Why racism won't go away

[We Never Know]

Morgan Freeman says it perfectly.

 

[George-ananda]

I think Morgan is on the right track. People overly obsessed by race issues in twenty-first century America are only increasing racial tension.

 

[stvdv]

Morgan Freeman says it perfectly.

My Master started "Ladies day" and it was good and needed, esp in India, when there is so much abuse, belittling, demeaning done by men. People don't change their 'bad' habits easily, and when they do, then that day is no longer needed.

As long as there are laws needed to curb racism, you may have a day or month as well. When the law for it is no more needed, then the day won't be needed.

The law is stil very much needed

 

[WalterTrull]

Mmmm... doesn't sound right. I'll think about it.
Kinda like: If I close my eyes I won't see that wall in front of me and won't crash into it. - Not.

 

[Augustus]

Mmmm... doesn't sound right. I'll think about it.
Kinda like: If I close my eyes I won't see that wall in front of me and won't crash into it. - Not.

Most people in modern society agree that racism and racial discrimination are harmful and desire their elimination, although there is significant disagreement on how this is best achieved.

One tenet common in modern progressive politics relates to privileging certain identity markers above all others, key among these is the idea of race. Such a view has become so entrenched that even professing a desire to have a 'raceless' society is seen as offensive and racist.

One argument against identity politics is that by fetishising exclusive identity markers (race, gender, sexuality) above all others, you create divisions which act counter to the intent of a more inclusive society. Instead one should look for inclusive markers of identity that do not depend on an accident of birth.

The following article provides some support for this idea. The more race is used as a marker of identity (and thus form a basis for in/out groups) the more racism increases.



Throughout our species' history, intergroup conflict depended on the categorization of the social world into us versus them. When this divide occurs along racial lines, this categorization and its malignant consequences appear capable of persisting stably. Indeed, ingroup favoritism paired with outgroup indifference or hostility appears to exist in all human cultures (1, 2). The simple act of categorizing individuals into two social groups predisposes humans to discriminate in favor of their ingroup and against the outgroup in both allocation of resources and evaluation of conduct (2–7). Following on historical experience, field and laboratory studies have confirmed that this behavior is remarkably easy to elicit: people discriminate against outgroups even when they are assigned to groups temporarily and anonymously by an experimenter who uses dimensions that are trivial, previously without social significance, and random with respect to any real characteristics of the individuals assigned (2–8).


...

Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization
Robert Kurzban, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides
PNAS December 18, 2001. 98 (26) 15387-15392;

Previous studies have established that people encode the race of each individual they encounter, and do so via computational processes that appear to be both automatic and mandatory. If true, this conclusion would be important, because categorizing others by their race is a precondition for treating them differently according to race. Here we report experiments, using unobtrusive measures, showing that categorizing individuals by race is not inevitable, and supporting an alternative hypothesis: that encoding by race is instead a reversible byproduct of cognitive machinery that evolved to detect coalitional alliances. The results show that subjects encode coalitional affiliations as a normal part of person representation. More importantly, when cues of coalitional affiliation no longer track or correspond to race, subjects markedly reduce the extent to which they categorize others by race, and indeed may cease doing so entirely. Despite a lifetime's experience of race as a predictor of social alliance, less than 4 min of exposure to an alternate social world was enough to deflate the tendency to categorize by race. These results suggest that racism may be a volatile and eradicable construct that persists only so long as it is actively maintained through being linked to parallel systems of social alliance.

What is most striking about these results is just how easy it was to diminish the importance of race by manipulating coalition—especially given the repeated failure over decades to find other means to influence racial encoding. The sensitivity of race to coalitional manipulation lends credence to the hypothesis that, to the human mind, race is simply one historically contingent subtype of coalition. Our subjects had experienced a lifetime in which ethnicity (including race) was an ecologically valid pre- dictor of people’s social alliances and coalitional affiliations. Yet less than 4 min of exposure to an alternative social world in which race was irrelevant to the prevailing system of alliance caused a dramatic decrease in the extent to which they categorized others by race. This implies that coalition, and hence race, is a volatile, dynamically updated cognitive variable, easily overwritten by new circumstances. If the same processes govern categorization outside the laboratory, then the prospects for reducing or even eliminating the widespread tendency to categorize persons by race may be very good indeed.



