uncomfortable for people to confront the fact that something they've always taken for granted may unfairly disadvantage other people, so examining that kind of institutionalized racism (sexism, etc.) is very difficult. I think one of the hardest things in the world to do is to own up to the fact that one is privileged by society in some way due to an inherent characteristic (race, gender, whatever), and accept that one is not entitled to that privilege. At least, I find it difficult to do-- although I think it's part of my responsibility as a decent human being to at least TRY to be aware of the ways in which society privileges me and do my best to not take advantage of it unfairly.
I guess my question would be how dose one get to the causality of the issue which is a very challenging sociological question. Then what approaches are valid and effective to mitigate the bias or racism which is also an immense challenge.
I'm not putting you on the spot to resolve these questions in this forum, but I'm curious as to your thoughts.
The disproportionate incarceration rates of young black males come to mind as a prime example of an incredibly challenging and complex issue that runs into the huge challenges of causality and mitigation.
Where does one draw the line on free speech as it relates to hate? The people who are voicing these racists opinions are breeding and raising their children into their hateful world. The child never has a choice...it's all they know (there are a very few exceptions to this ie.-where a child grows up to learn the error of their ways but they are few and far between). I'm all for free speech, but I draw the line when it comes to bigoted remarks...it's not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but in today's brewing powderkeg of racial tensions it's damn close. It seems like America is starting to slip backward when it comes to race relations, and that's unfortunate. And 2BH, from what I saw in Europe, they have done a far better job of removing race from their society than America has (with the exception of the Turks).You may be interested to know Canada does not have nor believe in full freedom of speech. We have hate speech laws, wherein you can be fined for racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks. There was quite a big outcry when it first came out because it meant you couldn't read certain sections of the bible aloud in public. In fact Ann Coulter came to the university of Ottawa recently to speak, she was warned beforehand of our hate speech laws and if she engaged in that behaviour she would be cut off and fined. Frankly our law says you don't get the luxury of being a bigot in public, it's why the westboro baptist church was turned away when they tried to come here in 2005 to protest the passing of country wide gay marriage. Frankly I enjoy it.I'm sorry to hear that you enjoy the restriction of other peoples fundamental human rights.
I would caution you about restricting the rights of unpopular minorities. Time change and yesterdays popular or accepted majority can turn into today's unpopular minority and so forth.
I find it sad when an abused minority in turn thinks it's OK to abuse another minority group.
Well, this may be a problem with minarchy. Free speech to the point of you espouse can lead to fights in the street when someone doesn't want to hear anyone's crap anymore.
<SNIP>
One often hears racist speech in America, which naturally makes one wonder if racism still owns the night. But I think we often forget that we as a society have the fundamental right of free speech. Even if that speech is hateful or exclusionary, it should be allowed. I despair whenever I hear that a speaker is barred from someplace since not hearing firsthand prevents someone from making up their own mind about the content. If someone wants to found a group espousing racist views, that should be thier right.
</SNIP>
For the most part, I agree. I draw the line when people actually advocate violence, but that sort of thing is already covered by conspiracy to commit, etc. If they aren't guilty of conspiracy and intent, then people should be able to think and say whatever they want.
HOWEVER, I don't agree that we have some sort of duty to respect everyone's opinion; merely their right to hold and express their opinion. If you say something stupid, don't be surprised when people conclude (and point out) that you are, in fact, a moron.
You may be interested to know Canada does not have nor believe in full freedom of speech. We have hate speech laws, wherein you can be fined for racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks. There was quite a big outcry when it first came out because it meant you couldn't read certain sections of the bible aloud in public. In fact Ann Coulter came to the university of Ottawa recently to speak, she was warned beforehand of our hate speech laws and if she engaged in that behaviour she would be cut off and fined. Frankly our law says you don't get the luxury of being a bigot in public, it's why the westboro baptist church was turned away when they tried to come here in 2005 to protest the passing of country wide gay marriage. Frankly I enjoy it.
As much as I can see why you enjoyed it, you shouldn't have. Those Westboro people are nuttier than fruitcake, but rights aren't rights unless they apply to everyone. The laws you find so appealing right now will be much less so if they are turned against you. :(
I believe it is human nature to divide people into boxes; into "us" vs. "them." For much of our history, this behavior had a great deal of survival value, hence its incorporation into our gene pool. However, I believe the situation has changed...that due to our unique control over our environment, genetics haven't kept up with reality.
What's my point?
