To compare a statement like all black people being drug dealers to institutionalized racism is very inaccurate, in my opinion. These two forms of "racism" are very different. After all, the actual discrimination is based on prejudice, whereas the blanket statement of "all black people are drug dealers" is based on stereotypes, which can be rooted from prejudice, but are more often not.
Recognizing this is pivotal because one can make negative stereotypes of another race and still not be prejudiced toward that race. Stereotypes have occurred all throughout history and are based on our observed or perceived experiences. Depending on one's environment, one's perception of another race may be more positive or negative, but if one stereotypes an entire race in a bad way, does that truly make them "racist"? Or does it just mean that they're generalizing to the point of ignorance and that when faced with a member of this said race who defies their stereotype, that they'll actually discriminate them? If a person thinks that blacks in the United States have a problem with not caring to succeed and being "gangsta," will they still look at Barack Obama in the same manner, or will they actually give Obama the credit he deserves? More often than not, I see people who make those blanket statements come out to actually support Obama rather than oppose him.
Modern "racism" in the United States has generally evolved out of this prejudice for another race into silly stereotypes. There are always exceptions to the rule, of course, but that only reinforces the rule. Very few people you stop on the streets today will tell you that they outright hate another race. They may make misguided stereotypes of another race, but my question is whether that's actually racist at all?
The only opponent towards multiculturalism is SEPARATISM. Whilst living a multicultural society, one is typically exposed to otherwise alien cultures and forced to adapt.
When I argue against multiculturalism, I advocate this very thing. Different cultures are brought into the mix. People are exposed to them and learn from them. This, on the broader collective level, creates a single overall culture of which all participants in creating that culture assume.
Multiculturalism, while it may promote exposure to different cultures, advocates the preservation of these cultures. In doing so, they advocate that everybody retains their original culture to keep it pure and very little intermixing occurs. I am staunchly against this mindset.
From almost conception, I have been surrounded by cultures that aren't exactly like my own. In that sense, the "foreign" cultures that may exist within your mind don't necessarily phase me. Multiculturalism is the near direct opposite of separatism.
Again, how do you preserve a culture and intermix at the same time? The two are complete opposites as one is promoting separatism to keep a culture "pure" and the other is integration. Multiculturalists often believe that they should preserve these different cultures, which requires separatism. You cannot have it both ways.
Europeans typically list "perserving culture" as a means to justify xenophobic views on immigration. The only real alternative to cooperative and reasoned habitation between peoples of different cultures is to resort to something more sinister.
You're talking deportation? Anti-immigration laws? Or even genocide?
I'll admit, preserving one's culture is a pretty closed minded view, and it's this very view I find so many multiculturalists trying to advocate. I, personally, only oppose immigration when it's illegal, not beneficial to the country economically, or (on a more individual level) when a specific immigrant refuses to do something such as learn the lingua de franca of the country they choose to reside in, thus refusing to interact and integrate with the society. Otherwise I believe the interaction between different groups of people is a great thing and am all for immigration.
I believe that there is no better alternative nor no greater honour than to be part of a multicultural society. In Canada, we are listed as a cultural mosaic. As an immigrant, you are expected to arrive in our country and maintain your cultural values/mannerisms.
Of course. That's what being part of a mosaic is all about, right? Identifying yourself with what part of the mosaic you are first, and then identifying yourself with the whole mosaic second. This by its very essence promotes separatism for it encourages people to define themselves as different from everybody else. When you intermix, you're doing the very opposite of what embracing a mosaic suggests.
You are piece of our country's mosaic. When we speak away from the mosaic, we see it in its entirety. Our country, our people.
Indeed, yet you have blacks defining themselves as black first, American second. You have Asians identifying themselves as Asian first, American second. You'll even find many whites identifying themselves as white first, American second. Different group of people eye each other with suspicion. They interact, but they don't intermix liek I said. Gradually, to my relief, this has been improving and more intermixing has been occuring. They are much better examples of separatism than anything else, and more than anyone else, I find multiculturalists embrace this, all as a means of preserving one's original culture and embracing the part of the mosaic they are.
