Racism - Is it wrong?

[karoaper]

Re: Stereotypes -- What would you do?

First of all, I don't agree of how you made things very vague so as to allow some racism, yet at the end you claim a moral absolute of how racism is wrong. If you claim a moral absolute that somehow racism is wrong, then it is always wrong, no matter the case. Armenians, Greeks, blacks, etc., are not justified in hating Turks, whites, etc. Otherwise it seems contradictory.

One one hand you give a bunch of people an excuse and a reason to hate other people, and then you concluded from that that somehow racism is wrong.

No. First I provide my definition of racism along with examples and then I say that it is wrong. I thought I made that clear. An Armenian being weary of turks is different than an irrational feeling of supremacy and intollerance. The latter is usually a biproduct of insecurity and close-mindedness and often ignorance. Being insecure about oneself either brings self-hate or hate of others.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Stereotypes -- What would you do?

No. First I provide my definition of racism along with examples and then I say that it is wrong. I thought I made that clear. An Armenian being weary of turks is different than an irrational feeling of supremacy and intollerance. The latter is usually a biproduct of insecurity and close-mindedness and often ignorance. Being insecure about oneself either brings self-hate or hate of others.

But now that you clarified it still leaves the lines rather blurred. Perhaps to you it seems clear what you are stating, but inquiring into it only left me with that impression. The reason I said it seemed contradictory is because all the examples you practically gave all qualify under the definition of racism. You just made a distinction that some hatred is rational and other hatred is not. In other words, you cherry picked. Why can all hatred not be rational, or irrational? Black people being racist, is never seen as such. It is perfectly acceptable. Armenian hatred of Turks is never questioned, it is perfectly acceptable. My point is that to try to get people to think about these loaded assumptions. If racism is wrong, and you state a moral absolute, then it should be wrong in all cases. Making exceptions to the rule then, does not make "racism is wrong" a moral absolute, rather it makes it a principle. Principles are less dogmatic than morals. Morals are unbending and unyielding, principles are whimsical and bending and change with the time.

So racism that is bad then is defined as an "irrational hatred". It seems to me that this is an irrelevent conclusion, since one can very well make the argument that all hatred is rational and in fact, has its root in a reason (whether we may like the reasons or not that is entirely a different matter), for why else would someone hate something?

I am not so much arguing against you, but trying to take this thought to its logical ends, and the underlying meaning of what this whole nonsense and obssession with racism is. As I said earlier, people in this modern era are far more concerned and consumed with trying "not to appear racist" or at least be perceived as such, than they are trying to be upstanding characters. The way people tread with fear that they might possibly be labelled a racist seems to weigh more on peoples' conscience than lying, cheating, stealing or murder. Talk about irrationality.

Hatred is natural to man, no more and no less than love is natural to man. So why does man spend an excessive amount of time out of his life to try to control and eradicate what is evil in man, as well as what makes him good? Yes, hatred makes man good. When will people stop with this whole "war on hatred" nonsense and just let themselves go and live? Hatred, no different than love, exists and "comes with the territory" so to speak. There is a reason why people hate, as there s a reason why people love.

And if we want to really make things even more insane since some people might not want to associate "racism" and hatred with reason, we can argue also that everything man does, thinks, and acts is irrational and nothing is rational. Actually, for this all one needs to do is read Lewis Carroll.

[dsarkasian]

Re: Racism - Is it wrong?

Wasn't "racism" a coined term which came into existence to fit a certain social agenda? Didn't before the promotion of multiculturism most ethnic groups/nationalities inheritenly serve the interest of their own kind,whether good or bad?

[Anahita]

Re: Stereotypes -- What would you do?

I like the modern era. People are more afraid of their guilty racist thoughts, or the thought of being perceived as a racist, than they are for stealing or murder, or some other immoral and vile act.

1. People are more afriad... of... than...(that's the issue)
2. Immoral? You've spoke before. I didn't forget.
Sunday sunday sunday... RACSIM VERSUS 'OTHER' VILE ACT

[karoaper]

Re: Stereotypes -- What would you do?

