Racism

[BGIF]

I ran across the following article and did some seraching and didnt see a thread so i am starting this thread to have an honest discussion on racism as many times it is from one perspective and not from others. See this initial article.


Case of white 11-year-old charged with burning black boy stirs racial tension in Clarendon County, where history runs deep | News | postandcourier.com



Edit: I would like to impress upon all posters to refrain from low energy posts and judgmental posts as much as possible please. Lets keep this civil. We are all IE brothers.

What a BS piece of yellow journalism! Angela Jackson should get an F for this piece. It should not be the basis for the topic of this thread. I read the article as well as any other aticle google produced on a search of 11 year old sets 6 year old on fire. Jackson managed to capture the Tawana Brawley aspects of mama screaming racism while attacking the authorities for lack of justice.

The article is entitled, "A young black boy was set on fire. A white boy was charged. But a history of racial tension runs deep in Clarendon County."

1 A young black boy was set on fire.

2. A white boy was charged.

3. BUT a history of racial tension runs deep in Clarendon County.

Note that the black is YOUNG. He is six. The white boy apparently isn't YOUNG although he's 11. The meat of the story is the BUT. It's known as an erasure word regardless of what came before here comes the real message, racial tension runs deep here.


How deep does it run in an 11 year old? Are mom and stepdad KKKers? Is there a history of racial hatred taught in THIS family? The article notes the families kids weren't supposed to play with each other in a unsupported smear. Seems nobody knows why even though the incident took place in October 2016. Six months isn't enough time for Angela Jackson to determine any facts? Jackson does mention that the white yard was supposed to be "cluttered".

The boy was playing near a grill when he was supposed to be home in his room , "grounded". Was the six year old playing with the lighter fluid NEAR THE GRILL? Did the older boy, regardless of race, spray the younger one and ignite him? By accident? Intentionally?

Was he screaming racial epithets? Wearing a white hood? Shouting black lives don't matter? Claiming his IQ was higher? Or that Larry Bird could out jump His Airness?

The article goes to say the stepfather of the alleged assailant rolled the boy in a puddle of water to put out the fire. Why would a racist family provide aid?

The article continues that the stepfather walked the YOUNG boy home. A few sentences later the article notes the stepfather was carrying the boy in his arms? Which was it?

The article goes on to note that mama wasn't allowed to speak of the incident because of an impending election. It notes sheriff at the time was white but the current sheriff is black. Mama claims she can't get no satisfaction yet in another article the current sheriff claims he reached out to the family but they won't make contact with him.

There was an investigation and charges IN FAMILY COURT. Family court activities usually aren't public because of the age of those involved.

The 11 year was charged in a month and two days, yet mama's upset that it was justice delayed? Why so long? Was it long?

The article notes that The National Action Network reached out to help the family in pursuing racial justice. WTF are they? Google informs me, it's the organization founded by Al Sharpton. Ah, the guy that brought the world the fraudulent Tawana Brawley rape/police coverup case.

We learn the fire department ruled the incident accidental but Jackson doesn't present any information from that report. Did Family Court suppress it, Angie or didn't it fit your narrative?

Jackson spent more time on racial incidents in the past than she does on the facts and finding in this incident.

Jim Crow? Really?

Was the 11 year old enforcing segregation, Angie?

Was he preventing the six year old from owning property or abrogating his right to vote, Angie?


It's a tragedy that anyone suffers such burns as Emery McCray did whether intentional or accidental. It's a tragedy for mama and activists to try and high jack justice. Let Family Court run do it's job and rule on the incident. If they don't like the outcome they can challenge the ruling as law allows.


By the way, when not stirring the pot for the post courier, Angie Jackson "enjoys teaching yoga and exploring the outdoors".

