# The Cause for Racism...



## Poetic Device

This is copied and pasted from another thread.  I was just wondering what everyone thinks.  Do you think this statement is on the right track as far as the issues of racism and prejudices are concerned?  Do you think that there is something that can be done to thwart these two?


> As far as the racism is concerned, I think that the problem is that Jane had a number of bad experiences with the John race and because of that, since people are more prone to remember more bad than good, they form, racist, predjudice and sexist opinions. I think that the problems are not only the people that cause the negative experiences but also the human mind in itself (I an not saying anything that is meant to be taken as an insult, and I am sorry if anyone feels that way).


----------



## argosdex

I think it's rather simplistic, racism is founded on a few basic principles, ignorance, fear and intolerance. Parting from that basis you could almost go in any direction, starting with the fact that humans seem by nature to be (self) destructive. We are the only species that does not maintain a balance, a natural order, this behavior  alone is destructive. Einstein had the right idea, "I have no idea what weapons we'll use to fight world war three, but I do know that world war four will be fought with sticks and stones".


----------



## maxiogee

I think that we just "don't like" difference.
We are a species which has strong family/clan/tribal and territorial instincts which we still haven't overcome.
The intruder is after either your territory, your food resources, your young or your breeding stock.


----------



## konungursvia

Well I agree that it is irrational, but I think it has many causes. I for one love difference -- different cultures, different cuisines, etc. -- but that's in part because I'm a Viking, and we always wanted to get away from home.  Seriously, though, I think the main cause for racism is cognitive and psychological: much of our social thinking depends on archetypes we project onto experience, an innate habit. It only takes a slight motivation toward chauvinism to do this in a way that resembles racism.


----------



## ireney

I am in a bit of a hurry but let's not forget some people's "need" to separate the world into "us" and "them" so that by the mere act of belonging to "us" they can feel superior even if there's no other reason to feel so (in fact especially if they feel inferior).

Plus, it's a good way to aboid self-blame. It's "them" who are always at "fault".


----------



## Outsider

I don't agree very much with the quote. Often, people form bad opinions about those of other ethnicities without having had any significant amount of bad experiences with them.

I also don't agree with the implication that racism is somehow an unavoidable human constant. The anthropologists who study it seem to disagree (though, in fairness, they use a rather strict definition of 'racism', which may not be what the author of the quote had in mind).


----------



## fenixpollo

*What is Racism?*


----------



## Poetic Device

Outsider said:


> I don't agree very much with the quote. Often, people form bad opinions about those of other ethnicities without having had any significant amount of bad experiences with them.
> 
> I also don't agree with the implication that racism is somehow an unavoidable human constant. The anthropologists who study it seem to disagree (though, in fairness, they use a rather strict definition of 'racism', which may not be what the author of the quote had in mind).


 
I never agreed with implying when it came to anything, and this is why.  Nothing there was supposed to mean that racism or prejudices are unavoidable.  Everything is avoidable.  THat was the second part of my question:  what do you think can be done in order to thwart them?  The problem I feel is that when people have a bad experience with a reace, ethnicity or what have you they are quick to jump--especially if they live in a city and live with the race.  It's only natural that when one is subjected to a plethora of negative experiences that they form a negative opinion about what or whomever their experience was with.  

Natural thought is natural thought, but there is nothing that says that you cannot correct it.  I'm not saying that it is easy, I'm just saing that it can be done.  An idea that might aid in this endeavor is to go to or participate in a Multicultural event (something that gives you an introduction into the many cultures that are around the world).


----------



## modus.irrealis

I agree with Outsider's post. Also, one thing I really dislike about the original post is it seems to me to be partially blaming the victims of the prejudice for that prejudice. If someone has negative encounters with a certain race and that leads to racist sentiments, I'd say that person was already racist, since the notion that people represent their race in some way is to me a racist sentiment.

