Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is it possible to define Racism?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is it possible to define Racism?

    Let's try to define "racism" and associated terms "racist" etc. IMO it is necessary to define: human, the word "race", and finally "racist" or racism.

    Does the word "human" include Neanderthals as they are now known? https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/9/1...kin-loneliness

    Would Neanderthals be considered a different race than we are today (if they were alive today)? (I assume yes) (and I am assuming science is correct that some humans have Neanderthal DNA)


    https://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...racism%3B%2Cc0

    Edit: I think some will say C. why is this in "news" forum, read the description of what should be in "news" forum.


  • #2
    I sometimes work around a Hispanic man who is as white as I am. But he keeps saying 'Them white boys... blah blah' when he gets wound up. I once informed him he was a white boy also but he doesn't see it that way. He says he's Mexican. I told him Mexican is a nationality, not a race, and just like in the US there are Mexicans of all different races. He said I'm crazy, Mexicans are brown, not white. To him Mexican is a race. He has created his own definition of race so where do I go with that?

    Comment


    • #3
      Race has no meaning in Human biology
      We are all Homo sapiens
      Homo neanderthalis wouldn't be a different race but a different specie
      To have a race in the correct biological definition in human biology, we would have to make specific breeds with specific physical features (like we did for dogs : between a German shepherd and a Chihuhua, it's two different races/breeds but the same specie)

      The academic relationship shortcut between race/racism and ethnicity has a part of its roots in the precolonial - full colonial era prejudices when colonial powers (be it Europeans, Americans or Arabs) had to belittle colonized populations, including colonized populations's art, science, craft and knowledge. Deshumanizing a population make it easier to prey upon it and the easiest way to deshumanise a population is to make it look inferior by essence i.e in its roots ii.e as a "race".

      Of course "racism" existed before colonial era but was not formalised as a social science before that colonial era (mid 19th) (see Social darwinism). It existed probably as far as our status of hunter gatherer when strangers to the tribes were seen as a danger for valuable ressources (food, hunting grounds, women). For proof, you have "racism" between tribes living 10 km away of each other in Papua while they are from the same ethnicity; but not from the same "culture" (i.e tribe)

      Racism is just today an easy word, it would be more accurate if we talked about ethnicism or even culturalism

      Comment


      • #4
        Well, the most basic description of racism is the classification of humans according to color or physical features or DNA specificity or cultural differences and using these difference to claim that some races are supposedly superior to other for "some" reasons that are entirely subjective and cannot be proven on scientific basis (or when some scientists try to, they get either debunked, proven wrong, or found to have political agendas) All scientific attempts aimed at legitimazing one race's superiority over the others is eventually debunked and proven utterly biased.

        Studying races = healthy scientific curiosity ; Using it to prove X are better than Y and that the suffering/oppression of Y is "normal/acceptable/natural/unavoidable" = racism and dishonest attempts to justify the unjustifiable.

        Also, NOT a white specificity, as every human has the potential of being a racist. I remind that to anyone that would even "imagine" racism is a pure withe trait (an assertion that in itself is already racist). I've seen "Black studies" spewing as much bullshit as white or slavic ones (and 1 asian, once... some chinese (PRC) researchers tried to prove the asian had little in common with the rest of the human race because they evolved from a different pre-human species. They were proven wrong)

        Also, it's better to be seen as a douche than a racist. Calling a black or white man or woman "a fucking asshole" is not racism, but adding words like "a fucking asshole nigger or cracker" is.

        Now for my personnal opinion, if one claims his race is superior to others using any argument, they're not "superior", but proving they're exactly the opposite, because there's no sense, nor need, nor relevancy to look to be "a superior race". Doing so is just trying to get some political points in a political agenda. Damnit Mordoror you manly man, your reply is better than mine.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TG0211 View Post
          Well, the most basic description of racism is the classification of humans according to color or physical features or DNA specificity or cultural differences and using these difference to claim that some races are supposedly superior to other for "some" reasons that are entirely subjective and cannot be proven on scientific basis (or when some scientists try to, they get either debunked, proven wrong, or found to have political agendas) All scientific attempts aimed at legitimazing one race's superiority over the others is eventually debunked and proven utterly biased.

          Studying races = healthy scientific curiosity ; Using it to prove X are better than Y and that the suffering/oppression of Y is "normal/acceptable/natural/unavoidable" = racism and dishonest attempts to justify the unjustifiable.

          Also, NOT a white specificity, as every human has the potential of being a racist. I remind that to anyone that would even "imagine" racism is a pure withe trait (an assertion that in itself is already racist). I've seen "Black studies" spewing as much bullshit as white or slavic ones (and 1 asian, once... some chinese (PRC) researchers tried to prove the asian had little in common with the rest of the human race because they evolved from a different pre-human species. They were proven wrong)

          Also, it's better to be seen as a douche than a racist. Calling a black or white man or woman "a fucking asshole" is not racism, but adding words like "a fucking asshole nigger or cracker" is.