Racism is alive and well, and while that isn't surprising or hard to understand, it is something against which we must always remain vigilant.
|
|
You may be interested to know Canada does not have nor believe in full freedom of speech. We have hate speech laws, wherein you can be fined for racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks. There was quite a big outcry when it first came out because it meant you couldn't read certain sections of the bible aloud in public. In fact Ann Coulter came to the university of Ottawa recently to speak, she was warned beforehand of our hate speech laws and if she engaged in that behaviour she would be cut off and fined. Frankly our law says you don't get the luxury of being a bigot in public, it's why the westboro baptist church was turned away when they tried to come here in 2005 to protest the passing of country wide gay marriage. Frankly I enjoy it.As much as I can see why you enjoyed it, you shouldn't have. Those Westboro people are nuttier than fruitcake, but rights aren't rights unless they apply to everyone. The laws you find so appealing right now will be much less so if they are turned against you. :(
The law applies to religions as well, I have no right to say hateful things toward any particular religion as well, that is also part of hate speech. But I enjoy it, it seems to keep the peace here we don't see any real flare ups of anger toward one another so much. It keeps most of our politics pretty calm (even though we may strongly disagree). But you are also talking to a different demographic of people in Canada. Canadians tend to be much more liberal than the US, we have nearly double the atheism rate 1/3 of the fundamentalis christians. One of our largest provinces (BC) is nearly completely a bunch of pot smoking hippies. (I love my BC friends :)) We also are currently only about 33 million people with a lot more landmass. So when the law first took affect (I think it was 04) there were a few people who thought it was going to limit their religion, but then they saw such laws don't affect religious assemblies (church buildings), so their fears were assuaged and really nothing has changed here since. Except maybe a few less public displays of hatefulness. I mean you still have religious people on street corners with signs and pamphlets, we get mormons at the door all the time. The world didn't end, it just made it slightly less aggressive.
I guess my question would be how dose one get to the causality of the issue which is a very challenging sociological question. Then what approaches are valid and effective to mitigate the bias or racism which is also an immense challenge.
I'm not putting you on the spot to resolve these questions in this forum, but I'm curious as to your thoughts.
The disproportionate incarceration rates of young black males come to mind as a prime example of an incredibly challenging and complex issue that runs into the huge challenges of causality and mitigation.
It's very good thing that you don't expect me to have the solution, because while I'm firmly convinced that the world would be a better place if everyone just did things MY way, I'm realistic enough to know it won't happen anytime soon. ;)
And you're entirely right. These are incredibly complex sociological issues, and I'm no sociologist, so all I can do is offer a few opinions:
On the one hand, I think that overturning unjust laws and enshrining equality into our legal code is a fundamental necessity if we want to build social, cultural, and governmental institutions that don't unfairly marginalize specific groups. Much of that has been done, but I can see areas where there's room for improvement on the national level, and certainly state laws are such a hodge-podge that a great deal of work needs to be done at that level.
But as important as challenging unjust laws is, it's not enough. I believe education is another key aspect of making these kinds of changes. I don't just mean education in history so as to avoid making the same mistakes we've made in the past, but education in critical thinking. I think that social institutions begin to change when enough people become aware of a particular issue and begin to question the way things have always been. On the one hand, we need members of marginalized groups to continue bringing issues to the forefront, even if that means being strident and shrill and being dismissed for 'making trouble. On the other hand, we need people in majority groups to be open to recognizing their own societal privilege, and to accept that they're not necessarily entitled to that privilege. I think the only way we get there is to build the value of questioning and critical thinking into the way we educate children.
Which, in turn, opens up a whole 'nother raft of 'how to' questions that I'm not even going to pretend to address. :)
There's a lot there that I can't, as a single individual, have much impact on. What I CAN do, though, is constantly strive to be aware of the ways in which I'm privileged by society, and do my best not to take advantage of that privilege unfairly. I think that if more people were willing to do that, we'd be a HUGE step closer to resolving these issues.
HOWEVER, I don't agree that we have some sort of duty to respect everyone's opinion; merely their right to hold and express their opinion. If you say something stupid, don't be surprised when people conclude (and point out) that you are, in fact, a moron.
I did not say that. At best, I implied that we should respect everyone's right to free speech, but I thought I also made it pretty clear that we in no way have to agree with what is expressed and reserve our own rights to express disagreement.