And about the naturalness comments, maybe that's true, but I don't see why it's natural to make distinctions based on skin colour but not on eye colour. I think that we are taught to make these "racial" characteristics so important.


----------



## maxiogee

modus.irrealis said:


> And about the naturalness comments, maybe that's true, but I don't see why it's natural to make distinctions based on skin colour but not on eye colour. I think that we are taught to make these "racial" characteristics so important.



I think that in a village of people with exclusively brown eyes, someone with blue eyes would soon notice a 'feeling' of difference.

I don't say that it is right that we shun 'otherness' or difference. I just feel that people do it automatically — I think that there is a need within all human communities to have an 'other', an enemy, something identifiable as 'not us'. Even down 'n' outs have their "victims".


----------



## Outsider

How do you square that with the popularity of blonde-haired women, though? They're certainly not in the majority, at least not in my latitudes...


----------



## Poetic Device

modus.irrealis said:


> If someone has negative encounters with a certain race and that leads to racist sentiments, I'd say that person was already racist, since the notion that people represent their race in some way is to me a racist sentiment.


 
Scenario:
You are an Italian who lived in the country/suburba area where there were just enough people around you to where it was comfortable companionship and for the most part you all got along very well.  The community is made up of caucasians, African-Americans, Latinos, and Phillipinos.

You then, for whatever reason, have to move to a city such as Seattle or NYC, and you move into an all Latino (or whatever) neighbourhood.  You don't think anything of it because you have previously lived with these people and had no problems at all.

Now it's time to meet your new neighbours.  You go over to introduce yourself and be friendly, and then the leighbour starts calling you names such as WOP.  This upsets you but you figure that it's just going to take time for the people to get used to you.  

The next morning, you go to your car so that you may go to work or whatever and you find it to either be stolenm or dismembered.  While you are looking in dismay at what is lacking of your car, this Latino individual starts yelling phrases that leave no question in your mind that they are indeed the "perp" (things like "That's right, B*tch!" Go back to ______!)  This and things worse continue to happen to you until you can't take it anymore and leave.

You did not start to dislike the race until you moved into the are.  Can you tell me how this is a shortcomming of you if you build up an intolerance of the race/ethnicity?  Are you saying that you are to take the crap and eat it with a smile?


----------



## Outsider

Poetic Device said:


> You did not start to dislike the race until you moved into the are.  Can you tell me how this is a shortcomming of you if you build up an intolerance of the race/ethnicity?  Are you saying that you are to take the crap and eat it with a smile?


You are mixing different things, there. Making generalizations about a "race" (and Latino isn't even one), and "taking crap with a smile" are two different things. They do not have to be related.

If the person in your scenario ended up convinced that there was something bad about Latinos, that would be a shame, because it would be a conclusion based on poor reasoning. O.K., they had some bad experiences with some Latinos -- 20, 50, 100 Latinos? How much is that compared to the whole Latino community in the U.S.? 1%? 0.1%? 0.0001%?...


----------



## modus.irrealis

Poetic Device said:


> You did not start to dislike the race until you moved into the are.  Can you tell me how this is a shortcomming of you if you build up an intolerance of the race/ethnicity?  Are you saying that you are to take the crap and eat it with a smile?



Outsider basically gave my answer already, but if after these sorts of experiences, I form prejudiced remarks about certain ethnicities or races or whatever instead of just thinking, hey those people were jerks, I'd say that my viewpoint on the world was racist because instead of looking at people as individuals I'm interacting with them as members of their race, and that to me is in and of itself a racist viewpoint.


----------



## divina

The thing is, if racism didn't exist we'd find some other difference to separate "us from them," etc.


----------



## mytwolangs

The only time it is called racism is when a caucasian is guilty of it.


----------



## divina

mytwolangs said:


> The only time it is called racism is when a caucasian is guilty of it.



That's because caucasians have this thing called "White Privilege" which is a tradeoff.


----------



## Outsider

divina said:


> The thing is, if racism didn't exist we'd find some other difference to separate "us from them," etc.


