View Full Version : Facing up to my own racism
Banquo's Ghost
10-08-2007, 10:04
I've always tried to acknowledge my innate racism and work on overcoming it. I was born into an incredibly privileged, entirely white family of impeccable pedigree so apart from an odd encounter with an over-zealous policeman during the Troubles, I have never faced any kind of exclusion. It also means that people of colour and/or separate religion were quite foreign to me until early adulthood.
The other day, I was travelling on one of Mr Branson's fine locomotive engines in the UK, and as I sat down, I noticed a young man of Middle eastern extraction sitting quietly reading his Koran. My unbidden immediate thought was one of concern - what was his purpose, was he an extremist, perhaps the train was in danger? My second thought was scarcely less unfair, though born of some degree of shame - why would he provoke me (supposedly a fair, liberal minded sort of fellow) into such outrageous suspicion by openly reading his holy book? Did he not know that I (we?) might be made anxious?
I am ashamed of such foolishness, but acknowledge why such thoughts occur. In the same way, I can see that when I encounter a group of coloured youths, even in daytime, I react with much more concern and anxiety than an equivalent group of white youths.
In the event, I was able to strike up a conversation with the fellow on the train and I took the opportunity to discuss my thoughts. He was unsurprised, and said that he was not going to be intimidated from his studies by possible suspicions - good for him - and further argued that my reactions were not entirely my own fault, but had been engendered by the actions of some of his co-religionists. I'm not so sure.
We are conditioned by our upbringing and by our experiences - but to what extent do we have to take responsibilities for our own prejudices? And how best to defeat them? How might we address this without losing the cultural values that define us as well - diversity being a good thing in my book. Is interaction and dialogue the sole solution, or does one have to dig deeper into one's soul?
Is interaction and dialogue the sole solution, or does one have to dig deeper into one's soul?
I think interaction is a big part of it. The more fanciful forms of racism (e.g. "the guy with a turban may be a suicide bomber..." "the person of that colour may be a mugger" etc) tend to be most prevalent in places without much experience of the "other". Where different ethnic groups rub shoulders, any racism tends to be more mundane and akin to the tensions experienced in any close relationship, such as a marriage (e.g. "why are they so loud/messy/talking our jobs, houses/ not doing the washing up etc"). Working in a university where you mix with folk from around the world, most racist generalisations (and sexist and every other kind of non-PC bigotry) just run contrary to my everyday experience.
However, I suspect we do have racist ideas lurking in our subconscious, ready to jump out in a stressful situation - sort of like baser instincts (rather like flight or fight responses, primal desires or fears etc). Digging deeper - or at least exposing them to the cold light of reason - is helpful here. I mean the chances of anyone sitting next to a suicide bomber in a train are so low, you'd be better off worrying about lightning. (Yes, I know James Woods did sit next to the 9/11 bombers on a plane and even reported them to the FBI, but people do get hit by lightning too.)
You are a human being don't be so hard on yourselve. Black is not a different kind of white, when something is 'different' you notice nothing wrong with that. Didn't made you so anxious to withold you from having a chat, what's the problem.
Rodion Romanovich
10-08-2007, 10:37
I just reason as follows: race is not causally tied to any negative trait, therefore racism is irrational.
We're all innately racist, and some of the most racist people I have ever met have been of black, hispanic or Asian origin - this is not an 'ism restricted only to whites, far from it.
I would also cross the road or take a different route if I was walking towards a group black youths. On such an occasion I wouldn't like to take the chance in being all liberal and politically correct.
Unfortunately the social conditioning we're subjected to via the media on a daily basis works itself into our subconsciousness. A person may think that they're above such things but it does get under your skin.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-08-2007, 11:04
I think we are all inately more warry of people the more different they are from us. There's nothing really wrong with that, so long as we realise that it's an instinctive reaction rather than a reasoned one.
The Asian Muslim didn't make you uncomfortable just because he's Asian or Muslim but because he's different. Had he been a white Muslim or an Asian Christian you likely would have been more comfortable.
Having said that, the current geo-politcal situation and religious tensions in the world are going to start tripping alarms in the back of your head.
I've always tried to acknowledge my innate racism and work on overcoming it. I was born into an incredibly privileged, entirely white family of impeccable pedigree so apart from an odd encounter with an over-zealous policeman during the Troubles, I have never faced any kind of exclusion. It also means that people of colour and/or separate religion were quite foreign to me until early adulthood.
I'm not sure if the highlighted opinion is your's or not but if it is your own, until you learn that there is no Pedigree, and that every man is born equal regardless of wealth etc, there is no hope for you losing your prejudices.
We are conditioned by our upbringing and by our experiences - but to what extent do we have to take responsibilities for our own prejudices?
By aportioning blame for who we are on our forebears has no legitimacy at all. There is certainly alot of propaganda/education out there for one to form his own opinion.
And how best to defeat them? How might we address this without losing the cultural values that define us as well -
It depends on what you perceive as a "cultural value".
-diversity being a good thing in my book.
Not sure what you mean entirely. This can be either taken as very contradictory (you think diversity is a good thing like being slightly racist which in essence is opposing diversity), or very enlightened (you have seen the error of your way's and now see diversity in everthing as a good thing).
Is interaction and dialogue the sole solution, or does one have to dig deeper into one's soul?
Well until you can engage in dialogue like you did with the man on the train, and see that for the most part your fears are baseless, there isn't much point in searching one's self for something that is not yet apparent.
Sorry for disecting your post, but there are many things I needed to clear up in my own head regarding your post as well as seeing where you are coming from.
No insults or hurt intended here on my part friend.
Mega
I have such thoughts as well Banquo, at least since some guys wanted to blow up a train that goes through Cologne and I am now using that route about every two weeks. But then I also wonder whether other people might think I could have a bomb in my really big coffer. :beam:
No, I'm white, very white, but still.
I think it's just that they look different, I'm not really worried but they get a bit of extra attention at times, even without reading a holy book. Sometimes it's enough if they're female. ~:rolleyes:
In the end though, I treat them like everybody else, my thoughts or feelings about someone are subject to rational testing before they dictate my actions and I have to say I've had a lot worse thoughts which I acted on than "he might be a suicide bomber". :shrug:
I was born into an incredibly privileged, entirely white family of impeccable pedigree
This may be a bit off topic, but even without saying that, I got the sense you were by your use of the humankind collective "one", it's very typical of men who are middle-class to upper-class.
But, on topic, I think the fact you stopped and did a double take shows that you are in fact liberal. The fact you questioned your first, instinctive/"gut felling", shows strong rationality. Because, emotions are the default response to situations, they are universally human.
I can't really say how I'd respond though.
[The guy on the train] argued that my reactions were not entirely my own fault, but had been engendered by the actions of some of his co-religionists. I'm not so sure.