But now that you clarified it still leaves the lines rather blurred. Perhaps to you it seems clear what you are stating, but inquiring into it only left me with that impression. The reason I said it seemed contradictory is because all the examples you practically gave all qualify under the definition of racism. You just made a distinction that some hatred is rational and other hatred is not. In other words, you cherry picked. Why can all hatred not be rational, or irrational? Black people being racist, is never seen as such. It is perfectly acceptable. Armenian hatred of Turks is never questioned, it is perfectly acceptable. My point is that to try to get people to think about these loaded assumptions. If racism is wrong, and you state a moral absolute, then it should be wrong in all cases. Making exceptions to the rule then, does not make "racism is wrong" a moral absolute, rather it makes it a principle. Principles are less dogmatic than morals. Morals are unbending and unyielding, principles are whimsical and bending and change with the time.

So racism that is bad then is defined as an "irrational hatred". It seems to me that this is an irrelevent conclusion, since one can very well make the argument that all hatred is rational and in fact, has its root in a reason (whether we may like the reasons or not that is entirely a different matter), for why else would someone hate something?

I am not so much arguing against you, but trying to take this thought to its logical ends, and the underlying meaning of what this whole nonsense and obssession with racism is. As I said earlier, people in this modern era are far more concerned and consumed with trying "not to appear racist" or at least be perceived as such, than they are trying to be upstanding characters. The way people tread with fear that they might possibly be labelled a racist seems to weigh more on peoples' conscience than lying, cheating, stealing or murder. Talk about irrationality.

Hatred is natural to man, no more and no less than love is natural to man. So why does man spend an excessive amount of time out of his life to try to control and eradicate what is evil in man, as well as what makes him good? Yes, hatred makes man good. When will people stop with this whole "war on hatred" nonsense and just let themselves go and live? Hatred, no different than love, exists and "comes with the territory" so to speak. There is a reason why people hate, as there s a reason why people love.

And if we want to really make things even more insane since some people might not want to associate "racism" and hatred with reason, we can argue also that everything man does, thinks, and acts is irrational and nothing is rational. Actually, for this all one needs to do is read Lewis Carroll.

OK, I agree with most of what you said. But I need to clarify more. Racism is bias and in of itself I agree this bias is not a big evil; however it can be the fuel of real crimes like murder, rape, war. What I was stressing is the difference between learned response and supremasict ideology that is often rooted in self-insecurity. Both are biases and both to a degree are deterents for a healthy society. However, a learned response - a rational Pavlovian learning - in my definition is not really racism, because it's roots are not in percieved differences of race,creed,etc. Their roots are in the rational sense of injustice and danger affected due to historic and current events. The feeling of distrust and animosity towards an agressor is different than the feeling of supremacy that often the agressors themselves feel towards those that they often denigrade and dehumanize. I've lived in Russia and I've felt racism all the time. Once standing in the line in Moscow, I heard an old lady say that she'd like to gather all Caucasians (the three republics) and gun them down. I could believe my ears. Obviously we hadn't done xxxx to Russians, but here she was spewing hatred just the same. This kind of blind and irrational close-mindedness is in entirely different categorie than the learned response I talked about. And as such, it is much more vile.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Stereotypes -- What would you do?

1. People are more afriad... of... than...(that's the issue)
2. Immoral? You've spoke before. I didn't forget.
Sunday sunday sunday... RACSIM VERSUS 'OTHER' VILE ACT

I'm sorry, I don't follow your point here.

When you are not posting lyrics, you seem to be posting short encrypted posts that you would like me decipher. Unfortunately, I am not gifted with the act of decryption, nor do I possess psychic abilities. Care to elaborate?

[karoaper]

Re: Stereotypes -- What would you do?

Let me add this. The learned response I talked about and racism (my definition) are both bourn of some practical need. The learned response, even if it's abstract and stereotypical is born of self-preservation and the need to fight for survival. If I've been burned by you, don't be surprized if I don't trust you, your family, your friends and your dog. On the other hand, racism is bourn of need to enslave, take advantage off, obuse for self-gratification (all ugly and primitive human impulses) the weaker being. Racism in this case serves to somehow justify these impulses. It is not rooted in external signals but rather in internal motivations and needs (economical, emotional, etc.) So having broken down the differences, how can a person not see racism is something wrong and vile, while learned response as a natural reaction to abusive action.

edit: I guess I should say that racism is irrational given a non-primitive society.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Stereotypes -- What would you do?