I think several posters have hit on a common theme. It's not race that divides us, but rather economics. Unfortunately, you ususally can't look at a person and judge their economic class, though you can certainly see the color of their skin. So by default and innate human instinct, race becomes to go-to judgement.
Again, I reiterate that education solves much of the problem, though that education needs be valued, accessible and objective. With education, economic mobility is achievable and wealth leaves behind many of the biases that plague the less fortunate.
Well, this may be a problem with minarchy. Free speech to the point of you espouse can lead to fights in the street when someone doesn't want to hear anyone's crap anymore.
It is really a problem with all freedoms. All individual liberty has consequences resulting from the choices that freedom allows. A portion of people will inevitably use their freedom to make very poor choices, but for me I think it's better for an individual to make poor choices for themselves than for the state to coerce them into making choices that might be better for them. Freedom can be messy and chaotic, and it doesn't always guarantee the 'best" outcome for and individual or situation in every case, but I am firmly convinced that it is the best condition for humans to exist in.
Defending the freedom of the least popular rights or groups is in many ways the most important freedom to defend.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.-Thomas Jefferson "
a lot of stuff I generally agree with! :)
Yay, education! And I think also getting to know one's neighbors, no matter their heritage. I think solving 'large' racism problems works best when 'small' ones are addressed, individually.
You may be interested to know Canada does not have nor believe in full freedom of speech. We have hate speech laws, wherein you can be fined for racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks. There was quite a big outcry when it first came out because it meant you couldn't read certain sections of the bible aloud in public. In fact Ann Coulter came to the university of Ottawa recently to speak, she was warned beforehand of our hate speech laws and if she engaged in that behaviour she would be cut off and fined. Frankly our law says you don't get the luxury of being a bigot in public, it's why the westboro baptist church was turned away when they tried to come here in 2005 to protest the passing of country wide gay marriage. Frankly I enjoy it.As much as I can see why you enjoyed it, you shouldn't have. Those Westboro people are nuttier than fruitcake, but rights aren't rights unless they apply to everyone. The laws you find so appealing right now will be much less so if they are turned against you. :(
These are examples of what I think are perfect ways to deal with the WBC protesters. Things of beauty, every one of them.
|
|
Ok here's the Hate speech law in Canada. Frankly I don't see a problem but here it is. It's not a horrible fascist plot it just makes racists uncomfortable in Canada. Does it really seem so bad?
The Criminal Code of Canada
Sections 318, 319, and 320 of the Code forbid hate propaganda. "Hate propaganda" means "any writing, sign or visible representation that advocates or promotes genocide or the communication of which by any person would constitute an offence under section 319." Section 318 prescribes imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years for anyone who advocates genocide. The Code defines genocide as the destruction of an "identifiable group." The Code defines an "identifiable group" as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." Section 319 prescribes penalties from a fine to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years for anyone who incites hatred against any identifiable group. Section 320 allows a judge to confiscate publications which appear to be hate propaganda. Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
(1) No person shall publish, display or broadcast, or permit to be published, displayed or broadcasted on lands or premises, or in a newspaper or through a radio or television broadcasting station or by means of any other medium, any notice, sign, symbol, implement or other representation indicating discrimination or an intention to discriminate against any person or class of persons.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion upon any subject in speech or in writing.
|
|
And here's the apparent "threatening" letter we sent Ann coulter before she spoke at the University of Ottawa.
Dear Ms. Coulter,
I understand that you have been invited by University of Ottawa Campus Conservatives to speak at the University of Ottawa this coming Tuesday. . . .
I would, however, like to inform you, or perhaps remind you, that our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or "free speech") in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.
You will realize that Canadian law puts reasonable limits on the freedom of expression. For example, promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges. Outside of the criminal realm, Canadian defamation laws also limit freedom of expression and may differ somewhat from those to which you are accustomed. I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. . . .
Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.
I hope you will enjoy your stay in our beautiful country, city and campus.
Sincerely,
Francois Houle,
Vice-President Academic and Provost, University of Ottawa
I don't know if you guys realize it but Hate Speech Laws aren't uncommon many European countries have them or veriations thereof. This is why we turned away Fred Phelps at the airport when he came to visit we knew what his intentions were and rather than face possible messy criminal charges against him we just turned him away.
|
|
Racial slurs-no go
Someone of x race is inferior-no go
No daughter/son of mine is gonna date a x-no go
PC b#@&%!@#-questionable
All the gays are evil-no goAll seems to be common sense stuff to me. Do you have examples of that to which you are referring?
