Racism

[Stew]

Do you judge people by the colour of their skin? their nationality? Do you laugh at 'racist' jokes?

I hate the idea that I judge people before I meet them/speak to them etc but I think it's human nature. Am I wrong? Is racism 'human nature' or 'taught' to us by society? Is it natural to 'protect your' people'? Will it ever be rid? Is it a problem? Where is the line drawn?

Would you rather meet a gang of asians, black people or white people?

[Lupin]

i doubt that racism is human nature. for example female doesnt have such prejudices about skin/nationality etc.. than male.

racism is taught by someone but not by the society. it can be taught a single person (ie the father tells his son that black ppl are evil etc..) or probably by a government (ie Hitler, although this is facism, but you'll get my point or the south african gov during apathy).

from my point of view flav is right.

i hope you get my point, as i cant express myself..

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by Stew

Do you judge people by the colour of their skin? their nationality? Do you laugh at 'racist' jokes?

I hate the idea that I judge people before I meet them/speak to them etc but I think it's human nature. Am I wrong? Is racism 'human nature' or 'taught' to us by society? Is it natural to 'protect your' people'? Will it ever be rid? Is it a problem? Where is the line drawn?

Would you rather meet a gang of asians, black people or white people?

No. No. Sometimes. Yes. Taught by society. No. Yes. Yes. Racism itself.

Racism is one of the really big plauges of our times. It breeds hate, war and other nasty things, while it gives our leaders a reason to hold out immigrants and helpless people. Racism is a way to split the "workers" or the people, and thus keep them in line. State racism is a big problem, and it grows every day, with the walls into Europe getting higher and higher. This also creates a enviroment for right-wing expanding, as can be seen all over Europe, where fascists groups are growing and growing.

No preference to the gang thing.

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by Stew

Would you rather meet a gang of asians, black people or white people?

depends what their motives are. if its between a gang of black panthers and nazis i'd go for the nazis since they'd leave me alone. if they were after my valuables i'd go for the asians since they have shorter legs and can't run so fats...

[Snurx]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

depends what their motives are. if its between a gang of black panthers and nazis i'd go for the nazis since they'd leave me alone. if they were after my valuables i'd go for the asians since they have shorter legs and can't run so fats...

Actually, the Black Phanters would probably leave you alone, while the Nazies would (maybe) attack you for being a non-nazi aryan (Their worst enemy).

Nazies are ****ed up.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

depends what their motives are. if its between a gang of black panthers and nazis i'd go for the nazis since they'd leave me alone. if they were after my valuables i'd go for the asians since they have shorter legs and can't run so fats...

black panthers - name

are white gangs necessarily made up from nazis? What about pikeys? We all hate pikeys right?

asians in the uk are considered to be those from south-asia, i.e indians, pakistanis etc.. They don't have significantly shorter legs to whites or blacks. I think you're mixing it up with the american term for asians (orientals)

[at0mic.c0w]

Originally Posted by Zar

are white gangs necessarily made up from nazis?

no of course not.

Originally Posted by Zar

asians in the uk are considered to be those from south-asia, i.e indians, pakistanis etc.. They don't have significantly shorter legs to whites or blacks. I think you're mixing it up with the american term for asians (orientals)

clearly your asians > my asians

[Embroglio]

yes , yes , yes , no , both, yes, no , yes, when people are hurt, niether

[Nodrog]

Eacism is generally an extremely primitive form of collectivism. I dont like the term 'human nature' used in this sense, because it implies something immutable that you cannot change. Having said that, while 'racism' might not be part of 'human nature', I would say there's ample amounts of evidence to show that tribalism (in the 'group v group' sense) manifests itself in various forms across many societies. This obviously doesnt mean that it can't be overcome at the individaul level (since almost everythng can), but its most likely not just a Western culture thing.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Stew

Do you judge people by the colour of their skin?

Define 'judge'. I wouldn't abstract something like intelligence from their skin colour. Various things can be judged from their skin colour, and you can sometimes use it as a placeholder until you learn more on a particular individual.

their nationality?

See above, but not really.

Do you laugh at 'racist' jokes?

If they are funny.

I hate the idea that I judge people before I meet them/speak to them etc but I think it's human nature. Am I wrong?

I'd agree with Nod on the use of the term 'human nature'. But it does seem like as an evolutionary trait we'd have gained the ability to make certain quick judgements based on visual appearance, etc. So, 'Is this a threat' sort of thing.

Is racism 'human nature' or 'taught' to us by society? Is it natural to 'protect your' people'? Will it ever be rid? Is it a problem? Where is the line drawn?