Quote: from whoisabs at 9:07 am on June 15, 2008 How could we have black only tables in American schools and 'blackness' if it weren't for the great joy of multiculturalism? Do you suggest that everyone become Americans and assimilate into a single large group as if throwing various ingredients into a large pot? Of course. You know I despise multiculturalism. It's good to respect differences and the way other people live, but that's reserved only for those living in different cultures. Generally if you live in a country, you adopt their culture, language, and all that. It's a part of becoming a member of that society. If you refuse to do that, it's extremely disrespectful and you may as well GTFO. Multiculturalism promotes separatism and needs to be destroyed.
How could we have black only tables in American schools and 'blackness' if it weren't for the great joy of multiculturalism? Do you suggest that everyone become Americans and assimilate into a single large group as if throwing various ingredients into a large pot?
Do you suggest that everyone become Americans and assimilate into a single large group as if throwing various ingredients into a large pot?
Of course. You know I despise multiculturalism. It's good to respect differences and the way other people live, but that's reserved only for those living in different cultures. Generally if you live in a country, you adopt their culture, language, and all that. It's a part of becoming a member of that society. If you refuse to do that, it's extremely disrespectful and you may as well GTFO. Multiculturalism promotes separatism and needs to be destroyed.
I completely disagree with your above quoted statement and will give a variety of reasons why.
Firstly, multiculturalism is almost the exact opposite of separatism. To vouch separatism and denounce multiculturalism is verging on the toes of racist intent and it is that notion that can be described as separatist as well as racist in nature. The only opponent towards multiculturalism is SEPARATISM. Whilst living a multicultural society, one is typically exposed to otherwise alien cultures and forced to adapt. From almost conception, I have been surrounded by cultures that aren't exactly like my own. In that sense, the "foreign" cultures that may exist within your mind don't necessarily phase me. Multiculturalism is the near direct opposite of separatism.
Of course. You know I despise multiculturalism. It's good to respect differences and the way other people live, but that's reserved only for those living in different cultures. Generally if you live in a country, you adopt their culture, language, and all that, while also bringing your original culture to the mix. Gradually, over time, what part of your original culture you mixed with the whole culture of the new country you're living in should be the one you assume (ie. the "melting pot"). It's the process of becoming a member of that society. If you refuse to do that and stubbornly retain your original culture and not learn the lingua de franca, it's extremely disrespectful and you may as well GTFO. Multiculturalism, which promotes "preserving" all these original cultures, also promotes separatism and needs to be destroyed.
Admittedly, though, that's a tough call to make since the two look so alike that it's nearly indistinguishable. But for the "racism" of most people of our generation, I believe it's rooted in excessive stereotyping that's only reinforced by many members of these said races conforming to it to identify themselves with their own race even more. This also creates separatism, which is also reinforced by the broad idea of multiculturalism.
How could we have black only tables in American schools and 'blackness' if it weren't for the great joy of multiculturalism?
The problem of course is that many racist people are indeed prejudiced. Yet not all prejudiced inidivudals are racist.
Of course, this all depends on how you define racism.
I tend to see racism as basically being prejudiced toward an entire group of people simply for their race and regardless of any good qualities they may have. So I do tend to see prejudice toward a race as basically racism, as do most people.
The question, though, is whether today's racism is rooted in prejudice or stereotypes. And if it's rooted in stereotypes, is that necessarily racism or is it just ignorance?
And it also helps to bear in mind that stereotypes can lead to prejudice, and prejudice can lead to stereotypes, which complicates the entire matter all the more.
Prejudiced people who base their opinion on the members of certain groups on stereotypes usually tend to generalize their views based on a variety of sources: some of them base them on their often limited personal experience, others base it on statistics, yet others on "accepted" images some of which are based on truth or on a generalization of actual events. Yet for all this, those who make such generalizations may not be genuinely racist.
Exactly my point! People who say that all black people are criminals because there is a disproportionate percentage of blacks in prisons are not really "racist" going by this logic, but rather, are just ignorant in taking a generalization a tad too far.
