| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/9/2008 5:57:39 PM | simlasa - you're right. everybody is racists to a degree and it is probably natural. You look after your own kind first, pure and simple.
everybody is predjudice even if it's only towards your own child it is a prejudice against other children.
a simple question to anybody (a thought experiment) a black man and white man both about to die, you can save one of them, which one do you save? and no it doesn't "depend" on anything that is all the information you have now make a choice.
montreal guy wrote:
I also dated a black woman, a rather pretty one, and realized that somehow through all of it I'd never seen her once as a black woman - but simply a rather pretty and intelligent one.
you're not racist? yet you refer to her as "one" - 'one of them' do you mean? | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/9/2008 6:06:00 PM | That thought experiment sets up a choice in which the only variable is race... meaning that no matter which way you choose the result could be seen as a matter of race.
Meaning there is no obviously 'non-racist' way to answer...
Maybe that's the point?
Also, it should be pointed out... that 'race' is not even a quantifiable or scientific distinction.
It's not part of classification like family-class-genus-species... not even sub-species.
We are just a continuum of people... line us all up and you can't tell where one 'race' starts and another begins.
We base it mostly on skin color... but like Dr. Seuss pointed out... if we were all the same color we'd find some other reason to alienate and mistreat each other. | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/9/2008 6:15:06 PM | | simlasa - It doesn't matter what you choose it's why you made the decision. it's supposed to make you think about your own predjudices and the reasons behind them. | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/9/2008 6:25:02 PM |
a simple question to anybody (a thought experiment) a black man and white man both about to die, you can save one of them, which one do you save? and no it doesn't "depend" on anything that is all the information you have now make a choice.
Saving a person's life depends on a lot.
So you arrive at an accident. There are 2 injured people.
Who bleeding the most?
Is one trapped in a burning vehicle?
One pinned under a vehicle?
You have to make a decission. Your decission is basied on the circumstance surrounding the incident. Has nothing to do with race. | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/9/2008 6:28:20 PM | Badger_bill, I do believe in time of an emergency like that that most people are good and would be color blind, just attend to what is most urgent.
Give most people time to think about it, though....... a different matter. | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/9/2008 6:42:16 PM | simlasa - It doesn't matter what you choose it's why you made the decision. it's supposed to make you think about your own predjudices and the reasons behind them.
I understand that... I just don't think it's a very useful 'thought experiment.'
I play it out in my head and get no answer... until my imagination starts filling in more information.
It might catch the Grand Dragon of the local KKK branch... but it eludes my own, more subtle, brand of prejudice. | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/9/2008 6:46:58 PM |
you're not racist? yet you refer to her as "one" - 'one of them' do you mean?
I saw that as meaning "a pretty one" as in a pretty woman, not a pretty black woman. | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/9/2008 6:52:02 PM | I would try to save the life of the man, in that scenario, making a split second judgment call, on the one I thought would probably survive. Meaning, giving help to the one who stood the best chance to live given help.
If I knew they both could survive if additional help arrives in time, then, I assist the one who most needs my help to withstand the 'time' element.
And IF everything is equal... injuries, time for additional help, etc. then I assist the one I can get to first.
But... the premise is that No other info is known...so, I must go with my own expertise, make a judgement call, and assist the one who will most likely live when provided assistance. | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/9/2008 6:59:38 PM | simlasa - when I first did it, many years ago my predjudices were probably a lot more unjustified than they are today.
my first thought was to imagine the white guy as being like me and the black guy to resemble a gang member - so I saved the white guy.
my second thought was - I was not given that information - I could have imagined that they were both smartly dressed in suits - I could have imagined them anyway I wanted to. But I didn't.
finally, I realised if all you have to judge somebody on is the way they look then you cannot make an informed decision.
hence, helping to recognising my own predjudices, rationalise them and make an effort in real life not to judge people on appearance.
badger bill - you don't deserve a reply
simmahdahnnah - 'a rather pretty one' yes I can see that - but what about the 'intelligent one' at the end. and to say 'I also dated a black woman, a rather pretty one' is making an issue of her colour he could have phrased it as "I dated a black woman and she was rather pretty'
jedi girl - read above you don't have that information, rephrase if you want - you only get to kill one which one do you kill? and i did say "depends" is not allowed.
vvvvvv EDIT: and they are the exactly the same distance away from you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! my god!! it's a thought process. how do you get your own posts deleted?????? | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/9/2008 7:02:53 PM | Andy,
If I get to save (not kill...since I did not cause the injuries or whatever is about to make them die)...one, then, it WILL be the one I can get to first. IF..IF... I have no other info. That would be my instinct.