Regardless of what one deems normatively desirable, coalitional instincts are very powerful, and human 'rationality' cannot consistently overcome our hardwired tendencies towards irrationality.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Morgan Freeman says it perfectly.

He has some great advice. We could stop recognizing color in our language and documents. It might help, although there is another aspect.

We could teach simple etiquette in public school, enforce simple etiquette. Make it plain and simple how to interact with people we don't know, provide a common format for everyone in most awkward situations to break ice. We could also teach dance.

Third is to address poverty, and this is the easiest issue to address. It just requires reasonable standards of what poverty is and not begrudging help to those who request it.

Another good thing would be for churches and other religious groups to integrate or perhaps for some substitute institution to be formed that provided community integration with marriage ceremonies etc.

 

[WalterTrull]

Regardless of what one deems normatively desirable, coalitional instincts are very powerful, and human 'rationality' cannot consistently overcome our hardwired tendencies towards irrationality.

Ain't it the truth.
Until 10th grade I was raised in rural Kentucky. Talk about some irrational prejudices! Still constantly talking myself out of cringes. Going into my 78th year. Geesh.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Most people in modern society agree that racism and racial discrimination are harmful and desire their elimination, although there is significant disagreement on how this is best achieved.

One tenet common in modern progressive politics relates to privileging certain identity markers above all others, key among these is the idea of race. Such a view has become so entrenched that even professing a desire to have a 'raceless' society is seen as offensive and racist.

One argument against identity politics is that by fetishising exclusive identity markers (race, gender, sexuality) above all others, you create divisions which act counter to the intent of a more inclusive society. Instead one should look for inclusive markers of identity that do not depend on an accident of birth.

The following article provides some support for this idea. The more race is used as a marker of identity (and thus form a basis for in/out groups) the more racism increases.



Throughout our species' history, intergroup conflict depended on the categorization of the social world into us versus them. When this divide occurs along racial lines, this categorization and its malignant consequences appear capable of persisting stably. Indeed, ingroup favoritism paired with outgroup indifference or hostility appears to exist in all human cultures (1, 2). The simple act of categorizing individuals into two social groups predisposes humans to discriminate in favor of their ingroup and against the outgroup in both allocation of resources and evaluation of conduct (2–7). Following on historical experience, field and laboratory studies have confirmed that this behavior is remarkably easy to elicit: people discriminate against outgroups even when they are assigned to groups temporarily and anonymously by an experimenter who uses dimensions that are trivial, previously without social significance, and random with respect to any real characteristics of the individuals assigned (2–8).


...

Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization
Robert Kurzban, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides
PNAS December 18, 2001. 98 (26) 15387-15392;

Previous studies have established that people encode the race of each individual they encounter, and do so via computational processes that appear to be both automatic and mandatory. If true, this conclusion would be important, because categorizing others by their race is a precondition for treating them differently according to race. Here we report experiments, using unobtrusive measures, showing that categorizing individuals by race is not inevitable, and supporting an alternative hypothesis: that encoding by race is instead a reversible byproduct of cognitive machinery that evolved to detect coalitional alliances. The results show that subjects encode coalitional affiliations as a normal part of person representation. More importantly, when cues of coalitional affiliation no longer track or correspond to race, subjects markedly reduce the extent to which they categorize others by race, and indeed may cease doing so entirely. Despite a lifetime's experience of race as a predictor of social alliance, less than 4 min of exposure to an alternate social world was enough to deflate the tendency to categorize by race. These results suggest that racism may be a volatile and eradicable construct that persists only so long as it is actively maintained through being linked to parallel systems of social alliance.

What is most striking about these results is just how easy it was to diminish the importance of race by manipulating coalition—especially given the repeated failure over decades to find other means to influence racial encoding. The sensitivity of race to coalitional manipulation lends credence to the hypothesis that, to the human mind, race is simply one historically contingent subtype of coalition. Our subjects had experienced a lifetime in which ethnicity (including race) was an ecologically valid pre- dictor of people’s social alliances and coalitional affiliations. Yet less than 4 min of exposure to an alternative social world in which race was irrelevant to the prevailing system of alliance caused a dramatic decrease in the extent to which they categorized others by race. This implies that coalition, and hence race, is a volatile, dynamically updated cognitive variable, easily overwritten by new circumstances. If the same processes govern categorization outside the laboratory, then the prospects for reducing or even eliminating the widespread tendency to categorize persons by race may be very good indeed.