I wish more people would recgonize this because if you truly want to combat these kinds of statements from being thrown around, it helps to understand whether it's really rooted in prejudice or stereotype.
I do agree with you though, seeing as from day one, we are bombarbed with stereotypes of whites being one way, blacks being another, mexicans acting like this, asians acting like that. The invention of the television will do that for ya.
However, from what I see on this forum, it seems like much hasn't really changed.
Actually, I think they fit what I've explained very well.
After all, you'll usually see them say crap like all black people are drug dealers and then use things like that to justify their prejudice. But you see, their prejudice seems to be built by those stereotypes rather than those stereotypes built by prejudice.
It's pivotal to recognize this, I think, if one ever wants to have any hope of fighting today's racism.
So people don't tend to do things, even though they know they are immoral? Then why do people lie, steal, and kill? I believe it's called 'Cognitive Dissonance.'
To an extent, I would agree. Cognitive dissonance was the psychological concept I was thinking of. But you must remember, lying, stealing, and killing are all actions, and when compared to racism, which tends to be more of of a veiw one holds, it is much more abstract. Thus it works a little differently.
I'm quite sure that most people who saw the lynching and the hosing knew that something was not right about that. Whether they thought it should be changed, is not the question.
And I would agree - most people back then regarded lynching and things like that as rather inhumane, even if to a non-white person. People did have a sense of humanity even then, although it was a bit different from ours today.
But my point of this entire topic is that the real difference when it came to racism then and now is the fact that racism then was rooted from prejudice, whereas now it's rooted from stereotypes. You'll find the numbers of white who really believes that blacks and other races were inferior to be much higher and that these people were inherently "bad" because of their race. Compare that to today and it seems most people don't go that route, but instead say they're "bad" for other reasons rooted from stereotyping rather than prejudice. This is the main difference I see.
Quote: from ButtSechs69 at 5:16 pm on June 9, 2008 People in that era knew that their beliefs and actions were immoral; most people today have have no problem with the way they feel about other races. I beg to differ. Many people were as you said, but quite a number of people in the early 1900s didn't believe that their beliefs and feelings towards other races were "immoral." Had they truly believed that, nobody would have truly been racist - people don't tend to hold contradicting beliefs like that.
People in that era knew that their beliefs and actions were immoral; most people today have have no problem with the way they feel about other races.
I beg to differ. Many people were as you said, but quite a number of people in the early 1900s didn't believe that their beliefs and feelings towards other races were "immoral." Had they truly believed that, nobody would have truly been racist - people don't tend to hold contradicting beliefs like that.
So people don't tend to do things, even though they know they are immoral? Then why do people lie, steal, and kill? I believe it's called 'Cognitive Dissonance.' I'm quite sure that most people who saw the lynching and the hosing knew that something was not right about that. Whether they thought it should be changed, is not the question. I don't deny that there were a lot of Klan members out there who had no problem putting the boot to a black's head, but those weren't as common as people would lead you to believe. I think your average American who allowed the racial injustices to occur in America knew that what was happening wasn't right. If they didn't, then things would have never changed in America (that is, if I were using your same logic).
About 100 years ago, people tended to have the idea that all races should be separate but equal - hence segregation. The but equal part was important because it gave people something to hide behind when they did feel their feelings toward other races were immoral (which were a significant group of people actually), but in reality, we all know that it was never truly equal and this fact was certainly highligted back then, but who cared? Any writings about races back then tended to be far more demeaning and condescending toward non-white races which justified the segregation even if unequal, hence an actual prejudice (though stereotypes played their role, but not as strongly as today).
I believe that people openly despising another race out of prejudice has gone way down. Nowadays, people hate each other more their stereotypes than actual prejudice. Stereotypes can root from prejudice, and prejudice can root from stereotypes too, but today, I believe the stereotypes are truly the root of the matter as opposed to the prejudice of 100 years ago.
381 users online 
223128 members 216 active today Advertise Here
381 users online 223128 members 216 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