We already have plenty of others. The least of them there are, the better.


----------



## Daddyo

I wonder if this expression of xenophobia had a practical use as far as survival is concerned, back when the forests of the world started receding and our ancestors were forced to get off the trees and stand up to look across the apparently endlessly expanding steppes.
This is a case, I'm afraid, of trying to overcome four million years of evolution with fifteen thousand years of civilization.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.


----------



## Outsider

Racism is a recent ideology (roughly 500 years old).


----------



## dawn-ccino

Honestly, I think that racism is started solely by ignorance. I mean, what other explanation could there be? What would you call a person who is so narrow-minded so as not to be able to accept races other than his own? There could simply be no other way of justifying racism.


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:


> Racism is a recent ideology (roughly 500 years old).



Prior to 500 years ago, had any Irish people much of an opportunity to evince a racist attitude? Or a Maori, an Aztec or a Nigerian?


----------



## Outsider

I don't understand your question, Maxiogee.


----------



## maxiogee

maxiogee said:


> Prior to 500 years ago, had any Irish people much of an opportunity to evince a racist attitude? Or a Maori, an Aztec or a Nigerian?





Outsider said:


> I don't understand your question, Maxiogee.



An ancestor of mine, born 500 years before me in 1450, would probably have never met anyone from another race. Racism didn't exist in Ireland 500 years ago because nobody had ever met another distinct race. We were fighting the English back then, who had conquered our country about 300 years earlier. Were they a distinct race? Probably not, seeing as both countries had populations of Celts, Vikings, Normans and others who came and settled - the two peoples were more like cousins than strangers.

Similarly would an Aztec, born in 1450, have encountered any other distinct race? I don't believe so.

That being so I don't think one can say there was no racism 500 years ago. There just wasn't any chance to display it. People took other victims instead.


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:


> That being so I don't think one can say there was no racism 500 years ago.


Anthropologists do. As a matter of fact, the  figure 500 is a rather crude round-up.

Max, race does not exist, biologically. It's a socially constructed conviction. I know you've heard this before, but I also know it takes a while to draw all the conclusions from this deceptively simple statement.
Before societies began to _believe_ in race, there were no races in the world. That's why racism was impossible, not because of lack of mobility. Lord knows we had lots of mobility back in those days, with all the comings and goings of the Anglos, the Saxons, the Britons, the Irish, the Vikings, the Normans...!
And people did fight each other with violence, and hate each other with passion -- but not with racism.


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:


> Anthropologists do. As a matter of fact, the  figure 500 is a rather crude round-up.
> 
> Max, race does not exist, biologically.


I know, I was using the concept as a facet of racism. 

It has long been my contention that humanity always selects a 'not us' - be it the solitary red-head in a schoolroom, the hunchback, the darker-skinned or the foreigner. We devise reasons to justify our mistreatment of these victims and to make ourselves comfortable with them, but we seem to need these bogeymen. Why? I don't know, and am unsure whether we ever will truly know.


----------



## LV4-26

maxiogee said:


> It has long been my contention that humanity always selects a 'not us' - be it the solitary red-head in a schoolroom, the hunchback, the darker-skinned or the foreigner. We devise reasons to justify our mistreatment of these victims and to make ourselves comfortable with them, but we seem to need these bogeymen. Why? I don't know, and am unsure whether we ever will truly know.


I agree 200%.
But in all the situations you're describing there's a crowd on one side and an individual on the other. Hence, I would rather call that scape-goating than racism. 
Certainly, both are closely connected in my mind. But I think of them as two attitudes having the same origin which would be this "us" vs "non-us" basic sociology you pointed out.


----------



## maxiogee

LV4-26 said:


> I agree 200%.
> But in all the situations you're describing there's a crowd on one side and an individual on the other. Hence, I would rather call that scape-goating than racism.
> Certainly, both are closely connected in my mind. But I think of them as two attitudes having the same origin which would be this "us" vs "non-us" basic sociology you pointed out.