It's "natural" (perhaps common would be a better term) to protect your people, but what "your people" is, is completley open to interpretation. For some people, their family is the only people they would look after. For others, its defined by the football shirt your wearing. Or the side of the picket line your standing on. Or the church you go to, etc. In short, people are probably always going to fear the outsider. What the outsider is though, is determinable by that person (to an extent).

Would you rather meet a gang of asians, black people or white people?

Depends on the context. A gang of "black people" isn't particularly meaningful term. Near me there is a chruch used almost exclusively by Africans. So every Sunday you can walk past literally hundreds of black people in a group. Do I feel intimidated by them? Obviously not, as they're families, all dressed up in their Sunday best, etc.

A gang of male youths is another matter. If I'm on the night bus, and a group of people get on, I do make a small/unconscious judgement as to whether it's likely these people are going to be possibly troublesome or not. But it's not really based on their skin colour. A group of white townies are going to probably be more troublesome than certain blacks/Asians. I'd probably place the majority of my judgement on their behaviour/dress/etc. If people got on wearing Slipknot/Nirvana/RATM T-shirts I'm never going to feel insecure (this is probably equally stupid, but based on experience) for instance.

From an experience point of view, while violent/mugging type trouble is likely to be equally spreadout, certain types of trouble are more likely to be confined to a certain racial group. When I had long-hair, I don't think I had a single comment from black or Asian people, but I had numerous comments from white people. I'm not sure why. Perhaps they felt more comfortable dishing out abuse.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Eacism is generally an extremely primitive form of collectivism. I dont like the term 'human nature' used in this sense, because it implies something immutable that you cannot change. Having said that, while 'racism' might not be part of 'human nature', I would say there's ample amounts of evidence to show that tribalism (in the 'group v group' sense) manifests itself in various forms across many societies. This obviously doesnt mean that it can't be overcome at the individaul level (since almost everythng can), but its most likely not just a Western culture thing.

eacism eh?

[yupster]

Originally Posted by Stew

Do you judge people by the colour of their skin? their nationality? Do you laugh at 'racist' jokes?

I hate the idea that I judge people before I meet them/speak to them etc but I think it's human nature. Am I wrong? Is racism 'human nature' or 'taught' to us by society? Is it natural to 'protect your' people'? Will it ever be rid? Is it a problem? Where is the line drawn?

Would you rather meet a gang of asians, black people or white people?

Personally I think its a built-in mechanism in humans that you judge people by first impression. Its the ability to ignore that first impression and go deeper into the person before you act on the initial judgement that is an important quality.. Imo.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Lupin

the south african gov during apathy

That's my kind of governance.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Flavius

I prefer a more sympathetic type of government

What?

[roadrunner_0]

racism i think is a taught reflex, and one that will never truly be stamped out from society
personally, i am not racist, and cannot understand the viewpoint of anyone that is.
as to the racist jokes thing, i think that a lot has been made of a little here, in that i will laugh at any joke if it is funny, as i imagine, will most people, and the fact that people are made to feel guilty about this isnt the correct way of doing things and achieves nothing.

[JammyJim]

racist jokes are funny because theyre jokes... however it also taps into stereotypes which we laugh at.

how does every racist joke start?
by looking over your shoulder.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by roadrunner_0

racism i think is a taught reflex, and one that will never truly be stamped out from society

Why? If it's taught, surely it'd be relatively easy not to teach it (in the long term).

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Why? If it's taught, surely it'd be relatively easy not to teach it (in the long term).

How do you propose to not teach it? It's not on the national curriculum you know.

Yes, it will decrease, but eliminating it entirely?

[Deepflow]

i blame paul dacre.

[KoeN]

Originally Posted by Stew

1) Do you judge people by the colour of their skin?

2) their nationality?

3) Do you laugh at 'racist' jokes?

4) I hate the idea that I judge people before I meet them/speak to them etc but I think it's human nature. Am I wrong?

5) Is racism 'human nature' or 'taught' to us by society?

6) Is it natural to 'protect your' people'?

7) Will it ever be rid?

8) Is it a problem?

9) Where is the line drawn?

10) Would you rather meet a gang of asians, black people or white people?

1) yes. when i worked as assistant-bouncer in some club i needed to check people on weapons at the entrance. i always double checked the turks for some reason.

2) yes bitte.

3) jokes about black people are cool.

4) no.

5) it's 'taught' for the biggest part.

6) no.

7) no.

8) things get problematic when it hurts people. (and escalate).

9) *see 8*

10) the crazy 88!@#!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Yes, it will decrease, but eliminating it entirely?

My point was that there is no inherent reason why it couldn't be eliminated if it's taught. If something is "natural" (or stems from biology perhaps) then sure.