AND... If you are going to say... there are no injuries. That another person has a gun pointed at me... telling me to make a decision that they will 'kill' the one I don't pick.. then, I'd be a dead woman walking.
Your premise must include at least that variable for it to be answered.
EDIT:
My gosh Andy... YOU keep adding variables. Not us, who are responding. State the entire premise. Because without it being at gunpoint or whatever... you have no viable premise. Get my point??? | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/9/2008 7:09:34 PM |
badger bill - you don't deserve a reply
Then why did you even say I do not deserve a reply?
You just stating that make my post worthy of a reply.
Why. You acually did reply to my post..
How many dissions have you made with out any information?
The question that you possed is a trick question. You were trying to get people to say they would save the person who is the same skin color as victim.
Here one for you.
Answer you are about to be attacked. You are order to attach the pending threat. You know that there are people to the right of your position and to the left. Which direction are you going to attack in? That all the information you have? | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/10/2008 1:18:34 AM | Racism, I always thought, was the belief that genetic differences exists between races, making some (or one in particular) genetically "superior" to others. It was a pseudo-science invented in the eighteenth century to rationalize racially-based African slavery in white-dominated "slave societies" (and a "slave society" is a different thing from just a society that has slavery).
NOW, I do think that racism needs (or has) a new definition, because in a society that has finally trashed the old genetic model, we now need something new to fill its shoes. No, we no longer believe--as a society--that genetic difference between the races confirms the ascendency of whites over blacks in a multi-racial society. So now we have to find something to justify our REACTION to that--to the racial levelling that we witness occurring. Now, if a black man ascends, we have to find reasons OUTSIDE of genetic inferiority to make him stumble. So, just by virtue of being black and successful--and of being conversant in the racist past (and present) of the American cultural and historical context-- HE must be "racist." Oh holy hell....this black man can't simply be successful and intelligent and charismatic and every bit our equal and still be unthreatening....he must be out to get us white folks!!
So what is racism now? I fear that it's the REACTION to the end of genetic racism by people who just can't handle the fact that their paradigm of white racial superiority is is so obviously DEAD. | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/10/2008 1:37:32 AM | Think about it for a moment.
Our earliest ancestors, the first humans on the planet, were born in Africa. 
Racism to me was perfectly illustrated in that Star Trek episode, the one with Frank Gorshin, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield".
Meanwhile, Bele meets with Kirk and Spock where it is quickly shown that Bele believes his black and white coloration is superior to Lokai's, even though Kirk sees no difference in the two and refuses to agree in Bele's feelings of racial superiority.
Once the Ariannus mission is completed, Bele takes control of the Enterprise again, but this time he deactivates the auto-destruct in the process and sends the ship to Cheron. Once there, the two aliens find the planet's population completely wiped out by a global war fueled by insane racial hatred. Both Lokai and Bele stare silently at the destruction on the monitor and realize they are the only ones left of their race (or, as they see it, their races).
Instead of calling a truce, the two beings begin to blame each other for the destruction of the planet and a physical brawl ensues. As the two aliens fight, their innate powers radiate, cloaking them with an energy aura that threatens to damage the ship. With no other choice, Kirk sadly allows the two aliens to chase each other down to their obliterated world to decide their own fates, consumed by their now self-perpetuating mutual hate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield
I remember seeing that episode when it first aired, and actually having one of those pivotal moments of satori, as a young kid.
It was so obvious, and so true.
"It is obvious to the most simpleminded that Lokai is of an inferior breed."
"The obvious visual evidence, Commissioner, is that he is of the same breed as yourself."
"Are you blind, Commander Spock? Well, look at me. Look at me!"
"You're black on one side and white on the other."
"I am black on the right side."
"I fail to see the significant difference."
"Lokai is white on the right side. All of his people are white on the right side."
"You're finished, Lokai! Oh, we've got your kind penned in on Cheron into little districts, and it's not going to change – not for ten times ten thousand years... You're dead, you half-white!"
(to the crew) "You useless pieces of bland flesh" (to Bele) "I'll take you with me, you half-black!"
"But their planet's dead; does it matter now which was right and which was wrong?"
"Not to Lokai and Bele. All that matters to them... is their hate."
"Do you suppose that's all they ever had, sir?"
"No – but that's all they have left."
Are we all so blind that we will condemn ourselves to the same fate ? | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/10/2008 3:29:35 AM | I don't agree about : All racism should be erased thats stupid!
then 100% of history would be rubbed out, why do people want to sugar coat everything?
The Romans
The British
The French
The germans
The moors
I can go on all day if you would like but most of you people are to busy watching some stupid tv show to realize that we have been on this earth for so long and things never change technology always changes but human nature never changes . | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/10/2008 7:17:39 AM | Montreal-guy, that lesson has fallen on a lot of deaf ears. Racisim is a social disease, partially from social mileau and partly from bad thinking.
