• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is racism wrong?

Is racism wrong?

  • Yes

    Votes: 88 83.8%
  • No

    Votes: 15 14.3%
  • There is no such thing as racism

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • Total voters
    105
1+1 = ? is not a moral question.

I don't see anything in the post that I addressed about a "moral question"... do you?

Originally Posted by Goobieman
Apparently. nothing is inherently, universally, right or wrong.
This would include racism.

yeah... didn't think so. ;)



Originally Posted by Tsunami
Not in binary.

Originally Posted by misterman
The man has a point. Nice catch.

1 + 1 = 2, not 10... sorry. I know that 1st grade was a long time ago,but seriously. :roll: :lol:
 
There's nothing wrong with honest assesment of the differences between races, and to an extent it's not even wrong to take pride in one's own race/culture.

When it becomes racism (and wrong) is when that belief turns to the belief that some races are superior or inferior and should be treated differently.


I think this definition of racism by George Fredrickson is a good definition, and takes into account the idea you are mentioning.


It is when differences that might otherwise be considered ethnocultural are regarded as innate, indelible, and unchangeable that a racist attitude or ideology can be said to exist. It finds its clearest expression when the kind of ethnic differences that are firmly rooted in language, customs, and kinship are overridden in the name of an imagined collectivity based on pigmentation, as in white supremacy, or on a linguistically based myth of remote descent from a superior race, as in Aryanism. But racism as I conceive it is not merely an attitude or set of beliefs; it also expresses itself in the practices, institutions, and structures that a sense of deep difference justifies or validates. Racism, therefore, is more than theorizing about human differences or thinking badly of a group over which one has no control. It either directly sustains or proposes to establish a racial order, a permanent group hierarchy that is believed to reflect the laws of nature or the decrees of God. Racism in this sense is neither a given of human social existence, a universal "consciousness of kind," nor simply a modern theory that biology determines history and culture.
 
Humans have social instincts. Far as that goes, we're more inclined to sharing and compassion than, say, chimpanzees... but chimpanzees show signs of the same instincts. The "fair play" primate experiments are probably the most fascinating study in the field of evolutionary psychology to date, at least to me.

Will that trickle down to Comptom any time soon?.....:confused:
 
This area has always been a Democrat state, but in the last twenty years, it has sunk from Liberalism to Socialism....
Next stop communism.....:(
The influx of Californians was the beginning of the end
Domestic partner entitlements, gay parades, mollycoddling homeless, every kind of GUBMINT handout & on & on.....
Co....Uh, King County has become a 'safe haven' for illegals ala San Francisco.....
Half of India lives in Redmond working as Microserfs....
Boeing will be gone within 15 years....
We're headed for the *******.....
I'd wager the founding fathers are spinning in their graves witnessing how their vision has been perverted......:(

ZOMG! Those evil Californians! You gotta be kidding me:roll:
 
EpicDude86 said:
People act in socially conditioned ways so they don't act in their naturally programmed ways. It's why we teach things like sharing, being nice, and morality. These things are rarely instinctual.

I agree with your first sentence in that humans do have hard wired instincts and that we have learned to socially condition ourselves to deal with these instincts. However, these instincts don't surpass the most rudimentary forms (fight or flight response, for example), and especially don't encompass higher forms of thought such as greed. Humans have a survival instinct, and the specific effects of this survival instinct will change based on their environment; if they live in a society where cooperation is the predominant mode of survival then they will move towards a cooperative mindset.
 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wrong thread....
 
Last edited:
Of course people tend to behave in similar ways, but to say that it's due to "human nature" is to say that people are innately programmed to behave in certain ways, which is wrong. You're essentially saying there's a biological basis for it, when no such basis has ever been found. People act in certain ways because they are socially conditioned to act in certain ways, not because it's in their biology to do so.

Not to start the whole nature vs. nurture debate, but if you study cases of twins that are separated at birth you might be surprised how much genetics can affect your life.

1 + 1 = 2, not 10... sorry. I know that 1st grade was a long time ago,but seriously. :roll: :lol:

I guess you didn't make it to the grade that explained binary. :prof
 
Of course people tend to behave in similar ways, but to say that it's due to "human nature" is to say that people are innately programmed to behave in certain ways, which is wrong. You're essentially saying there's a biological basis for it, when no such basis has ever been found. People act in certain ways because they are socially conditioned to act in certain ways, not because it's in their biology to do so.

You act as if this is a settled question. Not even close.

In any event, I'm not claiming that racism is genetic, only that the tendency, or capacity, to judge people based on race (or other factors) is. So I wouldn't disagree with you.
 
Only if you define racism as black vs. whites. Humans have tended to look down upon other humans who are different, who look different, or act differently from themselves forever.