It's like a language. If a language is taught then there is no reason why it couldn't feasibly eradicated over time. The actual act of speaking/making a noise however stems from instinct (on some level) and so would continually re-arise even if you somehow managed to kill everyone who could speak (or something) and it was only mute people left (presuming their muteness isn't inheritable). Obviously in the case of language it would take bloody ages, but it would do.

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That's my kind of governance.

excusez-moi?!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

It's like a language.

Not really; noone's going to suddenly invent a language, whereas racism may spring up out of nothing, depending on social circumstances.

Having reread your post, you rather went off course there; 'It's like language' was what you meant, not like 'a language'.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Lupin

excusez-moi?!

Apat =! Apart

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Having reread your post, you rather went off course there; 'It's like language' was what you meant, not like 'a language'.

No, I meant what I typed (I think) I just wasn't clear.

It's like A language (if it's taught) - i.e. like English. Kill everyone in the world who speaks English, destroy all English artefacts, and the English language will never exist again.

It's like language (if it's natural) in that it will rearise. People don't suddenly invent languages in general, but they are created over time.

I'd agree with you; racism does arise from circumstances, and is not strictly taught.

[Lupin]

when racism isnt taught, why do racistic doctrine exist?!

or we are going to discuss the origin of racism?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Lupin

when racism isnt taught, why do racistic doctrine exist?!

Well, obviously racism is taught to an extent, but I'm saying it's not entirely taught.

And besides doctrines often reflect objective conditions to an extent.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Lupin

when racism isnt taught, why do racistic doctrine exist?!

What?

[Deepflow]