OK, I agree with most of what you said. But I need to clarify more. Racism is bias and in of itself I agree this bias is not a big evil; however it can be the fuel of real crimes like murder, rape, war.

As can be anything else that is a real crime like murder, rape, etc. What is your point? This reminds me of proponents who argue that 'hate crime laws' are somehow 'good' because crimes that are supposedly motived by 'racism' are "worse" than say a crime motivated by jealousy. Nevermind that the whole idea of motive is a shaky and vague area and requires only psychic abilities which the legal system does not possess.

What I was stressing is the difference between learned response and supremasict ideology that is often rooted in self-insecurity.

Are you saying racism is not learned? I thought I always heard the argument that white supremacy is bad because it is ignorance and the trump card was that this was learned, so that we should "educate" people to make them unlearn "racism".

Both are biases and both to a degree are deterents for a healthy society. However, a learned response - a rational Pavlovian learning - in my definition is not really racism, because it's roots are not in percieved differences of race,creed,etc. Their roots are in the rational sense of injustice and danger affected due to historic and current events.

The feeling of distrust and animosity towards an agressor is different than the feeling of supremacy that often the agressors themselves feel towards those that they often denigrade and dehumanize.

"Why, then the world's mine oyster,
Which I with sword will open." ~Shakespeare

This assumes that somehow the there are objective dance floor that can be measured, and quantify peoples thoughts, feelings, and motives. There aren't any and neither the Pavlovians, the empiricists, the positivists or the Keynesians should assume that there are. What these studies only prove are reaffirmations of previously held beliefs that people wanted reaffirmed.

For all we know we are irrational beings. The subjective justifications, factors and motives that go into peoples' decision making and beliefs cannot be quantified, hence it is incorrect to somehow claim that one sort of racism is okay, because it is learned and understandable or 'quantifiable', but another form is bad because it has 'no reason'. While you personally may not see the reason, since you are obviously not that person who holds that belief, or you as a person may not agree with that persons belief, that does not mean that somehow this persons belief is 'irrational' or without warrant. How do you know? How does anyone know for that matter? It could be that the subjective reason for why some whites feel threatened is because they realize whites are an endangered species, and their birthrates are low. Coupled with massive non-white immigration and mixing, America, Europe, etc., will cease to have white majorities in the near future. Armenia and Armenians are on a similar path. Maybe, their reason is that they simply do not find someone of a darker tone aesthetically pleasing. That may not be a good enough reason for you, that is for that person.

I've lived in Russia and I've felt racism all the time. Once standing in the line in Moscow, I heard an old lady say that she'd like to gather all Caucasians (the three republics) and gun them down. I could believe my ears. Obviously we hadn't done xxxx to Russians, but here she was spewing hatred just the same. This kind of blind and irrational close-mindedness is in entirely different categorie than the learned response I talked about. And as such, it is much more vile.

How do you know it's blind and irrational? Not to make your story negligent or marginalize it, but maybe she had a son die in Chechnya or something, or he got bullied by Caucasian gangs. That's not the point.

We have all experienced "racism". It's part of life. There are different people and different cultures. I have experienced racism many times, and not from whites. I have experienced racism from Mexicans because I was Armenian. I have also experienced racism from blacks because they saw me as white. I don't care. Nor is it my job to care or to "change the world". Everyone has had experienced "racism" and everyone has been "racist". So what?

Do you know what this was called before the age of racism? It was called natural. It was being human. So now, things are so bad, that to prefer to marry and associate with your own kind, to express opinions that you do not find a particular group pleasing, or much less to state that a particular group is violent or disproportionately represented in crime, is to be accused of racism.

While you folks are caught up with worrying about racism, your Latino compatriots are taking to the streets with slogans of La Raza, and this is their land, protesting the immigration bill. Oh the joy of diversity! You can bet that everyone from blacks, to Asians, to hispanics is very well conscious of race and knows what is going on. Only whites, and in this case Armenians are being asked to unconditionally love everyone equally (nevermind the question of how such a concept is even close to being possible by a human for how can someone love everyone equally is beyond me).

[Anahita]

Re: Stereotypes -- What would you do?