There's only one in the situations I draw on, but if that instinct is left unchallenged the thinking transfers to _all_ redheads, hunchbacks, dark-skinned people, strangers or whatever. That's the start of bigotry - and it's _when_ it starts too, in the playground - when some bully feels threatened by the difference in someone.


----------



## LV4-26

maxiogee said:


> That's the start of bigotry - and it's _when_ it starts too, in the playground - when some bully feels threatened by the difference in someone.


One bully, maybe. But soon joined by many more people. My assumption is that the origin of it all is a crisis in the community (there always are, sooner or later, be they manifest or lurking). And the fact of picking on a single individual (or picking on a specific group of individuals in racism) restores unity in the group. Has any of you noticed that? That warm atmosphere of  (restored or maintained) unity and friendship when all the members of the group bash the same outsider(s)? Nationalism works on that, mostly.


----------



## maxiogee

LV4-26 said:


> That warm atmosphere of  (restored or maintained) unity and friendship when all the members of the group bash the same outsider(s)? Nationalism works on that, mostly.



No need, LV, to talk to an Irishman about the way Nationalism works. 
My only problem is my lack of urge to see a United Ireland. 
Saying that over here is akin to saying that you think breathing and eating are over-rated


----------



## Bonjules

Hola,
I agree with maxi and LV4 that racism is only part of a much broader
spectrum of discrimination. In fact, we are making it way too easy
for ourselves if we declare 'traditional racism' the biggest problem.
Any difference, real or imagined will do to separate 'us from 'them';
obvious differences, such as skin color, just make it easier.
We are a discriminatory species: It's in our genes and why is really
not that hard to see when you think about millions of years of evolution.
Any stranger or 'out-group' was for many, many thousands of years
a threat to your, your familys/tribes etc survival : You didnt know whether they had the same customs, tools, level of development, whether they just wanted to rob your food, your women or eat you... 

This is so deeply ingrained in who we are, a few lousy centuries of
"Enlightenment" make very little difference. If we used that knowledge for
massive programs of 'social learning' we could make some headway;
the sad truth is that we are going rather the opposite way, leaving
large segments of populatioin in poverty, poor education without good
social support, slowly creeping towards the dog-eat-dog state.

So the short answer to why it is so easy to turn little Johnny into
a racist by 'just one remark at the dinner table' is that it's already
in his blood. The remark obviously doesn't help.

Ps jUST saw that Maxiogee said a lot of what I said already.
Sorry, Max, and sorry if I bored someone!


----------



## Bonjules

Ah, I forgot someone from your own group
who might look or act 'different'.
Same logic : Why are they different? do they have special powers? Can they harm you?
You don't know.
depending on the situation, they got killed or their special status got
'harnessed' as shamans or witches.
(Not even speaking of the ones who violated 'social norms' of the group...)


----------



## ireney

I am trying very hard (and failing miserably) to remember from which Latin American country the following children story comes from. It was set as an introduction to one of my uni textbooks . I can't remember the exact way it was translated to Greek of course but I remember the story with all its details. What follows is just the gist of it. I hope someone recognises it!

In a village a man was born with a tail. Everyone was looking at him and making fun of him and his tail, shunning him. After a while all the people in the city started growing tails. At first the were dismayed but after a while they got used to it and started making clothes that would accomodate for their tails and were actually very proud of them. Now they were shunning and making fun of any unfortunate one who didn't have a tail.


----------



## LV4-26

It seems that several of us agree that racism, strictly speaking,  is only one of the various forms that something we could call "differentism" (as I think GenJen put it in another thread) can take.

Just a simple thought. If we want to be the good guys, we desparately need the bad guys to exist. We may even be able to create them if necessary.


----------



## LV4-26

Bonjules, I'm all with you in both your posts #31 and 32. Only....


			
				Bonjules said:
			
		

> We are a discriminatory species: *It's in our genes*


...That, I don't know. Right, it seems that we've always functionned that way. But nothing leads me to make that further step with you.


