Are we racist/prejudice?

[James]

Yesterday, American History X was on IFC. I hadn't seen the movie in a long time, so I forgot a lot of what happened. Anyway, as I was watching, I realized that some of the comments that were made from the racist point of view really do make a lot of sense, and I could find myself agreeing with them.

Now, I'm not saying that I hate black people, or mexicans, or jews, or even Chojin. But when you hear that father taling about how the fire department hired two black guys just because they were black, rather than two other guys who scored higher on the test and did better in the training, you really can see what's wrong with something like that.

Now granted, I don't know if there's any truth to that particular example, but it sounds like it could very well be. I don't really bother to go and look up facts regarding hating black people. And more importantly, I also understand that the facts in the movie aren't necessarily racist, but just used by them to further validate their own hatred. You can see the wrong in something without having to hate everyone who's not white.

But it really did make me think. We're all prejudice in some manner. We all have predetermined opinions about at least one person/group of people, place, or thing. But are we also "racist?" Meaning, do we have these opinions related to cultures and skin colors that we see something wrong with? Not necessarily a matter of hating someone for it, but more of seeing there's a problem instead of pretending there's not. Knowing that there's something wrong with a certain situation, rather than shrugging your shoulders, saying, "Well, that only seems fair," and then ignoring it.

And it's not just a negative perspective either. For example, Black History Month. I have a problem with that, because you end up taking a whole month, and dedicating it to that. In school, you may or may not actually do so. You may have a week or two reading a book like Uncle Tom's Cabin, or maybe watch the first hour of Roots, but that's probably it. In younger years, you'd learn all about the heroes who helped break down the lines of segregation, at least. And that's where the irony comes in. You spend all this time trying to treat and acknowledge one another as equal, and have all these people who sacrificed so much wanted to be just like everyone else, then you go and point out a whole half-assed month to show the differences. But WHY is there a Black History Month? Shouldn't we be understanding and being taught about these things throughout a year, throughout a lifetime, about all these kinds of things?

But maybe I'm just rambling, and I really do hate black people.

[theapportioner]

For example, Black History Month.

Historical revisionism, and I mean that in a good way. The history that is taught in the States has traditionally been a white Americentric, Eurocentric history. If I may be permitted to throw around a bunch of postmodernist ideas, this is knowledge as a will to power, rather than objective truth. Black history, as well as women's history, homosexuals' history, Mexicans' history, etc. etc. has traditionally been thrown in the ignored and unexplored domain of the Other. Something that, as Kevin suggested, is the great American pastime. To revise history in this case is to decentralize it.

But WHY is there a Black History Month?

Just as there is a Memorial day, a Veteran's Day, Labor Day... you can't celebrate everything all the time. And I doubt Americans would give much of a shit about black history unless it was slapped in their faces. After all, the traditional view of history is so pervasive, so central.

Yes racism is wrong, and it is arbitrary. Essentially a social construct. We continue to see things in a perspective of racism -- races are a part of our language -- and this isn't ideal. But think of historical revisionism, affirmative action, etc. as means to an end, tools, instruments, rather than seeing them as morally legitimate or illegitimate by themselves.

[GAsux]

I have to disagree a bit here, and I'll focus my disagreement with one example with the intention of not taking too much away from the original post.

Here is my beef with programs like affirmative action and the justification that it somehow rights social ills. It is my opinion that the effects of such programs are marginal at best. One could argue that something is better than nothing. People like to label those who oppose affirmative action as "racist" or insensitive and I don't agree with that label.

I don't like programs like affirmative action because I am a negro hating, ignorant white man. I don't buy into the "it's better than nothing" philosophy. It is my opinion that affirmative action is akin to putting a spare tire on your care to fix a flat. It may work for a while, but it's not intended to be a cure all. It's a temporary fix. Each day, year, etc longer you rely on it, the more marginalized it's positive effects become.

My point is that affirmative action and similar programs will never end the effects of racism in society. While it is well intentioned, I personally don't see it being the vehicle that enacts significant social change. It's merely a crutch that serves a more symbollic purpose at this point.