          Now for my personnal opinion, if one claims his race is superior to others using any argument, they're not "superior", but proving they're exactly the opposite, because there's no sense, nor need, nor relevancy to look to be "a superior race". Doing so is just trying to get some political points in a political agenda. Damnit Mordoror you manly man, you're reply is better than mine.
          interesting, so in your opinion merely the physical differences such as eye color, hair color, texture etc is not enough to define racism, it MUST include a belief of superiority/inferiority to qualify. But to define "race" itself is not definable?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mordoror View Post
            Race has no meaning in Human biology
            We are all Homo sapiens
            Homo neanderthalis wouldn't be a different race but a different specie
            To have a race in the correct biological definition in human biology, we would have to make specific breeds with specific physical features (like we did for dogs : between a German shepherd and a Chihuhua, it's two different races/breeds but the same specie)

            The academic relationship shortcut between race/racism and ethnicity has a part of its roots in the precolonial - full colonial era prejudices when colonial powers (be it Europeans, Americans or Arabs) had to belittle colonized populations, including colonized populations's art, science, craft and knowledge. Deshumanizing a population make it easier to prey upon it and the easiest way to deshumanise a population is to make it look inferior by essence i.e in its roots ii.e as a "race".

            Of course "racism" existed before colonial era but was not formalised as a social science before that colonial era (mid 19th) (see Social darwinism). It existed probably as far as our status of hunter gatherer when strangers to the tribes were seen as a danger for valuable ressources (food, hunting grounds, women). For proof, you have "racism" between tribes living 10 km away of each other in Papua while they are from the same ethnicity; but not from the same "culture" (i.e tribe)

            Racism is just today an easy word, it would be more accurate if we talked about ethnicism or even culturalism
            We all know that buddy, we are trying to keep this simple, stick to the question if possible, or ignore this thread.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by commanding View Post

              interesting, so in your opinion merely the physical differences such as eye color, hair color, texture etc is not enough to define racism, it MUST include a belief of superiority/inferiority to qualify. But to define "race" itself is not definable?
              commanding
              You see racism as defined in a society with 5 "races" black-white-native indians-latinos-asians (sorry if i forgot some) defined by obvious skin color differences
              In some other parts of the world differences are not so easy to be defined
              For example you have racism in some African coutries between tribes/clans that share ethnicity and same general physical features but not the same cultural habits (herd keepers versus farmers for example)
              Look the Tutsi - Hutu genocides in Burundi -Rwanda
              In some cases Tutsi and Hutu had distinctive physical features but not always; To the point that genocide maniacs had to set up extermination lists and snatch people according to the ethnicity labelled on their ID

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by RobertKLR View Post
                I sometimes work around a Hispanic man who is as white as I am. But he keeps saying 'Them white boys... blah blah' when he gets wound up. I once informed him he was a white boy also but he doesn't see it that way. He says he's Mexican. I told him Mexican is a nationality, not a race, and just like in the US there are Mexicans of all different races. He said I'm crazy, Mexicans are brown, not white. To him Mexican is a race. He has created his own definition of race so where do I go with that?

                you could argue that race is a state of mind . If I were to use northern Ireland as an example , the division between protestant / Catholic .......... there both the same "race" but see each other as completely different . Let's say for arguments sake protestants / Catholic s happened to be different ethnicities it would be seen as a race war when in reality its merely different ideaologies.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by commanding View Post

                  We all know that buddy, we are trying to keep this simple, stick to the question if possible, or ignore this thread.
                  I already answered to your question
                  Racism is to despise another ethnicity or another culture (even within the same ethnicity)
                  Race means nothing as a word

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think it's simply a part of our tribal heritage, where outsiders are treated with suspicion and prejudice.

                    Nothing wrong with suspicion, prejudice and stereotypes, it's just important to be conscious of it and override the urge, when our inner cave man is triggered in modern day society.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by commanding View Post

                      interesting, so in your opinion merely the physical differences such as eye color, hair color, texture etc is not enough to define racism, it MUST include a belief of superiority/inferiority to qualify. But to define "race" itself is not definable?

                      Yes. IMHO, it's the only purpose of a practice such as Racism.

                      The Nazis even turned that shit up to eleven with that they even thought the "Aryan race" had subgroups to explain dark haired brown eyed ethnic Germans to explain that they still count as Aryans, but less than the blond blue eyed types...

                      Ah, to be an irrespective douche towards Racists, I've always wondered why the so-called "Superior representants of the Superior Race" are often loud, vocal, uneducated, self-centered, enclaved, almost inbred idiots... I mean... When you see most of skinheads, their barely educated, poor, white-trash, disfranchised numbheads claiming to be the illustration of the Superior Humans meant to lead the World toward success and prosperity.