----------



## maxiogee

Bonjules said:


> Ps jUST saw that Maxiogee said a lot of what I said already.
> Sorry, Max, and sorry if I bored someone!


No problem Bonjules. 
It's nice to see some people think the same without being prompted to do so.


----------



## Poetic Device

divina said:


> That's because caucasians have this thing called "White Privilege" which is a tradeoff.


 
White Privelege...  That makes me laugh.  I am a part Puerto Rican, and I can't get a job, scholarship or anything else if I mark "white" on the application form.  However, every time that I checked the "Hispanic" box...


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> An ancestor of mine, born 500 years before me in 1450, would probably have never met anyone from another race. Racism didn't exist in Ireland 500 years ago because nobody had ever met another distinct race. We were fighting the English back then, who had conquered our country about 300 years earlier. Were they a distinct race? Probably not, seeing as both countries had populations of Celts, Vikings, Normans and others who came and settled - the two peoples were more like cousins than strangers.
> 
> Similarly would an Aztec, born in 1450, have encountered any other distinct race? I don't believe so.
> 
> That being so I don't think one can say there was no racism 500 years ago. There just wasn't any chance to display it. People took other victims instead.


 
I don't know if it would be considered racism, but what of the Jews and the Sameritan in Biblical times?  (For those who d on't knowwhat I am talking about, Samaritans were the progeny of Jewish people that bred with Gentiles--non-Jews.  They were looked down on in utter disgrace and considered abominations.)


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> I don't know if it would be considered racism, but what of the Jews and the Sameritan in Biblical times?  (For those who d on't knowwhat I am talking about, Samaritans were the progeny of Jewish people that bred with Gentiles--non-Jews.  They were looked down on in utter disgrace and considered abominations.)



Were they not just people who lived in Samaria?


----------



## Poetic Device

They lived in Samaria, yes. However to my knowledge and understanding the only people that lived there were the ones that were exiled from Judea and the surrounding Jewish countries because they bred with gentiles. I could be wrong, however.

If you look at the KJV of the Bible (at least) and read the Book of John, you will see evidence of this.  Example:  9The Samaritan woman said to Him, How is it that [a]You, being a Jew, ask me, a Samaritan [and a] woman, for a drink?--For the Jews have nothing to do with the Samaritans--
  22You [Samaritans] do not know what you are worshiping [you worship what you do not comprehend]. We do know what we are worshiping [we worship what we have knowledge of and understand], for [after all] salvation comes from [among] the Jews.

However, like anything else from the Great Book, it is open to interpretation.  I am sorry for going off topic.  It will not happen again.


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> They lived in Samaria, yes. However to my knowledge and understanding the only people that lived there were the ones that were exiled from Judea and the surrounding Jewish countries because they bred with gentiles. I could be wrong, however.
> 
> If you look at the KJV of the Bible



That says nothing about breeding with gentiles.
The only reference I can find to the Samaritans is that they adhered to a form of Judaism accepting only its own ancient version of the pentateuch as scripture.

It seems less like what we would call racism and more like religious apartheid. The NT shows the Jews as not acccepting these people, but I would imagine that (if it wasn't a two-way thing) it is more likely to have been the other way around - the "fundamentalist" Samaritans would have stood by their books when the newer scriptures began to be accepted by the (other) Jews.


----------



## teshicano

Racism is an instinct and begins as selfishness.  We want to acquire and protect the available resources for ourselves.  We will share these resourses with our children, our family, extended family, village, state, nation with increasing reluctance.  The more that someone seems to differ from ourself, the more we are reluctant to share our resourses.  This is natural.  It has always existed in us.  And this is racism.

How we determine which others are most different from ourselves is determined by the groups to which we are members, those with whom we have the most social contact.  These differences can be based on skin color, language, nationality, national origin, ethnicity, religion, political affiliations, music, hair style, or stars on your belly (Dr. Seuss).  Any trait can be used to distinguish us from them.  This is natural.  This is racism.  We are all racist.