Not...not only. In agreement with what you stated above, Claude Levi-Straus (anthropologist) argues that "All people have always felt themselves superior to others." In this sense we can come to the comfortable position that this means that "racism" must have always existed.

But another anthropoligists, Michel Leiris, argues that if we look at different societies in history we can't just make this easy assumption. "Many societies have displayed themselves with some group pride, but while the group regards itself as superior or priviledged compared with other groups, it makes no "racist" claims and, for instance, is not above entering into temporary alliances with other groups or providing itself with women from them."

If we turn to the Mediterranean world, where there was considerable amount of contact with lighter skinned people in the North and darker people in the south, racism is difficult to find. Black people, especially, were viewed favorably by the anchient Egyptians, Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. Even Moses married a Nubian woman for which the book of Numbers (somewhere) of the Bible stated that the "anger of the lord was aroused against those who objected."

1) The anchient Greeks called some of their neighbors "barbarians" but that was only because they could not speak Greek.

2) When Alexander the Great conquered Persia and India, ten thousand Greek soldiers married Hindu Indian women.

3) In the Roman Empire, Roman slaves came from captured peoples of Africa, Asia, and Europe. In other words, slavery for the Romans was a matter of equal opportunity for all.

4) In the late Middle Ages, European slaves were taken increasingly from areas north and west of the Caucusus.

The identity of slavery to solely mean black Africans rose and originated in the Muslim world and North Africa. It was made illegal in this region (by the Qu'ran) to enslave a Jew or a Christian. What was left to fill the positions of slaves? As slaves from this region began to be exported to foriegn nations and regions, slavery became increasingly synonymous to the black skin color. After centuries had passed the Atlantic slave trade identified black Africans as the slave. Now it is important to recognize that in the end, slavery was abolished throughout the world where blacks were used, but only in the U.S. was there a predominant society crushing "racist" phenomena developed. This was a result of capitalism and protestant prescription (The Catholic church prescribed that black slaves in the Americas were to be taught Christianity, while the Protestant prescription was to treat them as beneath Christiandom and therefore "evil.") Whites viewed blacks as meaning one thing.... - inferior, ignorant, unable to understand morality, and forever heathen.

Fast forward to the twentieth century. Nazi Germany altered the slave's identity to meaning Jew. They did not seek the poor as in anchient worlds. They did not seek a certain skin color as in the Atlantic Slave Trade. They sought a specific ethnic identity, which is why their brand of slavery has been argued to be "racism," though not because of skin color. Of course, scapegoating Jews had been an historical thing for Europeans, so the leap into slavery and butchery was inevitable.

You are confusing group pride, which may be maintained by a tribe over another, with racism, which is typically about a certain skin color or entire race.




That's what racism really is, the human tendency to look on anyone who is different from themselves as inferior to themselves.

No it is not. This is just a simple guide line for people who are afraid of being tagged a racist. I have been inside many different cultures and populations in many third world countries and I know without a doubt that I (and many others) am superior to many....not because of skin color...but because of situation and circumstance. For example....Somalia is full of the wretched, the diseases, and the hopeless, yet there also exists an internationally recognized Somali Super Model who maintains a sort of superiority towards others. Another example would be Ethiopia. A population full of the uneducated and under priviledged, yet every Summer Olympics prove their superiority on the track. And is there not a sense of superiority in the world in terms of invention and ingenuity and the parts of the world where it comes from?

The best way to break through this "everything is racism" barrier is to imagine a scenario where the world is about to explode and you have one life boat into space that can seat 100 people. Shall we choose from among the brightest and the most intellegent (which would mostly all come from the European/American/Asian theatre) or will we refrain from the "racist" stigma and head to Africa?


This is that politicially correct hinderance that has people afraid to talk about others and fearful of any analytical work. It's this fear of "racism" that has people scared to say "blacks"...er..."African Americans"....er.....etc.
 
Last edited:
Now it is important to recognize that in the end, slavery was abolished throughout the world where blacks were used, but only in the U.S. was there a predominant society crushing "racist" phenomena developed.

....slight correction. South Africa was a second locale where "racism" became triumphant long after slavery.
 
...
Fast forward to the twentieth century. Nazi Germany altered the slave's identity to meaning Jew. They did not seek the poor as in anchient worlds. They did not seek a certain skin color as in the Atlantic Slave Trade. They sought a specific ethnic identity, which is why their brand of slavery has been argued to be "racism," though not because of skin color. Of course, scapegoating Jews had been an historical thing for Europeans, so the leap into slavery and butchery was inevitable.
It weren't just Jews who were used as slave-labour, but also a variety of undesirables, and ethnicities from conquered territories.
And slavery was racism long before then. How do you think the keeping of fellow humans, specifically black Africans as property was justified?