What's not to be sure about? You wouldn't flip your pancake if a Hindu were reading Vedas, or if a Buddhist were reading the Abhidharma Pitaka, or if a Jew were reading the Torah.
Let's put it another way: If albino men had been responsible for major atrocities worldwide, would you be a racist for reacting with caution when you ran into an albino male? Even knowing that only a small percentage of them were fanatical killers?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-08-2007, 16:56
Yes, because Albinos are genetic, Islam is a choice of religion.
Bad example Lemur.
A better one would be, "Would you feel nervous around Mormans if they had been responsible for atrocities worldwide, or vegetarians, or Republicans."
Samurai Waki
10-08-2007, 18:01
I completely understand where you're coming from BG. I didn't really get out into the real world until about five years ago, and I have rubbed into the shoulders of a lot of people I'm still unsure about. Actually one of the best learning experiences I had as an adult recently before we moved, is Ms. Waki and I took our kids to the park, and a Muslim couple were there playing with their little boy. The Boy took off, and they became very concerned because they couldn't find him (he was playing in the sandbox) So I went up to the boy and said "I think you're parents are looking for you" and I took him over to them. They were both very grateful (the mother was practically in tears) and I think I realized at that point that aside from culture or religion, that everybody basically has the same fears and instincts, and this couple probably wants the same out of life as the Wife and I do. Weird example I know. But just thought I'd bring it up.
macsen rufus
10-08-2007, 18:03
Is interaction and dialogue the sole solution, or does one have to dig deeper into one's soul?
A bit of both, IMHO. I think a certain amount of distrust of the 'other' is a natural by-product of us (ie humans) being social animals. Being social means identifying with a group, however subliminally. Where there is an in-group, there is an out-group. It may be people of different skin colour, different beliefs, or those who just live at the wrong end of the street. As with any instinctive behaviour it is not rational, and a bit of self-awareness and a willingness to examine one's irrational feelings (both of which you exhibit in spades, BTW :bow: ) are all to the good. It's where such feelings are mixed with resentment and unthinkingly turned into an ethos that the real problems begin. But dialogue and interaction are keys to expanding the boundaries of the "in-group", and goes hand in hand with the realisation that people are individuals and represent themselves more than any group they may happen to belong to. "I treat as I find" is a good rule of thumb.
Now my "working" day is over and I must cut and run, sorry...
A better one would be, "Would you feel nervous around Mormans if they had been responsible for atrocities worldwide, or vegetarians, or Republicans."
or cannibals?
or cannibals?
If all cultures are equal cannibalism is just a matter of taste ~;)
Lorenzo_H
10-08-2007, 18:18
If all cultures are equal cannibalism is just a matter of taste ~;)
Ha ha ha
Fragony where do these brilliantly witty comments come from?
Ha ha ha
Fragony where do these brilliantly witty comments come from?
From Daniel Pearl this one, so, from an oister, sort of a clam. But don't we all?
IrishArmenian
10-09-2007, 01:08
We're all racist. Racism is just a personal demon we have to keep fighting but pretending it doesn't exist exacerbates the problem.
ajaxfetish
10-09-2007, 01:52
Let me take a moment to join the ranks of the guilty. Like you, BG, I was brought up in an upper middle class family in a very white city (though in Utah rather than Ireland). My family puts great store in reason and the intellectual life, and at least rationally we are very open and accepting of other cultures, races, etc. However, I notice little subconscious racist thoughts coming through both in other family members, such as my father, and in myself (not malicious, but somewhat contemptuous). As a Mormon missionary in southern California I was much more exposed to other races and classes, most poor blacks, hispanics, Asians, and Pacific Islanders. It was a very eye-opening experience for me, but I still retain that subtle subconscious racism, overridden when reason steps in, but instinctually present. It's not a proud or worthy thing, but valuable to recognize nonetheless. Thank you for the thread.
Ajax
AntiochusIII
10-09-2007, 02:24
Just to chime in, let it be said that this is far from a white condition in particular, but rather an arguably universal human one. Why do I say that? Because I'm not white; I'm sure you can take it from there...
I agree with Banquo's Ghost and many others in this thread. We are all racists deep inside somewhere, at some level. The real danger is not realizing this, but rather not realizing it, or succumbing to it. In all of us, The Dark Side is.
How do I deal with that? By recognizing this attitude in myself and others, and confront myself internally, refusing to let racism influence any of my decisions, conscious or unconscious. I notice some posts above me where the poster said that he will not risk danger by trying to be "politically correct"; well, it's the person's decision, but I promise myself to try otherwise.
To move from the theoretical to an anecdote, instead of using the usual black examples (that I have to use the word "usual" indicates quite a level of racism existing still in my opinion), I'd use a different example.
Two years ago I was invited as a student representative from my high school to a high-class event where I will meet a writer who came to the "society" to give speeches, have a meal, and all that. It was a gathering of, I think, the ultra-rich. I realized right away that, like the writer herself, I was really out of place there. These people -- that is to say, rich white old people, with a lot of old women mixed in (I'm sexist too!? lol) -- I felt that they fell into the stereotype of false, empty, and arrogant rich people are often viewed at. I can, of course, defend that judgment by my observations of the party itself. When the writer gave speech, they listened politely, clapped politely, and asked stupid questions. My teacher (I respect this guy very much by the way, he's very very intelligent and sensible) said as an aside to me that none of them probably read her [the guest writer's] book. And I also observed as I sat quietly with a group of them in their idle chatter ("my son went to so-and-so and brought back this so-and-so tea; it's wonderful!") and their false concern ("I got a stroke not too long ago/ Oh, my dear, how horrible!"). Needless to say I was disgusted, justified as I was by a very strong conviction that the Rich really deserves the Guillotine of the Revolution, with their class-inspired arrogance and their senselessness.
When I look back now however I feel that I have judged very harshly those people's natures. Sure, I still stand by the original judgment that these are idle people, but who isn't? If they're vain, then so are the rest of the world. And if they move around in masks of polite condescension, why, even the very poor have their own versions [think social taboos among geeks, the fashion world, and just about everywhere else]. That's not even counting that I'm generalizing an entire group of people with one, vicious, broad stroke of philosophical disgust.
It was, I think, racism (white), a gap of age (old), class conflict (rich, "aristocratic"), and all sorts of other -isms mixed into one, all of which essentially refers to the same idea of "us" and "them."
It is imperative, in my opinion, to treat individuals as they are and not as members of a group. And the only way to do so is recognizing the "us" and "them" mentality built into my very own self.
P.S. All respects to Banquo's Ghost for giving us all one of the best threads to ever grace the Backroom in a long while.
PanzerJaeger
10-09-2007, 05:51
In the event, I was able to strike up a conversation with the fellow on the train and I took the opportunity to discuss my thoughts. He was unsurprised, and said that he was not going to be intimidated from his studies by possible suspicions - good for him - and further argued that my reactions were not entirely my own fault, but had been engendered by the actions of some of his co-religionists. I'm not so sure.