The term racism has no single accepted definition in general society. However, from a sociologist’s viewpoint it was described by the Weberian John Rex as “deterministic belief systems about the differences between the various ethnic groups, segments or strata”. This definition only relates racism to theories about certain ethnic groups, but more recently definitions of racism have expanded to envelop behaviour which is derived from and based upon these beliefs. Another Sociologist, John Solomos came up with a neo-Marxist explanation for racism: he describes racism as “those ideologies and social processes which discriminate against others on the basis of their putatively different racial membership”. Using Solomos’ definition of racism means that it does not need to be based upon any specific theory which argues for cultural superiority because there may be stereotypical views held by people of society regarding different racial groups without actually regarding the other racial group as inferior. This meant that beliefs which led certain racial groups in society to act against others were not so much based on superiority and inferiority as differences in their ways of life. For example in the 1970s (and to a certain extent still today) much of the British public believed that immigrants were undermining the “British way of life”. This was largely because they had many of the norms and values from their old societies rather than those of Britain. Afro-Caribbeans for example were perceived as being unable to maintain a stable family unit consisting of parents and children, which was even more then than now seen as one of the staples of good decent British society. To sociologist Errol Lawrence, this new face of racism was a response to what people saw as a crisis in the fabric of British society. Ethnic minorities were used as scapegoats for many problems in society, such as rising crime and unemployment. However, this was not a simple cause-effect relationship, it had to first be sculpted by the use of old and new racist ideas. It had to make sense to those who would be its strongest advocates (the white working class) and it had to not fall prey to arguments from antiracists, although in general racism is unlikely to be swayed by antiracist arguments in any case as it is to a very large extent an irrational and deterministic belief system which is more impervious than most to argument as it does not often argue its case from a logical standpoint in the first place.
Another phrase which is tied into racism is “racialism”. This is described by John Rex as “unequal treatment of various racial groups” and it is different from the more common definition of racism (that is, a belief that certain racial groups are inferior to others). Racialism is differently defined in that it is concerned with how different groups are treated, as oppose to what people think.
Now that I have given an introduction to the terms race and racism I will attempt to further investigate the subject by touching upon theories on racism which have been created and explored by sociologists. Firstly I will look at a theory developed by Oliver C Cox; this is very much a Marxist theory of racism and was developed as early as 1948. Much like more modern sociologists, Cox believed that the idea of race itself was a product of human thought rather than anything with any basis in scientific fact. Cox believed that races were identified from their physical characteristics, but also said that these physical differences did not necessarily show any significant biological differences between the groups. In summary, he said that it was a belief in difference that was important, not any actual difference. Also Cox observed that racism was a relatively recent problem. And therefore he surmised that it could not possibly have its origins in universal human sentiments which would make ethnic groups hostile to one another automatically. At one point he argued that “one should miss the point entirely if one were to think of racial antagonism as having its genesis in some “social instinct” of antipathy between peoples”. Cox’s belief that racism was a relatively new social construct came from his observation that there was no racism in ancient civilizations. He points out that the lines along which people were divided between the “haves and have-nots” in both ancient Greek and ancient Roman civilizations was upon familiarity with culture and citizenship respectively. These factors did not rely upon the ethnicity of any of the individuals concerned. As Cox is a Marxist he identified racism as a product of capitalism, more specifically, he argues that racism was born in 1493 when Pope Alexander VI issued orders that “all the heathen peoples and their resources – which included generally all the coloured people in the world – at the disposal of Spain and Portugal”. To Cox as a Marxist, racism is a “practical exploitatative relationship with socio-attitudinal facilitation”. A more simple explanation would be to say that Cox believes that racism was first and foremost a set of beliefs used as an excuse and a justification for the exploitation of one ethnic group by another. Criticisms of Cox tend to generally agree with him that racism can be related to capitalism and colonialism, but that it can also exist outside of these circumstances. The work of Cox did influence some Marxists, but many now see it as overly simplistic.
Another theory of racism which was pioneered by the Frankfurt School was based upon the belief that racism was the characteristic of a psychological abnormality. They were prompted in their investigations by the rise of fascism in Germany in the 1930s. The Frankfurt school did not use a straight sociological approach to their research; they were largely influenced by the sociological theories of Marx but also by the psychological theories of Sigmund Freud. Throughout a process of both qualitative and quantitative research in America, the Frankfurt School came to the conclusion that people who were hostile to groups other than themselves (and so very often racist) tended to have authoritarian personalities. They defined this personality as one which harboured “stereotypic thinking, disguised sadism, the veneration of power” and “the blind recognition accorded to anything that appeared forceful”. These groups of people placed emphasis on “traditional values… externally correct behaviour, success, industry, competence, physical cleanliness, health, and uncritical conformist attitudes”. Maybe because of the environment in which they had come from these people were most directly equated with those who gave unequivocal and unconditional support to Hitler in 1930s and 1940s Germany. According to this research, these values had been instilled in this group while they were still young with either rigid or loveless upbringings, or both. This had apparently forced them to be less emotionally warm towards others, and most notably to those who were different from themselves. These people found empathy and sympathy difficult and were not very able at putting up with differences. This led to their intolerance of ethnic minorities. The main criticisms of this theory and other and other psychological theories on racism come from attacking the belief held within the theory that racism is restricted to small numbers of individuals who are identified as abnormal. However, racism has been shown through multiple studies to not merely be confined to small minorities in societies, but to quite often be an underlying or even overt part of society.
One more theory of racism which I am going to examine was based on a study in 1987 by E. Ellis Cashmore called the logic of racism. This was based on interviews with 800 people in England. After all of the interviews and the analysis of the results which came from them Cashmore came to the conclusion that racism was present in all classes and in all age groups. This led to his rejection of the psychological theories of racism which I have just discussed as if the results of his study are to be believed then racism is not merely something experienced by a small minority of society who have psychological abnormalities. Cashmore instead came to the conclusion that racism was the product of a sort of natural conservatism. He states that “most people are conservative for no reason more mysterious than that they want stability and order”. In younger members (21-50) of the British community, the main reasons for their apparent inherent racism were identified as the belief that ethnic minorities received preferential treatment in regards to council housing, resentment at the “noisiness” of Afro-Caribbean neighbours and a fear of street violence for which they largely held ethnic minorities responsible. In the older members of the British community, these beliefs also accounted for a small part of their racist attitude. As well as that however, the older groups had more of an affection to the status quo and traditional British values, to a certain extent they felt that their neighbourhoods were being “taken over” by ethnic minorities, they were upset that immigrants would unbalance their prized social equilibrium. They also believed more strongly than the younger people surveyed that people from other cultures should not continue their old traditions and ways of life in Britain and according to Cashmore they believed that “Too much cultural diversity can lead to the destruction of the homogenous and standardized world in which they have prospered”. This study was praised by sociologists for its fresh attitude on the study of racism (not merely condemning it) and with its provision of much empirical data.
In conclusion, Sociologists understanding of race and racism are very varied. Although there is something of a consensus on the meaning of the terms for race and racism (although not entirely). The actual understanding of racism in particular is a highly contested area, covered by numerous theories without any of them in particular standing out offering a clear solution to the phenomenon of racism.










Bibliography

Lecture Notes from BAHSS Globalization Course

Course Workpacks for Globalization, Culture, and Social Conflict

Macionis, J. And Plummer, K., 1997, Sociology: A Global Introduction, London, Prentice- Hall

Haralambos & Holborn, 1996, Sociology : Themes and perspectives, London, Harpercollins

[Lupin]

dante said:
racism isnt strictly taught

i say:
it is, as racistic doctrines exist. (doctrines teach something to a certain extent)

[Deepflow]

ok, that bibliography is embarrasing actually, heh

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Well, obviously racism is taught to an extent, but I'm saying it's not entirely taught.

so it is human nature to be racistic?!