The way I see it, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are on a two-way street. The way it should be is, if Fred Phelps wants to protest on street corners, that's his bag. However, I should also allowed to take offense and hit him with a shovel.
|
|
The way I see it, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are on a two-way street. The way it should be is, if Fred Phelps wants to protest on street corners, that's his bag. However, I should also allowed to take offense and hit him with a shovel.Racial slurs-no go
Someone of x race is inferior-no go
No daughter/son of mine is gonna date a x-no go
PC b#@&%!@#-questionable
All the gays are evil-no goAll seems to be common sense stuff to me. Do you have examples of that to which you are referring?
Why risk damaging the shovel? Please, won't someone think of the poor innocent shovels in all this?
Why risk damaging the shovel? Please, won't someone think of the poor innocent shovels in all this?The way I see it, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are on a two-way street. The way it should be is, if Fred Phelps wants to protest on street corners, that's his bag. However, I should also allowed to take offense and hit him with a shovel.Racial slurs-no go
Someone of x race is inferior-no go
No daughter/son of mine is gonna date a x-no go
PC b#@&%!@#-questionable
All the gays are evil-no goAll seems to be common sense stuff to me. Do you have examples of that to which you are referring?
That's why you bring an aluminum bat. You don't have to worry about hurting it. ;)
The way I see it, freedom of speech and freedom of expression are on a two-way street. The way it should be is, if Fred Phelps wants to protest on street corners, that's his bag. However, I should also allowed to take offense and hit him with a shovel.Racial slurs-no go
Someone of x race is inferior-no go
No daughter/son of mine is gonna date a x-no go
PC b#@&%!@#-questionable
All the gays are evil-no goAll seems to be common sense stuff to me. Do you have examples of that to which you are referring?
Head over to BT's house, he'll have some pamphlets on Minarchy that I'm sure you'll find interesting. ;-)
|
|
Racism is a teddybear the ignorant cuddle out of fear of absolute truth.
I'm not sure if you were being entirely serious or not, but you may have hit the nail on the head, or at least damn close.
The way I see it, racism is derived from a combination of factors:
The biggest problem is that everyone "knows" what race is. Unfortunately, "race," as such, doesn't exist. What the majority of people perceive to be race is a combination of two independent variables: culture / ethnicity, and phenotype. I myself tend to use "race" as shorthand for phenotypical features, mainly because a lot of people I come into contact with don't know what the word phenotype means.
Someone's physical features do not necessarily denote their culture, only their ancestry. For example, if a man whose ancestors came from Pakistan was raised in a community whose members shared the culture of England, the man would share the culture of England, regardless of his genotype and phenotype. My ancestors came from Ireland, Wales, and Germany, and while I have a European phenotype (light skin, dark hair, dark eyes, etc.), I speak with an American accent and share many of the cultural traits associated with Americans.
Another problem, which is most evident in the United States, is the theory of hypodescent. Hypodescent states that if a child is born to parents of two different "races," the child is automatically the minority "race." The real kicker in this case is that this theory is written into our governmental policy, and affects everything from employment to taxes to education. What's most ironic is that, in attempting to promote "racial diversity," the government of the U.S. has actually promoted racial compartmentalization. As a counterpoint, the government of Brazil recognizes no official races, and as a result, "race" in Brazil is simply a descriptive term that can change from day to day, much like terms that refer to personality, instead of an official category.
I filled out the census form a few weeks ago, and it brought to mind a lot of the problems that the United States government, as well as the national culture in general, has with the idea of race. This particular form listed the following racial categories, which, to the best of my recollection, are: Hispanic (about five subcategories), Black/African-American, Native American Indian (two subcategories), Asian, Pacific Islander, and White. The part that really got me was that, while there were five or so recognized categories of "Hispanics," a group found almost exclusively in Central America, there was only one category of Asians. Asia is the largest continent on Earth, and is home to a wide range of phenotypical variation, as well as THOUSANDS of distinct ethnic groups.
In short, I think that people love to categorize and generalize based on what they can see, and in the case of other people, that would be their outward appearance. Unfortunately, while there is a wide variation in appearance and genetic makeup of humans, it is more akin to a smooth gradient than a series of distinct groups. The problem lies in the fact that people want to draw lines.
I did not say that. At best, I implied that we should respect everyone's right to free speech, but I thought I also made it pretty clear that we in no way have to agree with what is expressed and reserve our own rights to express disagreement.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply you had. My bad.