What aren't you sure about?
Are your anxieties not a direct result of muslim extremism in your own nation and around the world?
It is certainly not racism to be alert and aware when you see a you see a young muslim reading a koran on public transit.
That doesn't mean one should act on those anxieties without further prompts, but to blind oneself to one's surroundings is stupid.
Banquo, nice thread.
We certainly are not all inherently racist, there is not some racist gene or some racist trigger in all our minds which is switched on from birth and has to be gradually thrust in the opposite direction during life. Racism is prevalent in some people and non existent in others, that fact alone should be proof enough to dispel a universal human nature to be racist. Sure, say until you are blue in the face that people 'really deep down inside' are racist, but that seems a pretty weak argument. You might fear you are personally a little racist 'deep down inside' but it is not right or fair to state that everyone else is. Ghandi? A racist for sure. Deep down he just hated the whites. It is not a sound argument to state that we all have racism within us, racism is created through society and culture, not because all of us are racist.
Experience and interation with different people is the biggest factor I think in what people think of other people, same colour or not. Some of the most racist people - think where the BNP is strongest in the UK for instance - are in the areas where there is most interaction with opposite cultures. It is not simply that if you live in an all white area you are more likely to be racist and if you live in a mixed area the opposite is true. It is the type of experiences you have with other people and the type of upbringing and values you hold which are really the defining factors. Not to mention the many other factors which you hold dear to you at any specific time in your life.
It is quite possible for someone to go through the majority of their life without an ill thought to any race or person based on race, however if something in their life happens - say an attack by a group of black youths or even a feeling that in their late stage of life they are unhappy with it - the person could quite easily turn into someone who starts to act in a racist manner. We all know the old cliche about the old, bitter man, hurt by the life he has lead and the mistakes within it and instead of blaming the person who made the choices in his life - himself - he blames other people - including other races.
Racism isn't something that appears at birth by human nature and only goes away when you see a black man be nice, or any other silly notion like that, it is experience and values, throughout life.
And Banquo, in your situation I think things like the media and their portrayal of muslims and Islam and the 'great terrorist threat' we are told by our politicians - of all nations - time and again by, must have an effect on many people. Maybe it just helped you pop that thought into your head, who knows, there is probably many reasons. But the fact is you faced up to them in your head and presumably now you feel happier with yourself. :)
IrishArmenian
10-09-2007, 06:30
Jag, the point is: its human nature to be afraid of/dislike differences.
The goal is to rid oneself of those fears/dislikes.
Hell, I've never bought into the Islamist extremist fear/stereotyping but other ones, rest assured, used to be prevalent in my mind.
AntiochusIII
10-09-2007, 06:39
PanzerJager: lol. Did you notice the part where our dangerous terrorist train-bombing scum most understandingly discusses Banquo's reaction with such a conciliatory attitude?
He should be shot, right? Like them UK police did to some poor Brazilian (?) guy a while back?
JAG: [He's alive!?] Racism doesn't necessarily means BNP-style racial hatred. No, it can be something much less harmful, much smaller, most of the time not even noticeable: the choice of our friends, the attraction, the extra wariness one gives to an unfamiliar person with a different color of skin, the stereotyping...
It can be obvious: "black people are dirty!/ look at that white gangsta-wannabe, he shouldn't even try/ all Asians like videogames, don't you like videogames? etc." Or it can be subtle; it can even be subconscious most of the time.
I think these are the racisms that Banquo & co., me included, are talking about, the kind of thing a normal person must confront; not the Kill-all-Jews fascist style racism.
One could call it prejudice, or any other name. It's the same mentality that -- I think, since I don't exactly speak for everyone -- whatever names it's called, is an inner devil in all but the very few humans.
Specific appearances of racism can be seen from cultural and societal issues, true, but the underlying mentality I'd say is rather indisputably universal.
PanzerJaeger
10-09-2007, 06:58
PanzerJager: lol. Did you notice the part where our dangerous terrorist train-bombing scum most understandingly discusses Banquo's reaction with such a conciliatory attitude?
He should be shot, right? Like them UK police did to some poor Brazilian (?) guy a while back?
Not the point at all.
Here it is more directly...
Recently, there have been many terrorist attacks across the globe, including several in the UK, perpetrated by young, religious, muslim men. Many of these attacks have been carried out on public transit.
Therefore, being slightly alerted when seeing a young muslim reading a koran on a train is not so much a sign of ingrained racism, but a reaction to recent events, and is not a bad thing. Being aware of your surroundings is never a bad thing.
I, of course, did not say he needed to shoot the guy.. :beam:
Jag, the point is: its human nature to be afraid of/dislike differences.
The goal is to rid oneself of those fears/dislikes.
Hell, I've never bought into the Islamist extremist fear/stereotyping but other ones, rest assured, used to be prevalent in my mind.
How is it human nature to be afraid of / dislike differences? I haven't read that manual on the human brain, obviously. The point I would make is, not only can you not prove that but it simply is not the case. Look around you, walk down the street, you will see an instance of someone not giving two hoots about racial difference. Why can't it be human nature to embrace difference? What is the difference between them which is so significant? What is so significant about about the dislike of difference which means it is some form of super universal value? There is no such thing as any value universal in humans, and you can't prove otherwise.
Antioch - yes I am alive, just been, er, living I guess you could call it ;)
the prejudice you talk of, how can it be universal when you yourself doubt it in the very same post.
whatever names it's called, is an inner devil in all but the very few humans.
It can't be universal if it is in 'all but the very few'.
Furthermore the examples you give, fine some people may say that, but do all? That 'gangsta wannabe' you point out, has he got this prejudice, even though he is a 'white guy' 'acting' like a 'black guy'?
And if it is prejudice you talk of, why does it have to be connected to race at all? Surely if it is merely prejudice and weary beliefs people hold you are on about, why be connected to race at all. Surely the same kind of thing happens when some people might think of an old person sitting behind the wheel of a car - 'oh they are going to drive slow and be terrible' - or for that matter what some people might think of a white, skin headed youngster behind the wheel - 'oh he is going to drive crazy'. What it sounds like you are hinting at is not prejudice based on anything, merely stereotypes and prejudice in general. Nothing you state in your post explains why this has to be a merely racial thing.
And stereotyping or this kind of prejudice again merely comes from society and culture, not by some human nature present in every human. I fail to see the point you put across.
Racism isn't something that appears at birth by human nature and only goes away when you see a black man be nice, or any other silly notion like that, it is experience and values, throughout life.
Tribalism is something we're born with, and it is an essential part of human nature. We are social animals. That has consequences. Racism is just an extension of tribalism; for us to be in the tribe, others must be defined out. Skin color is just one of many stupid ways we humans have of expressing this.