To overcome racism requires deliberate effort.  One must find the trait(s) which we all share, the group to which we all belong...then, we are all alike.

all Nazi's are created equal


----------



## Mike P.

mytwolangs said:


> The only time it is called racism is when a caucasian is guilty of it.



Asians get labelled as racists by Blacks and Whites in my experience.  

_Racism_ kind of a odd word.  Is it a misuse to use _racism_ to describe ethnic 'hatred' among members of the same race, such as Anglos and Hispanics?  Is it racism if there is just a general physical difference like typical skin tone / hair color?


----------



## Outsider

Mike P. said:


> _Racism_ kind of a odd word.  Is it a misuse to use _racism_ to describe ethnic 'hatred' among members of the same race, such as Anglos and Hispanics?


Yes. No race, no racism. It's something else. 



Mike P. said:


> Is it racism if there is just a general physical difference like typical skin tone / hair color?


Hating people because they look different is not racist in itself. However, in today's world, hatred for those who look different is usually rooted in the belief that they are also different at some deeper, inherited sense -- and that is the very definition of racism.


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> That says nothing about breeding with gentiles.
> The only reference I can find to the Samaritans is that they adhered to a form of Judaism accepting only its own ancient version of the pentateuch as scripture.
> 
> It seems less like what we would call racism and more like religious apartheid. The NT shows the Jews as not acccepting these people, but I would imagine that (if it wasn't a two-way thing) it is more likely to have been the other way around - the "fundamentalist" Samaritans would have stood by their books when the newer scriptures began to be accepted by the (other) Jews.


 
I said that I did not think that it was racism, but I was not sure if it would constitute as prejudice. My original post in the begining of this thread asked about bot racism and prejudices.

...  I just talked to an associate of mine about this topic not even ten minutes ago, and during our convorsation I realized that he--like so many others--didn't exactly know what racism and prejudice were.  That is, he did not know what the difference was.  I'm wondering--not to bash on anyone--how many people that read this thread are in the same boat.  If anyone is wondering or questioning, here are the definitions:
Main Entry: *rac·ism* 
*1* *:* a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

Main Entry: *1prej·u·dice* javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?prejud03.wav=prejudice')
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin _praejudicium_ previous judgment, damage, from _prae-_ + _judicium_ judgment -- more at JUDICIAL
*1* *:* injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; _especially_ *:* detriment to one's legal rights or claims
*2 a *(1) *:* preconceived judgment or opinion (2) *:* an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge *b* *:* an instance of such judgment or opinion *c* *:* an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics


----------



## teshicano

We wrongly assume that race indicates a genetically distinguishable group.  But any trait, be it physical or behavioural, can be used to define a race.  The other forms of racism often have special names e.g. nationalism, patriotism.  But I understand racism to be the general term which includes all of the specific forms.

In my society of Texas (USA), probably the most historically prominent form of racism is defined by language; distinguishing between Anglos, speakers of English, and Hispanics, speakers of Spanish.  The fact that the trait of distinction is language and not skin color seems irrelevant.  The accompanying feelings in each case are the same.  The results are the same.  The only difference is the trait chosen as the focus.


----------



## Outsider

teshicano said:


> We wrongly assume that race indicates a genetically distinguishable group.  But any trait, be it physical or behavioural, can be used to define a race.  The other forms of racism often have special names e.g. nationalism, patriotism.  But I understand racism to be the general term which includes all of the specific forms.


It has been observed in various countries that women tend to be paid less than men for the same amount of work. Would you call this 'racism'?
Or how about the alleged liberal bias of the American media -- racism, too?


----------



## teshicano

Racism and prejudice is not the same.  It is possible to be racist and not prejudiced (theoretically, at least).  To be prejudiced means to assume (pre-judge) that all individuals of a race share a trait which is not the trait which defines the race.