In my definition of racism, it is an irrational and utterly baseless feeling of animosity/distrust/hatred towards someone on the grounds of onlyrace. Moreover, learned feelings of distrust and even hatred towards a large group of people (even if that group constitutes a separate race) that is based on experienced hardship and suffering due to this group is not racism. This is important. For example Armenians,Greeks, etc. are more than justified in feeling deep distrust and hatred towards turks; native Americans and blacks are more than justified in being weary of white Americans; Arabs are more than justified in feeling deep animosity towards Israelis and xxxs in general. That in my opinion is not racism.

On the other hand, hatred, distrust, discrimination that one feels towards another person simply because their race or their culture is foreign and different is purely moronic. It's no coincidence that so many racists are ignorant redneck morons. So for example if I walk down a street and see a black person or a hispanic person and I get an uneasy feeling, that is racism and it's stupid as all hell. On the other hand, if I walk down the street in the ghetto and see a group of hoodlums, who may all be black, an uneasy feeling is all but natural. This feeling is due to a natural understanding that hoodlums in the ghetto can and do get very violent with no provocation.

So, yes racism is wrong.

In my definition of racism, it is an irrational and utterly baseless feeling of animosity/distrust/hatred towards someone on the grounds of onlyrace. Moreover, learned feelings of distrust and even hatred towards a large group of people (even if that group constitutes a separate race) that is based on experienced hardship and suffering due to this group is not racism. This is important. For example Armenians,Greeks, etc. are more than justified in feeling deep distrust and hatred towards turks; native Americans and blacks are more than justified in being weary of white Americans; Arabs are more than justified in feeling deep animosity towards Israelis and xxxs in general. That in my opinion is not racism.

On the other hand, hatred, distrust, discrimination that one feels towards another person simply because their race or their culture is foreign and different is purely moronic. It's no coincidence that so many racists are ignorant redneck morons. So for example if I walk down a street and see a black person or a hispanic person and I get an uneasy feeling, that is racism and it's stupid as all hell. On the other hand, if I walk down the street in the ghetto and see a group of hoodlums, who may all be black, an uneasy feeling is all but natural. This feeling is due to a natural understanding that hoodlums in the ghetto can and do get very violent with no provocation.

[Your words] For example Armenians,Greeks, etc. are more than justified in feeling deep distrust and hatred towards turks; native Americans and blacks are more than justified in being weary of white Americans; Arabs are more than justified in feeling deep animosity towards Israelis and xxxs in general. That in my opinion is not racism.

Hatred fosters hate. I see both ‘women’ and can’t see why they would ‘fight’ in the big, long-history, picture. I think I understand your point. (‘Politically’ I agree. But, that’s politics.) Hun, let me as an illustration take your words, as a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, as reverse what you said….

[Your words, in a MIRROR] For example Turks are more than justified in feeling deep distrust and hatred towards Armenians,Greeks, etc.; whites are more than justified in being weary of native Americans and blacks; Israelis and J-ws in general… Arabs are more than justified in feeling deep animosity towards Israelis and xxxs in general. That in my opinion is not racism.

So, yes racism is wrong.

I agree that humans are 'above' that. I think you've done lots of thinking on this recently, karoaper. [big hug]

[karoaper]

Re: Stereotypes -- What would you do?

[Your words] For example Armenians,Greeks, etc. are more than justified in feeling deep distrust and hatred towards turks; native Americans and blacks are more than justified in being weary of white Americans; Arabs are more than justified in feeling deep animosity towards Israelis and xxxs in general. That in my opinion is not racism.

Hatred fosters hate. I see both ‘women’ and can’t see why they would ‘fight’ in the big, long-history, picture. I think I understand your point. (‘Politically’ I agree. But, that’s politics.) Hun, let me as an illustration take your words, as a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, as reverse what you said….

[Your words, in a MIRROR] For example Turks are more than justified in feeling deep distrust and hatred towards Armenians,Greeks, etc.; whites are more than justified in being weary of native Americans and blacks; Israelis and J-ws in general… Arabs are more than justified in feeling deep animosity towards Israelis and xxxs in general. That in my opinion is not racism.




I agree that humans are 'above' that. I think you've done lots of thinking on this recently, karoaper. [big hug]

Thanks dear. Actually I've thought about this issue many times before I'm sure. Also I don't disagree with you that hatred fosters hatred. Though I'm not sure that my examples can be mirrored effectively.