Time, education and experience can dull the more counter-productive aspects of tribalism, but we've all got it in our bones. To argue otherwise is to deny our heritage and reality.
I also don't see why people are jumping on PJ's comment. I thought it was perfectly fair. I also think the Islamic gentleman on the train handled the situation with grace and aplomb, based on BG's description.
Not the point at all.
Here it is more directly...
Recently, there have been many terrorist attacks across the globe, including several in the UK, perpetrated by young, religious, muslim men. Many of these attacks have been carried out on public transit.
Therefore, being slightly alerted when seeing a young muslim reading a koran on a train is not so much a sign of ingrained racism, but a reaction to recent events, and is not a bad thing. Being aware of your surroundings is never a bad thing.
I, of course, did not say he needed to shoot the guy.. :beam:
Here is it more directly...
Recently, there have been many attacks across the globe, including several in Iraq, perpetrated by young, religious, Christian men. Many of these attacks have been carried out on public transit.
Therefore, being slightly alerted when seeing a young Christian toting a gun on a tank is not so much a sign of ingrained terrorism, but a reaction to recent events, and is not a bad thing. Being aware of your surroundings is never a bad thing.
I, of course, did not say he needed to shoot the guy.. :beam:
Hmmm, sounds like Jag left his tower and had a slice of life
Tribalism is something we're born with, and it is an essential part of human nature. We are social animals. That has consequences. Racism is just an extension of tribalism; for us to be in the tribe, others must be defined out. Skin color is just one of many stupid ways we humans have of expressing this.
Time, education and experience can dull the more counter-productive aspects of tribalism, but we've all got it in our bones. To argue otherwise is to deny our heritage and reality.
As I have said many times here, I do not believe in human nature and it would take one hell of a lot of convincing to make me change my mind. People do not have universal moral and ethical values and actions, it cannot be proved and is not the case. People make their own damn minds up based on a number of things, including experience and surroundings.
Tribalism, what is that? Can you even define it in a way to apply it to all humans throughout time? And if so, how can racism then be an extention of it?
As I have said many times here, I do not believe in human nature and it would take one hell of a lot of convincing to make me change my mind.
You seriously don't believe in human nature? fascinating.
Tribalism, what is that? Can you even define it in a way to apply it to all humans throughout time? And if so, how can racism then be an extention of it?
Easily done. Tribalism is the innate desire to belong to a group of humans. The desire to belong is universal and timeless. How can racism be an extension of it? I already described the process in my previous post. To belong to a group, the group must be defined. There are those who are in it, and those who are not. One cannot be inside if there is no outside. Do I need to go on? This seems pretty basic and obvious ...
Why is it an innate desire to be part of a social group? Anarchists for instance believe in the complete opposite. Why are we necessarily social beings simply because most people move in social spheres and networks in multiple societies? Even pro creation cannot be said to be a universal human value as there are numerous celibate people throughout the globe, not to mention those who actually never get round to it.
Even if we were to say that humans were all social beings and that is human nature, what makes them racist? Why does it HAVE to follow that humans are social beings and part of being social is to be racist. Surely there is no logical and philosophical jump. If humans are social beings why does a group need to be defined? And if it is defined why then along racial lines? Furthermore what about societies and social groupings throughout history made up of several differing races and cultures?
All these questions would need to be answered if it is simple case of us being social and if we are social then we are racist.
HoreTore
10-09-2007, 08:04
The good old "human nature" argument... As JAG I don't believe in such a thing, but if it does, then it most certainly can be changed. Why? Well, because we have changed our nature, just these last 100 years. Before WW1, war was seen as almost a good thing. It was a right thing to do, and it wasn't all bad at all. People were happy to go to war, this was simply the way things should be done. It was indeed in our nature to go to war.
Do we really think the same today? Excluding some oddballs, I'd say NO. Nowadays, we think of war as both unjust and bad, and that it should be avoided at almost any cost. Previously it was a casual thing, now it is not.
Also, if something was "in human nature", then it should be logical that it applies to every human, shouldn't it? Well, if the OP is in our nature, then every european should behave the same way, shouldn't they? I mean, it's in our nature, wasn't that the point? But why then don't everyone react the same way? Maybe because it's a learned trait, not something in our nature?
AntiochusIII
10-09-2007, 08:20
It can't be universal if it is in 'all but the very few'.
Semantics.
Furthermore the examples you give, fine some people may say that, but do all? That 'gangsta wannabe' you point out, has he got this prejudice, even though he is a 'white guy' 'acting' like a 'black guy'?
You're missing the point.
The example is merely a popular anecdote of what is going on.
And if it is prejudice you talk of, why does it have to be connected to race at all? Surely if it is merely prejudice and weary beliefs people hold you are on about, why be connected to race at all. Surely the same kind of thing happens when some people might think of an old person sitting behind the wheel of a car - 'oh they are going to drive slow and be terrible' - or for that matter what some people might think of a white, skin headed youngster behind the wheel - 'oh he is going to drive crazy'. What it sounds like you are hinting at is not prejudice based on anything, merely stereotypes and prejudice in general. Nothing you state in your post explains why this has to be a merely racial thing.
One could call it prejudice, or any other name. It's the same mentality that -- I think, since I don't exactly speak for everyone -- whatever names it's called, is an inner devil in all but the very few humans.
...
It was, I think, racism (white), a gap of age (old), class conflict (rich, "aristocratic"), and all sorts of other -isms mixed into one, all of which essentially refers to the same idea of "us" and "them."
Let us explore the surface of racism shall we? What is it? A fear of different skin colors, different social backgrounds, different languages, different cultures, different... well, many differences mixed into one.
What is xenophobia? A fear of people from foreign countries.
Etc.
What do they all have in common? A fear of difference. That's where I'm trying to point the topic to. No need to restrict ourselves because the same thing has many ways of expressing out.
And stereotyping or this kind of prejudice again merely comes from society and culture, not by some human nature present in every human. I fail to see the point you put across.
Can you expand on this assertion?
Curious. You seem to refuse to acknowledge what I (and apparently a lot of other people, going by this thread) see as innate racism in all of us, and consequently something worth exploring in. You claim it is entirely a societal construction; why?
Also, if something was "in human nature", then it should be logical that it applies to every human, shouldn't it? Well, if the OP is in our nature, then every european should behave the same way, shouldn't they? I mean, it's in our nature, wasn't that the point? But why then don't everyone react the same way? Maybe because it's a learned trait, not something in our nature?
See the statement in Papewaio's sig.
_____________
Interesting indeed. You two seem to consider the concept of human nature as false. That is not a position I see very often. If you don't mind, how about expanding upon it for us?
And before jumping anywhere, duly note that recognizing our base instincts is different from justifying them. Again, see Papewaio's sig.