 

[Legacy]

The NRA's Struggle to Prove Black Guns Matter

In the first three months of this year, gun purchases have gone down nationally by 14 percent compared with the same period in 2016, according to federal background check data, but gun store owners report an increase in sales to blacks, Hispanics and members of the LGBT community. It’s a surge driven in large measure by horrific incidents such as the shootings at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston and Pulse nightclub in Orlando. Many in the targeted groups have found themselves reconsidering their opposition to firearms as a means for self-defense. “We had a mix of people who joined up in response to the Pulse shooting, as well as the election,” Sarah Jane Smith, an organizer with the Atlanta chapter of the LGBTQ-friendly gun organization Pink Pistols, wrote in a Facebook message. In California, Redstone Firearms owner Geneva Solomon, who is black, has recently seen black customers double because Trump’s election, she said, gave prejudiced people “a license to talk bad to you, call you out and harass you.”

“It’s been probably the last two years, [where] the minority community really got into it,” said Sharrod Edwards, a retired U.S. Marine. “Whereas, it’s almost to the point—I’m trying to think about how to say this in the right way…it’s almost like a taboo for a minority to want to get into this because how they think people are going to see them. I carry open—and it’s weird, when you carry open, with a gun on your hip.” No one blinks, he said, if they see a white guy with a gun on his hip. But people “ask me: ‘Do you have a license?’ I’m like, ‘What license?’ To be honest, I don’t need a license. The law says in Georgia I don’t need a license to carry open—that’s why I carry open.”

“Look at a black man with a firearm, and they're always being looked at in a negative light,” Williams agreed.

Racism relies on stereotyping. The NRA as the protector of Second Amendment rights is based on an underlying mythology that law and order violators and criminals are people of color. The NRA's stated goals of gun ownership unrestrained by registration or regulations will level the playing field for all, and will increase gun ownership among minorities - a situation that may disturb those members who adhere to the racial stereotype.

 

[Cackalacky]

What a BS piece of yellow journalism! Angela Jackson should get an F for this piece. It should not be the basis for the topic of this thread. I read the article as well as any other aticle google produced on a search of 11 year old sets 6 year old on fire. Jackson managed to capture the Tawana Brawley aspects of mama screaming racism while attacking the authorities for lack of justice.

The article is entitled, "A young black boy was set on fire. A white boy was charged. But a history of racial tension runs deep in Clarendon County."

1 A young black boy was set on fire.

2. A white boy was charged.

3. BUT a history of racial tension runs deep in Clarendon County.

Note that the black is YOUNG. He is six. The white boy apparently isn't YOUNG although he's 11. The meat of the story is the BUT. It's known as an erasure word regardless of what came before here comes the real message, racial tension runs deep here.


How deep does it run in an 11 year old? Are mom and stepdad KKKers? Is there a history of racial hatred taught in THIS family? The article notes the families kids weren't supposed to play with each other in a unsupported smear. Seems nobody knows why even though the incident took place in October 2016. Six months isn't enough time for Angela Jackson to determine any facts? Jackson does mention that the white yard was supposed to be "cluttered".

The boy was playing near a grill when he was supposed to be home in his room , "grounded". Was the six year old playing with the lighter fluid NEAR THE GRILL? Did the older boy, regardless of race, spray the younger one and ignite him? By accident? Intentionally?

Was he screaming racial epithets? Wearing a white hood? Shouting black lives don't matter? Claiming his IQ was higher? Or that Larry Bird could out jump His Airness?

The article goes to say the stepfather of the alleged assailant rolled the boy in a puddle of water to put out the fire. Why would a racist family provide aid?

The article continues that the stepfather walked the YOUNG boy home. A few sentences later the article notes the stepfather was carrying the boy in his arms? Which was it?

The article goes on to note that mama wasn't allowed to speak of the incident because of an impending election. It notes sheriff at the time was white but the current sheriff is black. Mama claims she can't get no satisfaction yet in another article the current sheriff claims he reached out to the family but they won't make contact with him.

There was an investigation and charges IN FAMILY COURT. Family court activities usually aren't public because of the age of those involved.

The 11 year was charged in a month and two days, yet mama's upset that it was justice delayed? Why so long? Was it long?