All hispanics are lazy.


----------



## teshicano

Outsider said:


> It has been observed in various countries that women tend to be paid less than men for the same amount of work. Would you call this 'racism'?
> Or how about the alleged liberal bias of the American media -- racism, too?


 
Sexism is certainly a form of racism.

Alleged liberal bias of the American media?...I may be possible to conceive of the democratic fight for the succesfull implementation of one's own political beliefs over opposing beliefs as racism, if you can state the problem using the appropriate terminalogical framework.  But, I think racism is only becomes real racism as it approaches a certain intensity.  But yes ideology can be used as a race.


----------



## Outsider

teshicano said:


> Racism and prejudice is not the same.  It is possible to be racist and not prejudiced (theoretically, at least).  To be prejudiced means to assume (pre-judge) that all individuals of a race share a trait which is not the trait which defines the race.
> 
> All hispanics are lazy.


I disagree entirely. Racism is always prejudice, but not all forms of prejudice are based on race -- i.e., racist.

Which is why I am baffled by your statement, in your latest post, that sexism is a type of racism. (So all heterosexual marriages are interracial?!...)


----------



## Poetic Device

Outsider said:


> It has been observed in various countries that women tend to be paid less than men for the same amount of work. Would you call this 'racism'?
> Or how about the alleged liberal bias of the American media -- racism, too?


 

I think that is more discrimination than anything.  Sort of like not hiring a person to do a desk job just because they are in a wheelchair.


----------



## teshicano

If we push our words to the extremes, they will, like all good analogies, breakdown.  Adequately describing complex topics will require more than a few paragraphs.  In fact, words may always fail.

Would it not be possible to recognize that Catholics and Protestants are different and that they should not intermarry.  Which I would call racism.  But this would not necessarily mean that there must be prejudices between them or that any members of either group would would support oppression (discrimination) of members of the other group, beyond the prohibition against intermarriage.

"hererosexual marriages are interracial?!"  That is funny.  Glad you pointed that out.  That does seem to be the logical corollary.  And absurd.  But I think the problem here is that sex (with regard to reproductive potential) is a natural biological category.  The concept of racism tends to breakdown here.  But when you take sex, as a concept, out of its natural category and try to use it as a social divider, then it becomes racism.

You may be right though, to say that racism is always prejudice.  They are different concepts, but in practice they might alway occur together.  As I am defining race & prejudice, it seems that prejudice is based on race.  But by the traditionally accepted definition of race as a genetic group, sure prejudices do not have to be based on genetic races.


----------



## Outsider

teshicano said:


> Would it not be possible to recognize that Catholics and Protestants are different and that they should not intermarry.  Which I would call racism.


Why would you call that racism? What would it have to do with race? "Catholic" and "protestant" are religious groups.


----------



## teshicano

Any trait can be used to distinguish races.  The trait may be physical, behavioural, or idealogical.  I use race as a general term of which there are many forms.  Religion is one form of race.  As are ethnicity and language.  Skin color is another.


----------



## Outsider

You wrote above:



teshicano said:


> If we push our words to the extremes, they will, like all good analogies, breakdown.  Adequately describing complex topics will require more than a few paragraphs.  In fact, words may always fail.


My interpretation -- which may have been wrong -- was that you were cautioning that if we allow the meaning of a word to be too broadened, that word becomes useless for effective dicussion. If that was what you meant, then I agree, and I think it applies to "race" and "racism".


----------



## Poetic Device

teshicano said:


> Any trait can be used to distinguish races. The trait may be physical, behavioural, or idealogical. I use race as a general term of which there are many forms. Religion is one form of race. As are ethnicity and language. Skin color is another.