You are confusing group pride, which may be maintained by a tribe over another, with racism, which is typically about a certain skin color or entire race.
That really depends on how a 'race' is defined, it's quite arbitrary. It could be defined by location and language, and be narrowed down to tribe.
Skin colour is a very broad criterium.
But for a notion of superiority to be racism, power to subdue and dominate needs to be exerted, regarding a neighbouring tribe/race as inferior is not racism by itself.
This is that politicially correct hinderance that has people afraid to talk about others and fearful of any analytical work. It's this fear of "racism" that has people scared to say "blacks"...er..."African Americans"....er.....etc.
I am not scared to say "blacks" or talk about others. But then, I don't have any theories about races to share, I think it's silly to assume inherent characteristics.
 
It weren't just Jews who were used as slave-labour, but also a variety of undesirables, and ethnicities from conquered territories.
And slavery was racism long before then. How do you think the keeping of fellow humans, specifically black Africans as property was justified?

....perhaps you missed the 450 or so words I wrote in the same post prior to the word "Nazi." And it was the Jews part of the slave labor that was grounded in racism....not the hanicapped fella or the gypsy.

But then, I don't have any theories about races to share, I think it's silly to assume inherent characteristics.

I don't follow your meaning. I shared no "theories." These are matters of university study and they do make perfect sense.
 
Last edited:
....perhaps you missed the 450 or so words I wrote in the same post prior to the word "Nazi." And it was the Jews part of the slave labor that was grounded in racism....not the hanicapped fella or the gypsy.
I read the preceding part, and if I had something to say about it I would have quoted it.
I don't know what you meant to show with your listing, but making alliances with groups which are regarded as inferior, or recruiting slaves from different sources, does not imply an absence of racism.
You have not mentioned characteristics of racism and shown that they were not present.
But you are right that it is not easy to assess from our present point of view, the effort to systematically categorise races came later, with colonisation.

No, the Jews were not the only 'inferior' race, slavs, for example, were also regarded as labour material for the Aryans, but they featured above the Jews.


I don't follow your meaning. I shared no "theories." These are matters of university study and they do make perfect sense.
Ah, I misunderstood, I thought you meant philosophising in public, which can easily be taken the wrong way - it's something I rarely do. I don't know which studies are proposed, but I have read before that this subject is politicised.
 
I read the preceding part, and if I had something to say about it I would have quoted it.

Yet you replied as if you hadn't. You stated...


"And slavery was racism long before then. How do you think the keeping of fellow humans, specifically black Africans as property was justified?"

Those 450 words prior to "Nazi" state exactly the answer to your question.


I don't know what you meant to show with your listing, but making alliances with groups which are regarded as inferior, or recruiting slaves from different sources, does not imply an absence of racism.

In the manner in which we define racism today it most certainly does. Today's "racism" became a phenomena circa the Atlantic Slave Trade. before this, slaves were merely the poor or the captured of any color. "My" very brief list explains this.


No, the Jews were not the only 'inferior' race, slavs, for example, were also regarded as labour material for the Aryans, but they featured above the Jews.

I stated nothing about Jews being the only considered "inferior" race to the German. What I stated was that it was the Jewish part of the slave labor that personified the racism. This was true for centuries inside Europe and the Nazi Party was its culmination.

Ah, I misunderstood, I thought you meant philosophising in public, which can easily be taken the wrong way - it's something I rarely do. I don't know which studies are proposed, but I have read before that this subject is politicised.

No idea where you are coming from. It's actually pretty simple. Slaves are historical. Looking down upon others for their tribe, affiliation, or class status is historical. But "racism" is a fairly new concept and it has its roots in the Atlantic Slave Trade, which by that time, the slave identity was considered a dark skinned position. Long gone was the concept that captured whites were to be slaves (except in that extremely rare occasion).
 
Last edited:
Yet you replied as if you hadn't. You stated...


"And slavery was racism long before then. How do you think the keeping of fellow humans, specifically black Africans as property was justified?"

Those 450 words prior to "Nazi" state exactly the answer to your question.
The Atlantic Slave Trade happened centuries before the 3rd Reich, as you said yourself. I must have misunderstood something, my mistake.

In the manner in which we define racism today it most certainly does. Today's "racism" became a phenomena circa the Atlantic Slave Trade. before this, slaves were merely the poor or the captured of any color. "My" very brief list explains this.
No, your list does not "explain" this, it does not even mention an example of "the poor" being enslaved.
And the definition of race is not limited to colour, as I already pointed out.

I stated nothing about Jews being the only considered "inferior" race to the German. What I stated was that it was the Jewish part of the slave labor that personified the racism. This was true for centuries inside Europe and the Nazi Party was its culmination.
You implied so, by saying gays and the handicapped are not races when I pointed out Jews weren't the only 'race' considered inferior by the Nazis.