I would be willing to agree that we likely all have a bit or racism/sexism/ageism inside us. I don't suppose that will ever go away. If we intend to attempt to enact societal changes to limit it's effects, we ought to evaluate how effective those changes are to reaching those goals.

[The_voice_of_reason]

Unfortunatly there is always going to be an ingrained sense of curiosity or awe at those who are not "us". People who are of a different race. It is not always racism, racism is a belief that different races are fundamentaly different, but dammit, people are people.

[Abcdxxxx]

depends on if you've grown up amongst people of varied backgrounds or not. i was raised in a progressive atmosphere in san francisco ... the black history month type events just got tossed aside because we were all too sophisticated to really care, and it wasn't a novelty to discuss martin luther king in a classroom... and there wasn't any seperation of histories or pushing of a white american outlook on events. with that said, there was a climate where overt liberalism added to racial tensions where they would never have been.... people would move there from states where they hadn't been exposed to such multi-culturalism, and they'd force their guilt on people. san francisco is now a fairly tense place when it comes to race relations. another examples was when the gay community insisted on instating the rainbow curriculum into schools changing text books to read "mommy and mommy" or "dick and dick and jane". perhaps in kansas this might have some value, but in sf, you're pretty aware at an early age that there are varius sexual preferences and some of your friends might have two dads. by showcasing these issues or suggesting it's a seperate history, or education we just put these issues in their own ghetto.

[VinceZeb]

If you want to get really deep and insightful, the theory of evolution as created by Darwin gives us evolutionary rights to be racist, considering in that time, the thinking was that whites, Chinese, blacks, Australians, and another group were all seperate from each other, with whites being Homo sapiens.

[AChimp]

We have to put up with all kinds of multicultural bullshit here in Canada, and there's always Group X coming out and demanding that everybody recognize how special and unique they are.

However, those people from Group X are usually a small minority of the minority (HA! Get it?) and the average person just doesn't care and ignores it. In the end, it's just the politicians that pay attention because they have to, and the lame social activists.

I don't see how we'll ever get past the issue of racism if certain groups keep trying to rub their skin colour in everyone else's face. It's not like I have a hard time remembering that someone is black or Native, afterall.

[AChimp]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

If you want to get really deep and insightful, the theory of evolution as created by Darwin gives us evolutionary rights to be racist, considering in that time, the thinking was that whites, Chinese, blacks, Australians, and another group were all seperate from each other, with whites being Homo sapiens.

Yeah, but you see, Vinth, the thing about science is that theories can change over time. We realize now that blacks aren't any different from Asians and from white folk on the very basic level. If you're going to move forward with one foot firmly planted in the past, why stop at Darwin?

I mean, hell, if you want to get really deep and insightful here, we should still assume that the world is flat because our ancestors thought so.

And if you want to get really, really, really deep, we should offer animal sacrifices to God because it says to in the Bible.

[theapportioner]

Here is my beef with programs like affirmative action and the justification that it somehow rights social ills.

Agreed, I don't think affirmative action, if you go by its original rationale, does its job either. However the reasons for it have evolved, and at least in the universities, affirmative action is not so much a means of achieving racial justice, but a means of achieving diversity. At least this is the position of Bollinger and the University of Michigan. A bit subtle, but pretty different ideas. Greater diversity in the universities is something that I do favor, especially since our age is a greatly interconnected one.

That being said, if diversity is the goal, then affirmative action has in a sense become obsolete. Race is only one part of the diversity equation, and a.a. (if we should even call it that) needs to similarly evolve. This should be more palatable to organizations like the NAACP than alternative plans like "affirmative access", which some of the original designers in Texas say simply doesn't work.

by showcasing these issues or suggesting it's a seperate history, or education we just put these issues in their own ghetto.

That's always a danger, but one would hope that as cultural awareness increases, peoples' identities evolve appropriately. Remember it's peoples' identifications of themselves and of others that create the compartmentalization of history (and tensions); I doubt there is nearly as much vice versa reinforcement of identities from Black History Month.