 
I'm sorry, but I believe you are mistaken.  Let me reitterate:



> *Main Entry: rac·ism
> 1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
> *


----------



## teshicano

That definition does not define race, but racism.  The difference between skin color racism and religious racism is only the trait we chose to use to distinguish the races.  There is no other difference.  We need some term for the general concept.  Racism seems to be that term.  If you read all of the dictionary definitions of race, you will probably see something like "a distinguishing or characteristic quality".  This makes it a candidate for the general term.  Genetic races do not exist.  They have to be defined conceptually.


----------



## Outsider

teshicano said:


> That definition does not define race, but racism.  The difference between skin color racism and religious racism is only the trait we chose to use to distinguish the races.  There is no other difference.  We need some term for the general concept.


What's wrong with "discrimination"?


----------



## teshicano

We can discriminate against individuals, for any reason...maybe they are rude.  Discrimination is an action.  Racism is a belief which may or may not manifest into an action.


----------



## Poetic Device

Very interesting...  I am glad you made me question myself....

Main Entry: *dis·crim·i·na·tion* 


Pronunciation: dis-"kri-m&-'nA-sh&n
Function: _noun_
*1 a* *:* the act of discriminating *b* *:* the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
*2* *:* the quality or power of finely distinguishing
*3 a* *:* the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually *b* *:* prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial _discrimination_>


Main Entry: *dis·crim·i·nate* 


Pronunciation: dis-'kri-m&-"nAt
Function: _verb_
Inflected Form(s): *-nat·ed*; *-nat·ing*
Etymology: Latin _discriminatus,_ past participle of _discriminare,_ from _discrimin-, discrimen_ distinction, from _discernere_ to distinguish between -- more at DISCERN
_intransitive verb_
*1 a* *:* to make a distinction <_discriminate_ among historical sources> *b* *:* to use good judgment
*2* *:* to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <_discriminate_ in favor of your friends> <_discriminate_ against a certain nationality> 


Main Entry: *3race*
Function: _noun_
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian _razza_
*1* *:* a breeding stock of animals
*2 a* *:* a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock *b* *:* a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics <the English _race_>
*3 a* *:* an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; _also_ *:* a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group *b* *: BREED* *c* *:* a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits
*4* _obsolete_ *:* inherited temperament or disposition
*5* *:* distinctive flavor, taste, or strength


----------



## teshicano

Thank you for the definitions.  My dictionary is weak on the topic of race.  But the one your provide for race, 2b "class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics", helps out alot.


----------



## Poetic Device

It's not a problem.  If you need any more defs, I get mine from webster.com.  They're great.


----------



## Outsider

That's not the kind of race that people have in mind when they say "the white race", "the black race", etc., though. That use of the word "race" seems a little old-fashioned to me.


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> 2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock
> b : a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics



By the wording of 2b, accountants would be a 'race', as would bird-watcers or even WR forer@s —> tosh and piffle!


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> This is just what the dictionary defined.  If you find a better dictionary site please let me know.



Whisper this very, very quietly - it's a huuuuuuge secret, and nobody's meant to know about it
*http://www.wordreference.com/definition/race*


----------



## Poetic Device

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......  Dork.


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...... Dork.


I have not seen the word 'dork' used as a compliment before this.
Has the word changed so much since my youth?

.,,


----------



## Poetic Device

It's from what I have seen a New Jersey thing.  Everywhere I go here you here at least one person call another a dork.  There is a thread that was started about this:  http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=197046&highlight=dork

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=14688&highlight=dork

I would love to hear what it means to you there.


----------



## zebedee

MOD NOTE:

Let's just re-rail this thread which has rumbled off-course. Here's the first post.

Quote:
As far as the racism is concerned, I think that the problem is that Jane had a number of bad experiences with the John race and because of that, since people are more prone to remember more bad than good, they form, racist, predjudice and sexist opinions. I think that the problems are not only the people that cause the negative experiences but also the human mind in itself (I an not saying anything that is meant to be taken as an insult, and I am sorry if anyone feels that way). 
Please re-focus all future posts to align themselves with the discussion topic.

Thank you.

zebedee
Culture moderator


----------