No idea where you are coming from. It's actually pretty simple. Slaves are historical. Looking down upon others for their tribe, affiliation, or class status is historical. But "racism" is a fairly new concept and it has its roots in the Atlantic Slave Trade, which by that time, the slave identity was considered a dark skinned position. Long gone was the concept that captured whites were to be slaves (except in that extremely rare occasion).
Racism based on a systematic classification is fairly new.
Distinctions in which groups of people are suitable as slaves arguably began with Islam, which prohibited enslaving fellow believers - we agree there.
 
Last edited:
Racism based on a systematic classification is fairly new.
Distinctions in which groups of people are suitable as slaves arguably began with Islam, which prohibited enslaving fellow believers - we agree there.



I don't know about that, I'm pretty sure civilizations prior to Islam had codes relating to who you could and couldn't enslave, if that's even similar to what you are mentioning. :lol: I could be off in la-la land here...
 
I don't know about that, I'm pretty sure civilizations prior to Islam had codes relating to who you could and couldn't enslave, if that's even similar to what you are mentioning. :lol: I could be off in la-la land here...

It was the Middle East that started this. Because of the Islamic faith and the Qu'ran, all Christians and Jews (People of the Book) were to be protected from slavery. This left the native non-converted African. Slave exportation of Black Africans soared during this period and thus the identity of the slave around the world was dark skinned people from Africa.
 
It was the Middle East that started this. Because of the Islamic faith and the Qu'ran, all Christians and Jews (People of the Book) were to be protected from slavery. This left the native non-converted African. Slave exportation of Black Africans soared during this period and thus the identity of the slave around the world was dark skinned people from Africa.

But determining classes and people's that were not to be enslaved is not a practice that began with Islam.
 
The Atlantic Slave Trade happened centuries before the 3rd Reich, as you said yourself. I must have misunderstood something, my mistake.

No, your list does not "explain" this, it does not even mention an example of "the poor" being enslaved.
And the definition of race is not limited to colour, as I already pointed out.

You implied so, by saying gays and the handicapped are not races when I pointed out Jews weren't the only 'race' considered inferior by the Nazis.



Racism based on a systematic classification is fairly new.
Distinctions in which groups of people are suitable as slaves arguably began with Islam, which prohibited enslaving fellow believers - we agree there.

Racism used to recognize two groups: Our tribe, and everyone else. Come to think of it, things haven't changed all that much.

As for who may or may not be kept as slaves, I believe that was outlined in the Old Testament, wasn't it?
 
It was the Middle East that started this. Because of the Islamic faith and the Qu'ran, all Christians and Jews (People of the Book) were to be protected from slavery. This left the native non-converted African. Slave exportation of Black Africans soared during this period and thus the identity of the slave around the world was dark skinned people from Africa.
In the early years, there were also the Eastern European "pagan" tribes.
And I don't know what happened in the Far East, did they also have black African slaves? Racism is very much present in Asia, btw, and much of it is directed towards other Asians.

Racism used to recognize two groups: Our tribe, and everyone else. Come to think of it, things haven't changed all that much.
Thanks, that's it in a nutshell.
"Race" as a concept as we know it may not have existed, but the basic principle is the same.

As for who may or may not be kept as slaves, I believe that was outlined in the Old Testament, wasn't it?
I don't know, I understand there are instructions on how to keep slaves, but I have only read excerpts of the OT.
 
Racism is an ignorant belief. There is no evidence (and there never has been) that racial genetics such as pigment level play any role in determining a person's human potential. Culture on the other hand does.

When people claim that blacks in America have less potential because of their education and income levels, they're forgetting that correlation does not imply causation.

People who grow up in a ghetto culture tend to be less productive members of society, but there is no evidence that skin color has anything to do with it. If a white person grew up in a ghetto, they would be no different than blacks are. And black people who grow up in a better environment are just as productive as whites.

Racism is so last century.

BTW, if anything, dark skin is an advantage over lighter skin since it's less substitutable to sunburns and skin cancer. ;)
 
Who told them to live in an urban environment?
 
Who told them to live in an urban environment?

Their moms, of course. "You live in a urban environment, you hear me? Don't you go moving to no suburbs."

Or, maybe they know the environment they were born into, much as their parents know the same environment.
 
Race is a sociological construct that divides society, especially multiracial societies like the United States and Canada. I think any observation concerning race detracts from national unity, and that discrimination on a racial basis is irrational.

Racism is the mental defective's version of nationalism.

Race is not a sociological construct, it is a social construct. Though the rest of your post is not disagreable
 
Back
Top Bottom