The article notes that The National Action Network reached out to help the family in pursuing racial justice. WTF are they? Google informs me, it's the organization founded by Al Sharpton. Ah, the guy that brought the world the fraudulent Tawana Brawley rape/police coverup case.

We learn the fire department ruled the incident accidental but Jackson doesn't present any information from that report. Did Family Court suppress it, Angie or didn't it fit your narrative?

Jackson spent more time on racial incidents in the past than she does on the facts and finding in this incident.

Jim Crow? Really?

Was the 11 year old enforcing segregation, Angie?

Was he preventing the six year old from owning property or abrogating his right to vote, Angie?


It's a tragedy that anyone suffers such burns as Emery McCray did whether intentional or accidental. It's a tragedy for mama and activists to try and high jack justice. Let Family Court run do it's job and rule on the incident. If they don't like the outcome they can challenge the ruling as law allows.


By the way, when not stirring the pot for the post courier, Angie Jackson "enjoys teaching yoga and exploring the outdoors".

You are exactly right BGIF. I chose this in part because of the way it was presented in the article. This is what and how we are being presented information. That is a major component to this discussion andone we should all be wary of.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I guess the new theory is that it's the firefighters and the cops who are racist, not the white dad. But maybe the white dad too.

Listen, I'm done.

I am not saying who is racist in the story. I can't judge that.

• The lame-duck sheriff definitely didn't do a proper investigation. (Could have been short-timers disease, or the incompetence, after all, he lost the election.)
• The fire department passed through a scientifically untenable story about how the injury occurred. (Could have been abject stupidity, and unprofessional or unethical behavior.)
• The step-father telling the story lied (could have been for no other reason than avoiding responsibility. But either way, there isn't evidence that he saved the boys life.)
• The 11-year-old did it, and he did it by sneaking up from behind, with the 6-year-old unawares.
• The 6-year-old kid wasn't allowed to play in the 11-year-old's house, for no apparent reason. They weren't friends.

But I am saying that there is enough to look at and that deniers in this thread are certainly motivated by racism. There is a huge difference between, it could be, I just don't know, and it isn't, can't be, and the various predictable knee-jerk reactions of 'first thing someone wants to do is call it racism,' or yeah but the other day several African-Americans did 'xyz' to a 'white guy.'

There is no shortage of examples. Sooner or later someone has to just tell the truth.
https://a.msn.com/r/2/BBAzGrt?m=en-us

 

[IrishLax]

The NRA's Struggle to Prove Black Guns Matter

Racism relies on stereotyping. The NRA as the protector of Second Amendment rights is based on an underlying mythology that law and order violators and criminals are people of color. The NRA's stated goals of gun ownership unrestrained by registration or regulations will level the playing field for all, and will increase gun ownership among minorities - a situation that may disturb those members who adhere to the racial stereotype.

What "mythology"? Are you denying gun violence facts here? It is well known and commonly accepted that there are HUGE differences in gun violence rates and types among gender/racial lines. This isn't "stereotyping," this is empirical fact.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/soci...ifferent-worlds-of-black-and-white-americans/

Gun deaths among young adult males are 4x higher for black men than white men. Considering only homicides, they're 19 times higher for black males than white males.

 

[drayer54]

What "mythology"? Are you denying gun violence facts here? It is well known and commonly accepted that there are HUGE differences in gun violence rates and types among gender/racial lines. This isn't "stereotyping," this is empirical fact.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/soci...ifferent-worlds-of-black-and-white-americans/

Gun deaths among young adult males are 4x higher for black men than white men. Considering only homicides, they're 19 times higher for black males than white males.

Yes, the crime and victim rates have a big disparity. I agree. In my state, the black population is 3% overall and 70% of the prison population. This was thrown at us a few times as we lobbied for SYG legislation this year.