Point is, what is lost when Black History Month is trumpeted is the perspective of how black history relates to other history, how these histories are not essential entities but creations with a temporal context to them. That there are "black" and "white' histories is itself a creation, with the tendency to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you want to get really deep and insightful, the theory of evolution as created by Darwin gives us evolutionary rights to be racist, considering in that time, the thinking was that whites, Chinese, blacks, Australians, and another group were all seperate from each other, with whites being Homo sapiens.

Asinine. Die.

[James]

Point is, what is lost when Black History Month is trumpeted is the perspective of how black history relates to other history, how these histories are not essential entities but creations with a temporal context to them. That there are "black" and "white' histories is itself a creation, with the tendency to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Exactly my point. It's very ironic that we teach equality by separating everything into it's own colored category.

But let's get back to the more "racist" side. Now, I'm in no way a white supremecist, but I feel that there are all these benefits for being of another nationality/race as an ongoing apology for what some or our ancestors may or may not have done hundreds of years ago. It seems almost Catholic in it's attempt (you must always feel guilty for sins you didn't even commit, because people killed Jesus long ago).

Granted, we should be ashamed of our history. But that doesn't mean we have to pay out the ass for it. I never did anything to any black person except call this girl a ****** in kindergarten, when I saw it used on an episode of Family Matters, and didn't know what it meant. Why is it that I shouldn't get a scholarship just because I'm not black or the like? It's reverse-racism in it's own sense. We have to run around worshipping anyone not of pink pigmentation as a way to one day hear the entire group of them say, "OK, you're forgiven, whitey."

And the worst part is, if you voice your opinion on something you feel is wrong - not because you are racist, but because you honestly feel it's not a sound solution to our world's problems (and rightfully so) - you might as well be holding a noose and a whip and calling everyone Toby. But if someone not white says there's something wrong, everyone takes notice and bends over backwords to please them.

Where's the equality in that, when white people are automatically looked down upon like that? The roles are reversed now. It's like we're the slaves.

Then again, this is all from my perception. Things may not really be like this, but it's how I feel it is based on my exposures, which I admit isn't all that worldy or deep. Just your run-of-the-mill middle-class suburbia.

[theapportioner]

I think you're being overly dramatic. People generally don't have it terribly rough just for being white. But institutionalized racism still exists, and many people still see blacks in a view that is colored (heh) by mostly negative norms. There is a self-fulfilling prophecy element to this as well. The original purpose of affirmative action is is not only to atone for the sins of the fathers, but also to counter the racism that exists today.

[Abcdxxxx]

i just find it interesting that the same people who call for cultural awareness tend to also be the same people who claim to have no use for "race". while it's wrong to differentiate someone based on their culture, it's also wrong to look down on someone who makes a conscious choice to differentiate themself by that culture.

you can't teach someone to understand other cultures, nor can the classroom really make up for someones lack of exposure. really the problem is opportunity, and sincerity.

[theapportioner]

it's also wrong to look down on someone who makes a conscious choice to differentiate themself by that culture.

The choice itself, I am indifferent to. Call yourself Russian or Buddhist or Punk or Socialist or Raelian. Whatever. What people often tether to the choice, indeed what makes it more than just calling yourself by that name -- the values associated with it, the relative distinctions, the rationale, the tendency to exclude those who choose otherwise, is fair game. Some elements may be praised, and others scorned. And the person who chooses, similarly judged, depending on what he identifies with, and what he doesn't.

See, they are not just labels, they are identifications.

[VinceZeb]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

If you want to get really deep and insightful, the theory of evolution as created by Darwin gives us evolutionary rights to be racist, considering in that time, the thinking was that whites, Chinese, blacks, Australians, and another group were all seperate from each other, with whites being Homo sapiens.

Asinine. Die.

Go read some books, you fucking moron. Darwin said it himself as did many of his supporters.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by VinceZeb

Go read some books, you fucking moron. Darwin said it himself as did many of his supporters.

What did Darwin say, that certain races of people were genetically superior due to their achievment in society? He never said that, he in fact denounced social Darwinism.