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Lupin

so it is human nature to be racistic?!

The term "human nature" is rubbish. But it's "natural" to be racist when we live in a racist society, yeah. Considering our current social relations are structured in a racist fashion, it's wholly rational that individual grow up believing racist ideas.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Lupin

dante said:
racism isnt strictly taught

i say:
it is, as racistic doctrines exist. (doctrines teach something to a certain extent)

It depends what you mean by 'taught'; you don't sit people down and tell them that those dirty foreigners are bad, it's more to do with acquired attitudes.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

ok, that bibliography is embarrasing actually, heh

My last biblography (for an assessed masters essay) consisted of four web links and nothing else.

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

you don't sit people down and tell them that those dirty foreigners are bad, it's more to do with acquired attitudes.

"THose foreigners take away our jobs, let's kill 'em (or isolate em)"

"indeed, i never tought abuot that"

to an extent, it definatley can be taught

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I recall a couple of weks ago that Nod said it should be OK to try and measure racial intelligence, but why bother? Why is it important?

The only thing I can think where it'd be important is in the context of a eugenics type argument.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

My last biblography (for an assessed masters essay) consisted of four web links and nothing else.

i got told off once for having 3 web links and 2 books.

"more books!" i was told.

how on earth do you get away with 4 web links for a masters?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Lupin

"to an extent, it definatley can be taught

Obviously it can be taught, I'm saying it's not entirely taught.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

how on earth do you get away with 4 web links for a masters?

Mainly by not giving a flying **** if I pass or fail. I also handed it a week late (with no extension).

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Obviously it can be taught, I'm saying it's not entirely taught.

i know and i agree.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

how on earth do you get away with 4 web links for a masters?

He's obviously a postmodernist.

[Deepflow]

i think the actual answer is 'he might not get away with it'



edit : unless you already did.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

i think the actual answer is 'he might not get away with it' .

I may not get away with it, but I may pass. One of the directors from my work went up to the LSE (on general business related stuff) and the course convenor said they were impressed by the work I was doing there.

[Churchil5]

Obviously racism is a problem with any country. I think Patriotism has a big part to play in it. I have no problem with any races or colours... although I tell more sexist jokes than anyone I know And just because I wouldn't neccessarily date any of these people, doesn't mean I look down on them.

I think the biggest problems with racism are based on immagrants within one's own country. I find this is the cause of most racism... and here is my view of immagrants within the UK:

I dont mind them being here. I dont mind if they come in because they dont like their own country. If they are going to come in and put in an honest days work, take home a good day's pay and live an honest life I dont care what country they're in.

All I ask is that they have the curteosy to learn the language! Is it too much to ask? English has been voted by the European Union as the chosen language because it has been dubbed the easiest language to learn! It really should be a requirement to get in to the country.

One other thing that winds me up is how we are now having to adapt to be a multi-cultural society. Why? What's wrong with our society? If people are going to come in to our country then surely it's not too much to ask to adapt to our culture? If you dont like it then why leave your own culture?

Ranting aside.. I'm not prejusidice or resentful enough to actually voice these comments when in contact with said people. I am not the kind of person who uses derogatory comments or politically incorrect slang... because making comments about anybody i dont know of any race seems stupid to me.

[pablissimo]

Originally Posted by Churchil5

One other thing that winds me up is how we are now having to adapt to be a multi-cultural society. Why? What's wrong with our society? If people are going to come in to our country then surely it's not too much to ask to adapt to our culture? If you dont like it then why leave your own culture?

/o\

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Churchil5

All I ask is that they have the curteosy to learn the language! Is it too much to ask? English has been voted by the European Union as the chosen language because it has been dubbed the easiest language to learn! It really should be a requirement to get in to the country.

English is one of the more difficult languages to learn. It's because it's fairly ubiquitous, not that it's easy to learn, that it's the primary second language in most countries.

Originally Posted by Churchil5

One other thing that winds me up is how we are now having to adapt to be a multi-cultural society. Why? What's wrong with our society? If people are going to come in to our country then surely it's not too much to ask to adapt to our culture? If you dont like it then why leave your own culture?

What defines the culture of a place? Is it the place itself, or the people?

[Lupin]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

What defines the culture of a place? Is it the place itself, or the people?

past/history?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Lupin

past/history?

But through the place itself or through the people?

Do I have to spell everything out for you?

[Deepflow]

i prefer multiculturalism anyway, it makes things more unpredictable. probably.