On a related point, I think both your assertions that "we" fear "Muslims" is the result of mass media and society pointing us that way. I sincerely think that they don't have nearly as much impact as you both claim they have. They might indeed be responsible for pointing our fears to the "Muslims," but that is merely a direction; the fear comes from us.
I also don't see why people are jumping on PJ's comment. I thought it was perfectly fair.
Based on your advice, I shall pay very much attention to this Arabic-looking guy I see every other day in class for fear of his potential danger based on the general perception of terrorists of today I think.
It's not my fault of course. It never is. I'm just rightfully afraid because people who apparently look like him are apparently doing bad things around the world. And this has nothing to do with racism either. ~;)
InsaneApache
10-09-2007, 08:29
Ghandi? A racist for sure.
At last something you've said that is actually true. He did absolutely zilch for the black South Africans.
I'm old enough to remember that seeing someone with a black skin was such a rarity, it was exotic. When I was 8 or 9 years old I was on my way, with my family, to Belle Vue in Manchester. On the bus there was a black man, a negro. His complexion was that 'purple' black you sometimes see. The only black faces I'd seen up to that point was on the telly (Black and White Minstrels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_and_White_Minstrel_Show) anyone?) and I was fascinated. I couldn't stop staring at the colour of his skin. My dad (an ex-bootneck) gave me a clip around the ear and scolded me for being rude and staring. He then apologised to the gentleman. It was probably down to the fact that he had circumnavigated the globe several times on HMS Anson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Anson_(79)) that led to him being more broadminded than most.
It is certainly not racism to be alert and aware when you see a you see a young muslim reading a koran on public transit.
I also don't see why people are jumping on PJ's comment. I thought it was perfectly fair.
Number of train journeys per year in Britain: 1 billion
Number of trains bombed by Muslim suicide bombers: 0 (3 in 2006 if you include the tube).
You don't think worrying about a 1 in a billion risk because you see a Muslim is a bit silly? I'm not sure it is racist, as the fear seems to be of the koran, but it does seem Islamophobic.
English assassin
10-09-2007, 11:05
You don't think worrying about a 1 in a billion risk because you see a Muslim is a bit silly? I'm not sure it is racist, as the fear seems to be of the koran, but it does seem Islamophobic.
It shows a lack of perspective, (a topic on which, Ironically, lemur has started some good threads in the past) but islamophobia? Not sure. On the other hand actually reading the koran is probably a good sign, as Islamists have often been severely mislead as to what it says.
We are conditioned by our upbringing and by our experiences - but to what extent do we have to take responsibilities for our own prejudices? And how best to defeat them? How might we address this without losing the cultural values that define us as well - diversity being a good thing in my book. Is interaction and dialogue the sole solution, or does one have to dig deeper into one's soul?
Well, obviously we have to take responsibility.
I'm not sure interaction is the solution. I don't think racism is having a problem with a specific individual. I have worked with people of all sorts of backgrounds (ethnic, social, diufferent sexualities, etc), and in my experience few people have difficulties with "the other" that they know. Because the black guy you work with isn't a black guy, he's the Man U fan who has never been to Old Trafford in his life.
The difficulty is with "the other" en masse, for whom interaction is by defintion not an option. And there I think the best you can do is reflect. For example, I believe it is accurate to regard violence (both of a robber, and a terrorist) as essentially a phenomenon that correlates with stupidity, and with being young and male, and not with race or religion. Islamism as a movement can be understood in large part as a demographic not a religious problem: what happens when a country has a large population of young uneducated men? (Although it does have to be said that that volatile situation is thn given direction by a few, older men, who misrepresent Islam for their political ends).
Here's another thought: Marxists use to define racism in political/economic terms. Only the dominant group could be racist because only the dominat group could exclude. Total cobblers of course, but on that basis can any one of us be called racist anyway. BG wasn't being dominant when he felt uncomfortable on the train.
macsen rufus
10-09-2007, 11:07
Sorry to say Jag, much as I usually enjoy your posts, this time you appear to exhibit the smug self-congratulation of the true ideologue.
How can you say there is no such thing as human nature? Everything has a nature - and we are social primates, evolved from a long line of social primates. That doesn't disappear at the flick of a socialist pamphlet! You are in fact exhibiting the very behaviour you deny exists, by seeing your own tribe or in-group as superior to outsiders. Still it evades the need for you to engage in any self examination, I guess.
Why is it an innate desire to be part of a social group? Anarchists for instance believe in the complete opposite.
Surely you mean nihilists? I know quite a few syndicalists who would string you up for that, if they were the stringing up type. Your argument is a reductio ad absurdum, I'm afraid. Social behaviour is an inherent part of human beings, as is eye colour. To observe that we don't all have blue eyes doesn't rule out that we do have genes that determine our eye colour. Biology isn't physics - attributes are variable and interactive, although one element may be concealed by another, it is not absent. Even accreting ideologies is a social "flagging" behaviour, wanting to be "an anarchist" is social behaviour in itself. Reducing the tribe to a single person doesn't stop it being tribal behaviour.
And Hore Tore, I don't accept your argument that current attitudes to war denote any change in human nature - social attitudes can change, yet we are still the same social primates, and wars still break out, and I think you'd be the first to recognise there are still hyper-patriotic dingbats that are just as gung-ho as any WW1 combatants. You ALWAYS assume that any mention of human nature is an acceptance that was IS is the same as what SHOULD BE, and that whoever raises it is claiming it's neither possible nor desirable to change. You've done it over and over, when generally the point being made is that humanity has flaws, and has to accept what they are before being able to address them. Yes, we have progressed, but that is not thanks to folks denying what we are, it is down to people who accept there is such a thing as human psychology and have taken the effort to undergo self-examination and striving to overcome our failings. But sitting in an ivory tower chanting "I am not an ape" will solve nothing.
[/rant over :2thumbsup: ]
Concerning groups, I am personally very hesitant to fully integrate into groups, that is mostly due to my experience that belonging to a group means you exclude others as you said.
I usually only integrate into froups that are rather open to the outside, I know some nice people but due to the fact that they often talked bad about strangers or people from other social groups, I never felt really comfortable around them, that's partly due to a belief that such people would also easily talk about me behind my back but partly also because I may and do like people of other groups as well and refuse to eneter a group that excludes them.
Now I'm talking about myself again but I'm the best example I have. ~D
atheotes
10-09-2007, 15:39
Thanks to banquo for an excellent topic...
i too think that racism is universal... i am from India and i have seen a lot and felt too... the black/white stereotype has probably been the most publicised/discussed one... there are other forms of racism found in every society. Given to our basic instincts racism seems to come naturally till reason over rides it.
The Celtic Viking
10-09-2007, 18:52
BG: I wonder. As I take it, the muslim had a middle-eastern look. Am I correct? If so, do you think you would've thought differently had it been a white guy reading that koran?