I was in the Army and hung out with a black guy in AIT ... I grew up in a white neighborhood and never got to know black people, so it was a novelty to get to know Carl. Same with him. Carl was one of the smartest guys I ever knew, he had incredible natural intelligence and perception ....we just hung out and talk, smoked weed, had fun.
Best friends.
One day two southern boys invited me to sit down with them and in a little bit they explained to me that the natural order of things, God's plan, was for the black race to serve the white race and the reason for most of society's problems were that we have departed from God's plan and the natural order ......... I didnt debate it, I was just stunned.
Those guys believed that, though, were taught that, and good luck shaking that belief system. The racists here on this board are of that same ilk, there is no talking to them.
there is only the hope that they and their belief systems will just die out and be relegated to the junk pile of our racist history. | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/10/2008 8:28:07 AM | | To answer the Original question yes there needs to be a new definition of racism...a definition that includes the possibility that Blacks,Hispanics,Asians and any other ethnic group are also capable of being racists....I have read and heard on many occasions Minority groups claiming that they can not be racists because racism has to do with who has the power, that is untrue. Racism has to do with an emotionally responsive irrational reaction elicited by the color of someones skin color or ethnicity accompanied by feelings that they are in some way inferior....this definition can be applied to all races and ethnicities...for example has anyone ever heard that ""Blacks" are better athletes"? Is this not a racist statement.... | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/10/2008 10:04:12 AM | "I have read and heard on many occasions Minority groups claiming that they can not be racists because racism has to do with who has the power, that is untrue."
Inso,
I like your input, not because I agree with you; it is because it shows an honest opinion. I would like to have a serious intellectual discussion with people willing to examine all the aspects of the issue, not just posting sound bites.
Here are my questions to you:
1) Is the relationship between racism and power historically "untrue"?
2) Should the possible new definition, as you propose it, exclude any references to racism as the world has known it until the second half of the 20th century? | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/10/2008 2:49:45 PM |
Well, the native American population was essentially eliminated in terms of it's numbers, if one compares total populations, and percentages.
Oh great- so assign that to the dustbin of history and memory .....
No liberal PC overdose . - just as well . Thats why a serious a rethink of racism is required . Up to the 1980 the Native Americans of Canada were outcasts in their own land .Now beleive it not a few people have woken up and tried to address the issue and I saw some ads in BC along some positive lines but Canada(Ont) has spent more time in deep profound thought on black focused schools (correct me but was Canada privy to owning slaves ? )
Let me say straight out- the NA treatment is shameful on the part of both countries and worse - the silence of the smug " liberials" They should be the first to prominence. if we think whats just,right and fair.If we play the numbers game...the majority always rules the minority - but nothing is cast in stone-hence Obama .
In America, the term racism is most commonly associated by most Americans to be related to African Americans primarily - and to the other groups you mentioned in a secondary role.
You see what I think is this - the USA implemented Civil Rights-.that means equal rights for all the people which is correct. Chinese people worked the railways .So did Irish and every other nation you can name.Granted it really wasn't right how the slaves were chosen but that was a way of life in Africa . So be you Chinese building the railways or blacks picking cotton or Irish picking pots ....its work and its hard but when Civil Rights have been granted to every American-that should really be it but it isnt . You know that Britain was in parts East for the same amount of years .You know that we took indentured labourers from the east to Kenya etc to help build and run the railways ? And you know that this was hard work right -these people went on to diversify and own big businesses and they were run out of Kenya,Uganda ,Nigeria etc along with the whites .You don't see no compensation or PC drive over that . Thats racism but where are the liberals passing even a token comment let alone a condemnation ? So in many cases...in one lifetime these people had to move countries twice and start again in a hostile environment .Slavs were slaves to 1917 and beyond.They were actually CHAINED to the land.
Now the infrastructure of the African nations has virtually collapsed due to the whites/asians leaving. The UK took them in penniless and some of those people are now owners of international pharmacueticals ...within the space of some 30 years.
When Civil Rights was granted - something else was too and thats this thing called Political Correction to blacks so that the media,liberal community kinda promote this agenda to the point of overkill and thats where we are now. America being the way it is that its image is projected abroad along with this demanding PC . See here certain posters think they are liberal and cast racist accusations around but by their own silence on certain issues -kinda condemm themselves . Call someone a racist if someone is seeking equality for all is a good method of intimidation. Then you get other posters who seem to think........."all minorities" when really the only group to elict the "liberal" /PC response is black .