Regardless of what one deems normatively desirable, coalitional instincts are very powerful, and human 'rationality' cannot consistently overcome our hardwired tendencies towards irrationality.

The question is why are they pushing such harmful notions? It should be obvious to anyone with half a brain cell that the results of implementing that ideology are simply more division and hatred.

 

[We Never Know]

Mmmm... doesn't sound right. I'll think about it.
Kinda like: If I close my eyes I won't see that wall in front of me and won't crash into it. - Not.

A wall doesn't talk about it, isn't in the news daily, doesn't see you as different from others, etc.
Black history month puts focus on blacks and that's all its does. If it was simply known as American history it wouldn't.

 

[Thief]

as soon as the head wagging
finger pointing
knee jerking
crutching
and monument destruction
STOP

we MIGHT have a shot at stopping the argument

 

[Suave]

I think Morgan is on the right track. People overly obsessed by race issues in twenty-first century America are only increasing racial tension.

I would like there to be more inter-racial breeding in order to have more genetic diversity. I hope my grandchildren are multi racial.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I would like there to be more inter-racial breeding in order to have more genetic diversity. I hope my grandchildren are multi racial.

As a biracial person, I always found it very offensive and disturbing when people talk about "breeding" more of us, like we're a science project. Sorry, but we're not superior in any way and more of us won't make the world a better place. Being mixed has a lot of negative aspects, as well.

Better to hope that your possible grandchildren are loved and healthy, rather than plan their racial makeup!

 

[George-ananda]

I would like there to be more inter-racial breeding in order to have more genetic diversity. I hope my grandchildren are multi racial.

I would neither encourage nor discourage it. To each their own feelings on the issue is my opinion. Healthy and sane ethnic pride is not a bad thing. I'm glad my grandchild is not multi-racial I will say.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'm glad my grandchild is not multi-racial I will say.

That's not helpful, either. What if they were? You'd be disappointed in them and not love them? Don't be like my racist grandparents, please (both sets of them).

 

[George-ananda]

That's not helpful, either. What if they were? You'd be disappointed in them and not love them?

As I said; to each their own feelings on the issue. I have a healthy and sane ethnic pride that others can have in their race too.

My love and concern for my children and grandchildren would override any personal preferences in the end.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

As I said; to each their own feelings on the issue. I have a healthy and sane ethnic pride that others can have in their race too.

My love and concern for my children and grandchildren would override any personal preferences in the end.

Somehow I don't believe you, due to your own words. You are relieved your grandkid isn't mixed. You obviously would not feel the same way if they were.

 

[George-ananda]

Somehow I don't believe you, due to your own words. You are relieved your grandkid isn't mixed. You obviously would not feel the same way if they were.

OK, don't believe me then. I think I would overcome my disappointment as spirituality is my first goal in life.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

OK, don't believe me then. I think I would overcome my disappointment as spirituality is my first goal in life.

Sounds like something you need to work on, anyway. It's not fair to place that on a child, as if they have any choice in the matter.

 

[Vinayaka]

Racism is so subtle. It takes really deep introspection to find it in yourself. Plenty of folks go about saying, 'I'm not racist' but then act according to racial lines without noticing. True, nobody is born racist. But where does it come from? Lots of folks figure it comes from parents, society, friends, and fail to understand just how the subconscious mind works. The ability to generalise is a useful mental tool. It's how we know a dog from a cat, a poplar from a fir, etc. So if a kid had 3 positive experiences with a particular race, (or 3 doctors, or 3 aunts) the mind naturally wants to make a generalisation, like all doctors have grey hair, or some such thing. It is only when the mind reaches formal thought, at puberty, that a person can analyse the correctness of any generalisation. And often, by then it's too late. The more rigid the generalisation, the more difficult to rid ourselves of it.

I noticed it last night ... a simple thing ... someone was giving an example of criminal behaviour, a relatively innocent thing to do ... except ... the person in the example just happened to be black. I'm convinced the speaker didn't even know he/she was doing that.

 

[George-ananda]

Sounds like something you need to work on, anyway. It's not fair to place that on a child, as if they have any choice in the matter.

Of course I would be spiritually wise enough to not place it on the child. Any initial disappointment would be towards my child and not my grandchild. Spirituality is my FIRST goal in life not my sane ethnic pride.