In any case, people are not born racists. Not at all. But people are born with a fear of what's unknown, so our brain will as quick as possible try to tell us what it is that we see. When we see a stranger, we will look at him, and depending on what we see (what colour his skin has, what kind of clothes he wears etc.) we will fit him or her into the most fitting "box" (that is for example, a "black people box", a "muslim box" etc.). But just knowing what some kind of people/thing/animal is called is worth just as much as knowing that that is a tiger, but not knowing that the tiger is dangerous. So these boxes are given certain values, and those values will be given to everyone who fits into these boxes. This is for example how you immediately upon entering know that a classroom is a classroom, not a church without having to study it any closer. But of course, sometimes it goes wrong, and we think that a group of people, or a box, has values that they really don't have, which is all the more evident when it comes to people. (I mean, how often do you go into what you think is a church, but then find out is a classroom? :laugh4:)
This is why interaction is so important in "fixing" this, and segregation can be so detrimenting. Only if we're given the "correct" values, we can replace the false ones and get a more correct view of them as a whole. Or even better, we won't get the false ones at all (which is more a "beutiful goal" rather than a reachable one). It's especially important at young ages, as that's when we first form these ideas. To edit them later on you may need some special admin-tools... or at least try much harder. :clown:
As an sidenote, this topic and talk about people being inherently racist reminded me of Jackie Arklöv. Why so, you ask? Because he's a half-black neo-nazi...
Why is it an innate desire to be part of a social group? Anarchists for instance believe in the complete opposite. Why are we necessarily social beings simply because most people move in social spheres and networks in multiple societies?
JAG, HoreTore, if we take this too much further we should probably spin it off into its own thread. Why do we have an innate desire to be included in some sort of social group? Because we evolved as social animals, instead of lone hunters. You don't see monkeys living on their own unless they're lost or mentally damaged.
If there is no social instinct, why is solitary confinement considered a punishment in every human society? Why does every form of human society evolve around social structures?
What is your hypothesis in regards to the complete and total lack of human nature, anyway? Are we unprogrammed robots when we are born? Sort of like a new PC without an operating system? Clearly, you have never raised children.
Ironside
10-09-2007, 19:00
About human nature, IMO the basic instict is rather to group simular things together, and that includes personalities. This is advantageous as long as you're easily able to change this when you recive new information, but it seems that this often gets somewhat locked (often by grouping and the tendency to disrespect and/or counterdisrepct the "others").
Not all humans needs to have this though, but it's more because you can function even if a lot of centers in the brain are gone or functioning poorly/oddly.
It all depends on how we use our monkeysphere (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html).
Kralizec
10-09-2007, 19:16
I'm glad I can say that I don't have any subconcious prejudices or racist tendencies at all. Kudos to BG for being self-conscious, that's the first step. As for the rest of you bigots, I can only say I'm dissapointed.
Seriously, I know I have prejudices and personally think that anyone who says he doesn't is either superhumanly enlightened, clueless or a bloody liar. I've always imagined that some of my prejudices might be true, a lot of them are probably not and that it's at any rate the best thing not to let the way you think of certain groups affect the way you deal with individuals.
HoreTore
10-09-2007, 19:19
Here's another thought: Marxists use to define racism in political/economic terms. Only the dominant group could be racist because only the dominat group could exclude. Total cobblers of course, but on that basis can any one of us be called racist anyway. BG wasn't being dominant when he felt uncomfortable on the train.
There are two kinds of racism: structural and casual. The structural rascism is the one that really hurts, the casual racism doesn't matter nearly as much. It is the structural racism that can only be performed by the dominant group, the casual racism is for everyone.
In any case, people are not born racists. Not at all. But people are born with a fear of what's unknown, so our brain will as quick as possible try to tell us what it is that we see. When we see a stranger, we will look at him, and depending on what we see (what colour his skin has, what kind of clothes he wears etc.) we will fit him or her into the most fitting "box" (that is for example, a "black people box", a "muslim box" etc.). But just knowing what some kind of people/thing/animal is called is worth just as much as knowing that that is a tiger, but not knowing that the tiger is dangerous. So these boxes are given certain values, and those values will be given to everyone who fits into these boxes. This is for example how you immediately upon entering know that a classroom is a classroom, not a church without having to study it any closer. But of course, sometimes it goes wrong, and we think that a group of people, or a box, has values that they really don't have, which is all the more evident when it comes to people. (I mean, how often do you go into what you think is a church, but then find out is a classroom?
If you for the first time saw a muslim, and you do not know what a muslim is, would you be scared of him? No, because fear comes from "knowledge" rather than not knowing. Just look at how animals at never-before-visited-places react to humans: they show no fear.
You'd rather be interested in finding out what a muslim is before you cast what is, in your eyes, the proper judge.
If you do not understand someone though, you might act with precaution, and the precaution might lead to racism.
There are two kinds of racism: structural and casual. The structural rascism is the one that really hurts, the casual racism doesn't matter nearly as much. It is the structural racism that can only be performed by the dominant group, the casual racism is for everyone.
What is what? Is racism tought to you by your parents structural, or are you then talking about nation wide racism or community racism?
You don't see monkeys living on their own unless they're lost or mentally damaged.
Thank you.:furious3:
(read my last post for reference ~;) )
It all depends on how we use our monkeysphere (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html).
And thanks again, been looking for that link. :2thumbsup:
atheotes
10-09-2007, 20:49
If you for the first time saw a muslim, and you do not know what a muslim is, would you be scared of him? No, because fear comes from "knowledge" rather than not knowing.
I would say incomplete or incorrect information/knowledge is what causes the fear. Grouping/generalising/stereotyping is the biggest reason.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-09-2007, 21:23
How is it human nature to be afraid of / dislike differences? I haven't read that manual on the human brain, obviously. The point I would make is, not only can you not prove that but it simply is not the case. Look around you, walk down the street, you will see an instance of someone not giving two hoots about racial difference. Why can't it be human nature to embrace difference?
Consider:
Our Aversion to the Unfamiliar
Judy Illes, Vivian Chin
Brain and Culture: Neurobiology, Ideology, and Social Change. Bruce E. Wexler. xii + 307 pp. The MIT Press, 2006. $34.
In her 1992 book, Imperial Eyes, literary scholar Mary Louise Pratt observed that "the space in which peoples geographically and historically separated come into contact with each other and establish ongoing relations" is often a battlefield, "usually involving conditions of coercion, radical inequality, and intractable conflict." This concept of a contact zone (to use the term Pratt coined for it) provides the basis for a hypothesis that Bruce Wexler tests in Brain and Culture—that early wiring in the brain makes it hard for people later to accept novelty and unfamiliar experiences. Difficulty in handling the unfamiliar—people with a different skin color, different values or a different ideology, for example—is an essential feature of the often-negative interactions between cultures.