What did I tell you about interjecting in conversations you can't finish, clambake?

[Zhukov]

Darwin denounced it, Hitler supported it. And I bet the "libertarians" support it too. :/


"Australians"....WTF?

[VinceZeb]

From Darwin:

"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit... the more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existance. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throught the world."

Thomas Huxley:

"If may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and out prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete sucessfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places within the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins...."

Huxley was Darwin's #1 supporter. I can go on and on. Darwin was a driving force behind Mao, Hitler and other such terrorist. It has nothing to do with the social Darwinism as praticed by guys like Carnegie and Rockafeller. Evolution was hinted at by Darwin and seen by his closest pupils and attack dogs that white males were the dominate species, followed by white women, and then "minorities". You can read a book, cant you?

Now, I can stop now at my covering your face with jizz, or I can go further and parade you down Times Square while you wear a Sailor Moon outfit. My advice, take the towel and clean up, jizzy.

[kellychaos]

Whether Darwin believed that or not, I cannot say. I've never heard enough about this to know whether you're taking this out of context or not. To be fair, I guess that I'll have to do a little research and get back to you. If it proves true, I can't say that I'd totally disrespect the man and disregard his other achievements but it would lower my view of him a notch or two. Perhaps that was the pervailing theory of the time. :shrug What I CAN say is that those so-called scientific facts have sinced been proved not only false but absurd so your point about evolution and race is moot. Why bring it up? Unless you're saying that to know our current selves, we have to know the stupid mistakes of our past culture. I guess I can see that. What I can also say is the fact that you knew where to find that crap is frightening in and of itself.

[James]

Vince, get out of my thread you fucking jungle bunny.

[Carnivore]

Seriously. Remove yourself from this conversation before you make an even bigger ass of yourself. You can't say a Black child raised in a jungle in Africa is inferior to a Caucasian raised in suburbia. To make a just comparison, the two must be placed in similar situations. This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

[AChimp]

My name is Vinth, the Nazi Robot! I spread hate across the Intarweb!

Remember! Black people are inferior because people 100 years ago thought so!

[punkgrrrlie10]

Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throught the world."

You forget that people have differing notions of what "civilized" means which is illustrated by Carnivore's statement:

You can't say a Black child raised in a jungle in Africa is inferior to a Caucasian raised in suburbia.

The English, Spanish, Portuguese, thought they were bringing "civilization" to those poor poor heathens with no christianity by enslaving them and giving them syphilis. Remember, it was the white man fucking the sheep and treating populations as lesser beings than themselves in the name of "civilization"

[Sethomas]

Actually, syphilis is one of the few diseases native to the Americas. European tolerance to it was so low that within a century of Columbus landing, the virus swam its way into royal blood and was probably one factor that killed Henry VIII.

Vince is such a fucking idiot that it's not clear whether he's mocking evolutionists for supporting a racist scientist, or if he's justifying racism with scientific name dropping. In either case, historical empathy renders null his pathetic attempts at making a point.

[James]

Chimp almost made me choke on my Triscuits.

[VinceZeb]

Originally Posted by James

Vince, get out of my thread you fucking jungle bunny.

Hmmmm, now the term "jungle bunny" is usually a bigoted slur aimed towards blacks. Now, since I am not black, this joke does not apply, and besides, I thought was the racist bigot of the board was supposed to be me! But, if you will, notice how I never use bigotted terms towards people, even when trying to be "funny". Of course this kind of humor told in my city would guarentee James a trip down the Mississippi river, face down of course.

And Sethomas, please describe how I am a fucking idiot. All I said was if you want to get deep into the way racism works, it used to be believed (and still is now by groups such as the World Church Of The Creator and Nation Of Islam) that evolution was a key to unlock the door to thinking that some groups were below the white male. If you think I am racist, you obviously have never paid attention to a thing I have ever said. Therefore, to anyone with an IQ larger than the number of fingers and toes they possess, I am the intellgent one and you are a dumbass.

And to Kelly, its called reading a book. Try it. Well, I should say try reading GOOD books.