                      Worst is... if their leaders can often indeed be known to be intelligent and skilled in politics, it's because they use that mass of cretins to be the muscles of their political agendas they crafted for their own advantage (works with Communism, where the 'workers' were almost slave-laboured and bathed into an 'equal' society, while the top of the Pyramid cared more about keeping power and being their own little aristocracy instead of really trying to pull the People upwards toward real prosperity...)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Until I was 10 years old I cannot remember kids in school calling each other names because of race. In highschool though shit got real. There were some tensions between the blacks, arabs and asians. If anything, all of them would have rather be united against us crackers heh.

                        Defining racism? Everyone has his own definition. I met black people who couldn't stand anyone else, even other blacks. Same with arabs, whiteys.

                        Of course when you travel to the third world as a white man, you've got a dollar sign on your forehead and they assume you can hand over $10 bill to every kid.

                        Incidentally, many many African and middle eastern refugees assume that you just need to come to Europe and America and you'll live confortably. Sure. Until they realize they have to leave their wives and children at traffic lights all day long for a couple €€€.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by commanding View Post

                          interesting, so in your opinion merely the physical differences such as eye color, hair color, texture etc is not enough to define racism, it MUST include a belief of superiority/inferiority to qualify. But to define "race" itself is not definable?
                          For many years/decades red-heads/gingers were prejudiced again. They were (jokingly?) referred as people with no soul, linked to the devil, they were given "unnatural" powers, etc...
                          Same thing went for people with freckles. Freckles were usually considered as an abnormality and, eventually, a sign of bad omen.
                          Same thing with albinos. Albinos who are having it pretty tough in some African countries, where they are being hunted down and killed for albinism has strong spiritual/magic echoes. They are either considered as powerful spirit whose flesh and bodily fluids can grant special powers or cure diseases, or as evil spirits to be killed.

                          But this is not racism, this is superstition.
                          I am not familiar with superstitions linked to eye colors or hair textures. Though I would not surprised to hear about particular beliefs linked to that being still alive in some regions of the world where spiritual beliefs and superstitions are still alive and well. For instance in Africa.

                          And though these superstitions could be based on fear and such, they eventually produced a sense of superiority from those applying them: "I am normal, therefore I am superior to you who are ginger/have freckles/etc... because you are not normal".
                          Prejudices are created, but they do not qualify as racism.

                          But racism does not limit itself to basing one's prejudices on the other's skin color. Though there is a lot of skin color on different skin color there is also a lot of skin color on same skin color racism or even within different regions of a same country. Some regions are still "at war" with each others (Wallons and Flemish for instance). Some countries are still "at war" with each others, therefore you will see Ukrainians having a really hard time getting along with Russians, though they are both from the same "race" (though I doubt there are still any pure-Slavic people still alive today, and were there any to begin with anyway?). Or Pakistani with Indians.


                          The more you look into it and the more it seems that "racism" is a very broad blanket term that encompass many for of intolerant "isms": ethnicism, culturism, etc... or even religion.
                          Or, if you want to be in touch with the "modern trends", you can add:
                          -ableism which is a form of discrimination from able bodied people on disabled people. Disabled not being restricted to physical disability/malformations/etc... but also each and every mental disabilities and psychological illness.
                          -the plethora of "phobias": homophobia, transphobia, fatphobia, veganphobia, islamophobia, etc...
                          In short a lot of things not related to "race", "racial origins", etc... but still considered as being racist for they all share that common principle which is a form intolerance. Justified or not, logical or not.
                          Last edited by Ivan le Fou; 12-10-2017, 06:32 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You could look at the recent happenings within the nfl and ask the question "why are all the nfl owners white ?" And it could easily lead you to a racist conclusion . You could also ask "how many poor white Americans worked their way to the top to own an nfl team ?" . I don't know the answer to that but I'm going to take a wild stab at zero . It's like there isn't a word to describe inter racial "racism" even though its just as bigger problem .

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Fargin View Post
                              I think it's simply a part of our tribal heritage, where outsiders are treated with suspicion and prejudice.

                              Nothing wrong with suspicion, prejudice and stereotypes, it's just important to be conscious of it and override the urge, when our inner cave man is triggered in modern day society.
                              Well, you and I rarely agree on anything Fargin but I think your definition of "race" what my original question was, is closer to how I see the word....in the COMMON USAGE as a difference in physical characteristics among groups of people (though not scientific as mordoror lectures on) is how I see most humans look at the word RACE. It has nothing to do with science, nor DNA nor nationality.....it is how people "look" to our human eyes. and possibly the "purpose" of this (as well as language, smell, etc) was to alert people to other humans who were not of their immediate "tribe"?

                              Taller people, shorter, eye folds, skin color, hair color, all might signal a different tribe who might be dangerous or beneficial.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X