Wexler's thesis is that "the developing human brain shapes itself to its environment." The particular form of the environment is relatively insignificant. What is important, Wexler claims, is that incongruities between the environment and the developed brain introduce distress and dysfunction. He bases his argument on findings from laboratory experiments, which he applies to psychological and social problems.
After a brief introduction describing how the human brain works, Wexler provides in part I ("Transgenerational Shaping of Human Brain Function") a review of basic neurobiological experiments examining brain plasticity. The range of topics within this domain is great and includes visual-adaptation experiments, language acquisition through imitation, and the effects of parental nurturing and sibling interactions on the development of human intelligence. In his discussion of these subjects, Wexler explores the relation between the internal structure of the brain and the external environment. For example, human frontal lobes (which, as Wexler points out, are "thought to be closely associated with values, morality, emotion, and other personality traits") are not fully mature until the age of 20 to 25 years. This late maturation may provide an evolutionary advantage, he says, in that it affords more time "to incorporate the growing collective wisdom and latest innovations."
Part II ("The Neurobiology of Ideology") constitutes the heart and soul of this volume. Here Wexler brings empirical data from laboratory experiments to bear on historical phenomena, and neuroanatomical data to bear on social phenomena. He describes, for example, how brain-imaging studies have correlated activation of the amygdala—induced when people view pictures of ethnically diverse human faces—with social prejudice. He explores the neurobiological antagonism to difference, whether it relates to the relatively mundane (dress, food, theater) or the more profound (premarital sexual behavior, escape from a brutal parent, disobedience in combat).
In addition, Wexler explains that people develop internal, experience-determined neural structures that "limit, shape, and focus perception" on the aspects of environmental stimulation that they commonly experience. Their external and internal worlds, therefore, act in concordance with each other. Wexler argues that when people are faced with information that does not agree with their internal structures, they deny, discredit, reinterpret or forget that information. When changes in the environment are great, corresponding internal changes are accompanied by distress and dysfunction. The inability to reconcile differences between strange others and ingrained notions of "humanness" can culminate in violence. The neurobiological imperative to maintain a balance between internal structures and external reality fuels this struggle for control, which contributes to making the contact zone a place of intractable conflict. The result manifests itself in our world today in, to give two examples, racial inequality and intercultural hostility. Indeed, part of the problem, Wexler suggests, is that interaction among diverse populations is a relatively new phenomenon:
For 80,000 to 100,000 years human beings lived in isolated communities distributed around the globe. Division into separate communities may have preceded the development of much of a language or culture, and there may never have been a common human language or culture as we think of each today. Certainly cultures developed independently of one another over most of the history of the species, and each community was unaware that most of the others even existed. The distinguishing feature of the current epoch in human development is the discovery and initiation of contact among previously separate and very different peoples and cultures.
Wexler describes how the prejudicial beliefs that lead to cultural clashes derive directly from sociocultural input, beginning with the important adults (parents, for instance) to whom an individual is exposed during childhood. He makes a few bigger leaps that are less easy to digest, such as when he compares a kitten's experience with unfamiliar oblique lines in a visual-plasticity experiment to that of an immigrant displaced from a village distinguished by flatlands to a city of skyscrapers. But his arguments are provocative and thoughtful nonetheless.
However, Wexler does not appear to have considered the simple fact that some unknowns bring joy. Personality, sense of identity and taste can have a profound effect in determining whether unfamiliar stimuli are perceived as negative. People often have positive reactions to new experiences, such as the sound of an agreeable piece of music never heard before, the smell of a delicious but unfamiliar recipe, or even novel concepts such as the ones in this book.
There have also been times when communities and even nations have overcome cultural conflict. Consider the work of Martin Luther King or the women's rights movement. To take another example, many immigrants forced to leave their home countries suffer irrecoverably from the experience, but others choose to move and find better opportunities or maybe just a pleasant change of pace. Some people are driven to help others from different cultures, as evidenced by the long existence of international organizations such as the Peace Corps, Doctors Without Borders and Engineers Without Borders.
Furthermore, Wexler's position is that familiarity, or "consonance between inner and outer worlds," is inherently pleasurable. An external event that coincides with a past experience in a person's life, he asserts, is enjoyable "merely on the basis of familiarity and independent of any qualities of the object." But people often express negative reactions toward familiar stimuli, such as boredom with a job or relationship. In addition, some immigrants avoid moving to familiar social environments that might incite memories of painful or stressful experiences, such as racial or gender inequality. Thus not all goal-directed behavior can be explained by the internal-external dichotomy on which Wexler bases his position. These counterexamples cast doubt on his claim that familiarity is always pleasurable.
The brain is, after all, both the driver and receiver of ideology. Certainly much of human behavior is hardwired. But unlike the heart, liver or even our genes, the brain can respond in a dynamic way not only to internal physiological cues but also to unpredictable external ones, and it can embody that response in future behavior. This book is a foray into uncharted territory, exploring how neuroscience can unveil ways to help us understand one another despite our differences. Wexler calls for education to alter our instinctive aversion to the unfamiliar, and Brain and Culture is a significant contribution to that effort. It is an approach from which all citizens and all cultures can benefit.
Might also look up neophobes and neophiles for some good info here.
There exists a substantial body of research that suggests that this "aversion" characteristic is the next thing to "hardwired" in most of us. BG is to be commended for forcing himself to face this issue and attempt a resolution for himself.
woad&fangs
10-10-2007, 02:06
Not entirely sure what I can add to this thread so I'll just say thank you for creating this it BG.
RoadKill
10-10-2007, 02:12
It's called Tolerance, you can never get rid of racism, all you can do is stuff it down your throat and keep it to yourself, and smile about it.
HoreTore
10-10-2007, 06:56
What is what? Is racism tought to you by your parents structural, or are you then talking about nation wide racism or community racism?
Structural racism is racism within/expressed by the structures of a society. For example, if some bureaucrat in charge of some official thingy denies the service he provides to a person purely because of his race, then that is structural racism.
Name-calling would be casual racism. It won't affect you nearly as much.
Banquo's Ghost
10-11-2007, 07:45
Thank you everyone, for your thoughtful replies.
I've been busy these last couple of days, but I'll get back to you with some reflections soon.
:bow:
Tribesman
10-11-2007, 09:32
A question for you Banquo .
You walk into a pub , it is full of travellers .
What goes through your mind ?
InsaneApache
10-11-2007, 09:49
Where's me wallet! :laugh4:
The Celtic Viking
10-11-2007, 15:15
If you for the first time saw a muslim, and you do not know what a muslim is, would you be scared of him? No, because fear comes from "knowledge" rather than not knowing. Just look at how animals at never-before-visited-places react to humans: they show no fear.
You'd rather be interested in finding out what a muslim is before you cast what is, in your eyes, the proper judge.
If you do not understand someone though, you might act with precaution, and the precaution might lead to racism.
You misunderstand me.
