Racism, prejudice and bigotry

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here are my problems with these types of statements. ...

Those are valid (perhaps even insightful) considerations, but what if you have an identifiable category of people X who do in fact steal?

 

[HonestJoe]

When is it ok to say 'things' about a group of people?

I'd suggest that it's never really OK to generalise about any group - that's the fundamental basis of discrimination. There are exceptions to every rule so even when your description is statistically accurate, you're always going to be misrepresenting someone. I don't think there is ever a good reason for such sweeping generalisation. If you wish to highlight a particular problem (with the aim of trying to resolve it) you need to be more focused and detailed.

Can I say nazis are evil?

That rather depends on how you're defining "nazi". Some involved in the movement we're not bad people but just felt trapped in a bad situation.

Can I say China has a problem with human rights?

China isn't a group of people, it's a nation. You couldn't say "All Chinese abuse human rights".

Can I say teenagers are self centered?

No, that's simply not true.

Can I say Germans have no sense of humor?

No, that's demonstrably not true.

Look, you're clearly working around to some relevation here. Why not just get to the point?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Look, you're clearly working around to some relevation here. Why not just get to the point?

Brits are impatient.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'd suggest that it's never really OK to generalise about any group - that's the fundamental basis of discrimination. There are exceptions to every rule so even when your description is statistically accurate, you're always going to be misrepresenting someone.

Consider the statement, "Roma steal.".
Many people recognize the implicit assumption that general statement would not apply to all individuals.
Other people read it to mean"All Roma steal....every last one of'm." Tis a nuance of a not strictly logical & precise language.
(There are even those who would agree, but say it shouldn't be said & shouldn't be true because of societal ramifications.)
I'd say it's OK to make the statement when one's audience get my drift correctly. When there's the peril of misunderstanding,
then I'd be more careful in my wording.

Brits are impatient.

Brits have bad teeth.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7mjfs_the-simpsons-british-smiles_shortfilms

 

[gnomon]

Those are valid (perhaps even insightful) considerations, but what if you have an identifiable category of people X who do in fact steal?

I would call them thieves.

If I had an identifiable, self identified ethnic group in which a significant number stole I would probably like to see some members of that group volunteer for neurological studies. I don't know what percentage would comprise a significant part of the group. A simple majority?

But then again, right now in the States we do have a significant number of blacks who commit crimes at a disproportionate rate of other ethnic groups. However, that's only true for a very specific time frame in our history and rather than being an inherit characteristic we can find environmental conditions, or rather social conditions, that gave rise to this particular phenomenon.

So if I had a had a category X, in which X is an ethnic identity, and stealing was observed in a significant number of members of X I would be more likely to look at the social conditions around them than label it is an inherit characteristic.

As to whether or not this makes it valid to say that "X are a bunch of thieves". I still would find that prejudicial knowing that members of Y and Z also have thieves among their rank and such statements appear to be more of an excuse to malign group X rather than acknowledge a greater problem the created the situation of group X having a lot of thieves among it's members. However, I can't deny that if someone can statistically show that a majority of people of group X exhibit this characteristic than the statement "X are a bunch of thieves" would be generally true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If I had an identifiable, self identified ethnic group in which a significant number stole I would probably like to see some members of that group volunteer for neurological studies. I don't know what percentage would comprise a significant part of the group. A simple majority?

But that is not the point (or, perhaps, precisely the point). A characterization about a definable group is or is not accurate. If accurate, that characterization is or is not inheritable.

 

[gnomon]

But that is not the point (or, perhaps, precisely the point). A characterization about a definable group is or is not accurate. If accurate, that characterization is or is not inheritable.

I think I get what you are saying.

My mind in this thread is stuck on inheritable characteristics. If the statement were phrased "group X has a tendency to steal" it's merely a question of the accuracy of the statement and there is no implication of an inherit nature to steal.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the statement were phrased "group X has a tendency to steal" it's merely a question of the accuracy of the statement and there is no implication of an inherit nature to steal.

Really? Black Africans have a tendency to exhibit sickle-cell anaemia.

 

[kai]

Brits are impatient.

Im a Brit and i am impatient, and my teeth arnt that great either.

 

[gnomon]

Really? Black Africans have a tendency to exhibit sickle-cell anaemia.

I just made the distinction between referring to a tendency as opposed to an inherited trait.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I understand, but the distiction is ploblematic because a tendency may be an ineritable trait.

 

[gnomon]

I understand, but the distiction is ploblematic because a tendency may be an ineritable trait.

I'll have to think about that because at the moment I cannot describe one tendency that is an inheritable trait that can apply to a known ethnic identity or racial classification. I have reservations about the usefulness of racial classifications.

I do know of inherited characteristics and their known tendencies but none of those are related to ethnic identity.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps I'm using the term incorrectly. Do you take issue with the statement: Black Africans have a significantly higher tendency to exibit sicle-cell anemia and a resistence to malaria.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

As with bullying, if the person on the receiving end perceives statements or behaviour as offensive - then they are offensive.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

 

[lunakilo]

Look, you're clearly working around to some relevation here. Why not just get to the point?

I thought I did...