I have been meeting many different ethnic groups over the last few years .We have had to make decisions to accept people based on this black bias PC even though, we know that we are being conned . We have had to refuse others because they are not of this PC group but who are in desperate fear of their very lives and and their flight is a direct result of US foreign policy. This PC is one sided .This liberialism is wrong.This PC racism is wrong .Thats current and now . Whats happening now is- this one sided PC is being noticed and problems are getting stored up for the future.
Ok.....let me end on a happy note......went to Canada and America -coast to coast about 12 months ago.New York lived up to expectations and Vancouver BC. Vancouver because this was the North American image of my childhood there in amazing colour 100% and more....right from the arrival on seeing the Native American profile on the rock face to the totem culture displayed in Stanley Park and around Capliano...total total stunning culture.So rich and vibrant-the stuff of dreams....."legends of the moon " and I am glad that the BC government knows whats good for them even at this late stage in history .
The New Zealand nation is proud of their Moari culture and it figures in most aspects of everyday life . | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/11/2008 12:56:54 PM | Time to re-focus:
Is the current definition still valid?
If not, what should it be? What should be included and what should be excluded?
I think that is a great thing that people are sharing their own personal experiences and their reflections on them.
This thread was started with the hope that we could reach some common ground and we could start understanding each other, instead of just labeling each other. Racism is a politically charged word because it stems from a historical reality. Let's deal with this issue.
There are several posts that point to other historical facts, slavery and genocide being perhaps the most important of them. These issues are as important, if not more important. Let's deal with them and make the case, so that those aspects of the human experience are not neglected from examination. | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/12/2008 5:43:38 AM |
There are several posts that point to other historical facts, slavery and genocide being perhaps the most important of them. These issues are as important, if not more important. I don't see the relevance, circumstances change so what is the point of rehashing History. I think that you have institutional racism in mind, not racism...In our culture laws have been enacted to insure that Minorities have equal rights and that they are protected from discrimination. Does this end Racism? NO, but it does eliminate the possibility of Institutional Racism. | |
|
| |
| |
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/13/2008 6:52:42 AM | Whether we need it or not ,it has already happened.The word has become a club which demogogues love to use to try to browbeat those who disagree with them into silence.It gets new definitions added all the time.
If you say anything bad about a Minority candidate running for office,you are a racist,even if the individual running is terribly unqualified.
If you say anything in support of enforcing our immigration laws,despite the fact that deciding to ignore the law has nothing to do with race.
If you support the death penalty,you are a racist,because of a disproportionate number of minorities who get the death penalty
If you are against affirmative action,you are a racist,despite the fact that it gives a person an advantage in the job market based on his race(which is nothing more than putting the shoe on a different foot)
If you use any form of the word Islam in any form in the same sentance with the word terrorism,you are a racist,even though the last time I checked,Islam was a religion,and not exclusive to a single race.
It has become one of those labels that certain people like to use to try to discredit those who disagree with them when they can't use reason and logic to sopport their position. You know,to put them in one of those groups that you shoulden't listen to,like Homophobes,crackpots,religious nuts,knee jerk conservatives,etc.
If someone falls into these groups,they are obviously bigoted,ignorant,or unenlightened,so their opinion is worthless.
It is much easier to use this propaganda technique than to rely on reason to make your case,especially when your case is unreasonable.and it is the biggest assault on freedom of speech,freedom of thought,and freedom of expression.
It is also the easiest way to prevent open,reasonable discussion and debate,which is the best way to seperate the fact and the fiction,and the biggest threat to fascism. | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/13/2008 6:56:55 AM | correction to the above,the last sentance was meant to read
It is also the easiest way to prevent open,reasonable discussion and debate........which is the biggest threat to fascism. | |
|
| Is there a need for a new definition of racism?
Posted: 5/13/2008 7:51:42 AM | Well, I think I get what the OP is alluding to, in the sense of a broader definition.
Racism is but a faction of a greater type of mentality, and let me try to explain that by an analogy.
It's something, that at it's core, is a bit of a universal problem with other things too.
Take nationalism versus patriotism. Patriotism can be a good thing, even a great thing. Nationalism, on the other hand, can be quite destructive. One features a promotion of things that are different (patriotism), while the other assumes a superiority (nationalism).
Same thing with some aspects of feminism, in it's extremes. It argues that women are identical to men, when the reality is that they are equal to men - but different.
So, like racism (at it's core) it's a separation of one group from the other, with an assumption of superiority on the group that's doing that separation. That mentality also mandates, by extension an inferiority of all those excluded.
So if we return again to a nationalist, he becomes the ideal, and all other countries are lessened.
A feminist (or male chauvinist) assumes a superiority over the other group.
So I see racism as a branch of this, in a way, but based on the same mentality of exclusion , self-definition by perception, and group superiority.
Just a thought. | |
|
Home
login 