The first thing I would like to point out is that I spoke of the human mind and the human mind only. How other animals may or may not react in any given situation is irrelevant to my post. Though my theory may still apply for them too, as it seems to fit, but I don't know and I won't make any claims there.
I was also not saying that, in the case we don't know anything about muslims and we then see one, we would be afraid of him because of that. Absolutely not. If you know absolutely nothing about muslims, haven't even heard a word of them, and you then see one (but he does not identify himself as one, and no one else identifies him for you) your brain will fit him in the most appropriate box for him. If there is none (if, for example, he's black and you've never seen a black man before) you'll create a new "box" based on him. That "box" will then be used for the next black man you see. So if that first black man you saw was a jolly, highly out-going to the point of annoyance, you'll cautiously believe so of the next black man you see. If he is the same, your prejudice that all blacks are jolly and highly out-going to the point of annoyance will be reinforced, and for each time you meet a black man like that, those values will get deeper and deeper burned into your "black man box".
If however the first black person you meet robs you, and so does the next, and the next, and the next (and it doesn't matter if you're the one robbed, it's enough to see it on tv) and so on, then that prejudice will be given to your "black man box". You will then, when you see a black man, recognize him as that, put him in that box and be afraid of him because your box says he robs people.
I don't know if I've explained this enough, or explained it in a good way at all. But to make an example of when your brain fails to do this, I will mention fear of the dark. It's not the dark itself you're afraid of, it's the fact that you can't know what's in it, because you can't see, that scares you.
Edit: Forgot to thank you, Lemur, for that link. It was really interesting, and the terminology used was most excellent. :2thumbsup:
You misunderstand me.
The first thing I would like to point out is that I spoke of the human mind and the human mind only. How other animals may or may not react in any given situation is irrelevant to my post. Though my theory may still apply for them too, as it seems to fit, but I don't know and I won't make any claims there.
I was also not saying that, in the case we don't know anything about muslims and we then see one, we would be afraid of him because of that. Absolutely not. If you know absolutely nothing about muslims, haven't even heard a word of them, and you then see one (but he does not identify himself as one, and no one else identifies him for you) your brain will fit him in the most appropriate box for him. If there is none (if, for example, he's black and you've never seen a black man before) you'll create a new "box" based on him. That "box" will then be used for the next black man you see. So if that first black man you saw was a jolly, highly out-going to the point of annoyance, you'll cautiously believe so of the next black man you see. If he is the same, your prejudice that all blacks are jolly and highly out-going to the point of annoyance will be reinforced, and for each time you meet a black man like that, those values will get deeper and deeper burned into your "black man box".
If however the first black person you meet robs you, and so does the next, and the next, and the next (and it doesn't matter if you're the one robbed, it's enough to see it on tv) and so on, then that prejudice will be given to your "black man box". You will then, when you see a black man, recognize him as that, put him in that box and be afraid of him because your box says he robs people.
I don't know if I've explained this enough, or explained it in a good way at all. But to make an example of when your brain fails to do this, I will mention fear of the dark. It's not the dark itself you're afraid of, it's the fact that you can't know what's in it, because you can't see, that scares you.
Yes, only the known can be feared. Knowledge is not necessarily correct. :P
Generally speaking one must judge every person as if he was of your own "race"; by appearance in other words. That's what there comes naturally to me anyway. :inquisitive:
Tribesman
10-11-2007, 20:16
Where's me wallet!
Seriously ?
If so why and were there any grounds for that reaction .
Its a question that stems through watching peoples reactions as they walked into a pub a couple of weeks ago .
HoreTore
10-11-2007, 20:41
A question for you Banquo .
You walk into a pub , it is full of travellers .
What goes through your mind ?
Beer..... Beer.... More beer.... Chicks?
InsaneApache
10-11-2007, 21:08
Seriously ?
If so why and were there any grounds for that reaction .
Its a question that stems through watching peoples reactions as they walked into a pub a couple of weeks ago .
Yup, seriously.
I have grounds, personal experiences over decades, no doubt there might be a couple who are decent. However, I've never met one in over 40 years.
Just anecdotal of course, and certainly not the way I've found Pakistanis, Indians, etc etc...
CrossLOPER
10-11-2007, 22:13
OK, from what I've gathered, some of you have not spent enough time with people whose skin color is different from yours.
Also, to those who think you need to be "vigilant" if you see a Muslim youth on a bus, please explain to me how vigilance will assist you on the off chance he decides to go boom?
Tribesman
10-11-2007, 22:37
Yup, seriously.
What about scousers , do you check your wallet there too ?
InsaneApache
10-11-2007, 23:43
What about scousers , do you check your wallet there too ?
Are you kidding? I've lived in Skem and got some good mates in Walton. I check me watch 'round there when I make a right turn! :laugh4:
However, it's one Lancastrian, to another, that's not racist. :juggle2:
Neither is the antipahy to the travellers, just anecdotal evidence as I said.
[that doesn't make it any less true though]
Tribesman
10-12-2007, 00:02
But in essence isn't it the same Apache .
Taking thoughts or experiences about individuals from any grouing and applying them to the whole group .
If they're outside your monkeysphere (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html), it's monkey human nature.
English assassin
10-12-2007, 21:45
But in essence isn't it the same Apache .
Taking thoughts or experiences about individuals from any grouing and applying them to the whole group .
But there, although I can see what you are saying, you go too far. Generalising from experience is what humans do. Its called learning.
Leave race out of it. You go into two pubs. One is full of 18 and 19 year old boys (Oh, Ok men) in football tops. Two different types of football top. The other has a meeting of the local Darby and Joan club going on. Question: In which pub are you more likely to be glassed?
Sure, the 18-19 year olds might in fact all be Jehovah's witnesses, and the old dears might in fact be relatives of the Krays, but that's not the way to bet. Is it?
The real point is that you aren't LIKELY to be glassed in either case. But there's no point trying to argue that the (very small) chance of a glassing isn't higher when there are young lads about.
Tribesman
10-12-2007, 22:40
But there, although I can see what you are saying, you go too far. Generalising from experience is what humans do. Its called learning.
But surely the learning experience is not to generalise .
You picked a couple of bad examples there though . It isn't the 18-19 year old soccer crowd that is dodgy , its the older soccer crowd that are the real dodgy ones . But then again they both tend to stick it to opposing fans not just someone who walked into the pub . Both times I have been glassed and all the times apart from two that I have seen people glassed it has been in normal mixed clientel pubs or social clubs , often family friendly places , not pubs full of youngsters .
Now the reason I asked the initial question to Banquo stems from a couple of weeks back .
I was in my local and someone mentioned that a pub in the square had re-opened , which of course raised the question "whats it like ?" The responses would not be allowable under forum rules but equate roughly with "you woudn't want to set foot near the place because of who drinks there"....of course under such sage advice I finished my drink and went straight up there .
It was both funny and sad to see peoples reactions when they entered that pub .
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.