But why?
When is it ok to say 'things' about a group of people?

I am simply having trouble finding the line where something becomes discrimination.

We often discuss problems relating to groups of people.
For example problems relating to immigration, or muslims/islam or romas or ...
When I say 'relating to', I don't mean that immigrants, muslims or romas are necessarily the cause of the problem but that the issue being discussed involves immigrants, muslims, romas, ...

When discussing groups it is very easy to start generalizing and say things like 'romas steal'.

I don't want to be racist or prejudiced. That is harmful, even on the internet.
But I also don't want to sit and bite my tongue if I see a problem for fear that I might offend someone. You can't discuss anything that way.

So, again, I am just trying to figure out where the line is.

 

[gnomon]

Perhaps I'm using the term incorrectly. Do you take issue with the statement: Black Africans have a significantly higher tendency to exibit sicle-cell anemia and a resistence to malaria.

No, that makes perfect sense to me.

At this point I've lost track of the thread and my original piint. I'll have to get back to this thread later this weekend after all my work shifts. I had a point. Now it's gone and after dealing with corporate and very trying customers I cannot focus properly on my break for this.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, that makes perfect sense to me.

At this point I've lost track of the thread and my original piint. I'll have to get back to this thread later this weekend after all my work shifts. I had a point. Now it's gone and after dealing with corporate and very trying customers I cannot focus properly on my break for this.

Been there - done that.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, again, I am just trying to figure out where the line is.

Everyone chooses a different line, & it changes.
The only to know where it is would be to test its limits regularly.

Know who really irks me....those revolting Danes!

 

[Kathryn]

If I am in the market square in Nuremberg, and find myself suddenly surrounded by adorable dark eyed children in dirty clothes, I am going to hang onto my purse for dear life. And I'll almost certainly be able to look across the square and identify their ringleader sitting at an outdoor cafe sipping a beer while he makes the children he controls steal and beg for a living. And - I'd bet my shirt that they're Romani.

If my daughter comes home and tells me that she's dating a Hispanic guy who doesn't speak English and who just moved here, and he's pushing her to marry him in just a few weeks, I am going to ask her if she's sure he's living here legally - and I probably wouldn't ask her the same question if she came home with someone sporting a southern drawl and talking about eating his grandmother's chicken and dumplings in Memphis every summer of his childhood.

If I get a letter stating that I've won a lottery in England, you and I can place bets on whether or not this letter originates from a Nigerian national - and since I'd bet it did, I'd probably win.

If a white guy with a goatee and jailhouse tattoo, wearing a wife beater shirt and grimy jeans slung low, and reeking of weed, comes into my bank and wants to apply for a line of credit - I'm gonna bet he doesn't qualify. And I'd probably be right. Like I was yesterday - and last week. And last month.

Same with the black guy in the huge baseball hat on sideways, and pants that are slung so low that his underwear are sticking out the back, who can't articulate one word of understandable English. I'm gonna bet his credit sucks too.

In fact, in all my years of banking, to be honest, I've never once seen a credit application for ANYONE reeking of weed, or wearing pants that sag for that matter, be approved. And since we send our apps off to a neutral underwriting department who never sees the applicant, they never know what the person looks like - or smells like.

Does that mean that I don't find the children adorable, or that I don't care about them? Does that mean that I immediately dislike my daughter's new boyfriend, or treat him with disdain when he comes over for dinner? Does that mean that I assume that the Nigerian student whose bank account I'm opening is engaging in fraudulent activities? Does that mean that I don't input the loan application on both young men with the same professionalism and attention to detail and courtesy that I would with anyone else?

No. What it means though is that over time, and as we mature, we gather information from a variety of sources, including but not limited to our own experiences, and we make decisions, both large and small, on that gathered information.

Sometimes those decisions and opinions may wander into a nebulous realm that falls somewhere between discretion and prejudice. Sometimes our life experiences create prejudices that we may or may not truly be aware of. But most of us are able to differentiate between prejudice and caution. I know I am.

We're fools if we don't use gathered information to make decisions.

But hey, I'm a skeptical person. Hell, my husband and I both are. I checked out my white boy, native Texan, professional husband's credit report and criminal background report before I even agreed to go out with him after about the fourth date. I'm pretty sure he did the same with me. We'd both been burned before. So, we used our gathered information and past life experiences to make informed decisions this go 'round - and we made a much better decision, which was based on logic and objective reasoning as well as emotion.

 

[Barcode]

I believe its never good to generalize an entire ethnic group on the sole basis of negative personal experiences. I.remember very recently a niece of mine who belongs to a sorority and who, like most young college kids who belong to such groups, were partying and doing "God knows what." She eventually met an individual, a young African-American male who also at the party decided to sexually assault her. Of course after this whole ordeal she believes all African-American males are "dangerous" or "thugs." I do realize her beliefs are the result of a traumatic experience sure, but it also reminds me of the irrational Xenophobic attitudes many people exhibit against other cultures.

Unfortunately minorities in particular African-Americans and Latinos are most often negatively labeled as "dangerous" thanks in part to the media. These media influences along with actual criminal behavior by a few will perpetuate common stereotypes and prejudices.