What we are seeing in the inner cities is a push to give people their rights back. These areas are disproportionately affected by failing gun control policies and people want the right to self-defense. Both of the recent landmark supreme court cases came from DC and Chicago, where guns were effectively banned. Groups like Black Guns Matter (blackgunsmatter – Through the BLACK GUNS MATTER movement we educate and inform urban communities on their 2nd amendment rights and responsibilities.) are promoting self-defense strategies and techniques for people in urban areas as well as educating them about the law.

The hope is to deter some of the violence with a better presence of armed neighbors and make people safer who have to live in the neighborhoods where the gun crimes are concentrated. My hope is that this spreads a greater appreciation of our second amendment rights in areas that lean democrat.

 

[wizards8507]

But I am saying that there is enough to look at and that deniers in this thread are certainly motivated by racism.

Stop burying things like this in paragraph three of long posts. I want you to say it, clearly and explicitly. Say "wizards8507, you are a racist. BGIF, you are a racist. NDPhilly, you are a racist."

 

[Legacy]

What "mythology"? Are you denying gun violence facts here? It is well known and commonly accepted that there are HUGE differences in gun violence rates and types among gender/racial lines. This isn't "stereotyping," this is empirical fact.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/soci...ifferent-worlds-of-black-and-white-americans/

Gun deaths among young adult males are 4x higher for black men than white men. Considering only homicides, they're 19 times higher for black males than white males.

What I mean by "mythology" is the societal creation that helps us understand the culture around us, not the use of the word "myth" used to imply a falsehood. Certainly, gun violence is higher in minority communities, also including Hispanics. It also correlates to gender, to age and poverty. Statistics can be useful in developing resolution of negative impacts on those communities. Some would argue that the prevalence of gun ownership among minorities may be less than in nearby white communities or that whites have a much higher rates of suicides than blacks. We can stop there, which is inherently racial but not necessarily racist. That can lead to different conclusions based on perceptions of the society around us. The NRA, for instance, may see a low gun ownership in certain minority communities as a reason for increasing gun ownership for protection and to decrease violence in that community. Perhaps gun violence is more reflective of poverty and other social factors, but to come to that conclusion you would need to analyze beyond race and gender. Perhaps a young child as a victim of violence or seen a family member victimized by any violence is more inclined possess and use guns like the child in the article first posted and that may be generalized as racial intent. They might then end up contributing to that violence and be part of those statistics based on his or their perceptions. Having created a myth of the young black may combined with the NRAs advocacy of eliminating gun-free zones, including universities, as well as eliminating restrictions on open carry and gun ownership leads to a disproportionate carry of minorities in universities who have been exposed to that violence. The NRA's espousal of "responsible gun ownership" and overwhelmingly white membership may lead minorities to conclude that racial perceptions lead to racist policies or actions that disregard experiences of minority populations in high crime areas or as victims of violence by another race. That's the conundrum illustrated in the article facing the NRA, its white membership and its perception by minority communities having developed a myth about young black males carrying guns as the self-protection they espouse. In my opinion, limiting gun ownership among minorities would be racist.

 

[drayer54]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We win. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BlackGunsMatter?src=hash">#BlackGunsMatter</a> <a href="https://t.co/7jeAOLSpd8">pic.twitter.com/7jeAOLSpd8</a></p>— Maj Toure (@MAJTOURE) <a href="https://twitter.com/MAJTOURE/status/859036681701404672">May 1, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Behold the trending faces of the NRA convention. Colion Noir and Maj Toure are excellent. Dana Loesch isn't pictured, but another one for promoting arms with women.

 

[Legacy]

Charlottesville

Charlottesville

Few need reminding of the racism whose evil roots erupt in violence, targeting inidividuals and groups, that are embodied in the KKK and such fringe elements. Certainly, not those familiar with the history of Catholic Notre Dame. 78 years ago: Notre Dame battles the KKKNotre Dame Vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan (book) . In those days, students and ND were not restrained as in Charlottesville by false allegiances by bigots looking for violence to our Constitution, manipulating Amendments to which they have no commitment. Each of us need only examine our souls to know where we would stand if the Alt-Right would march down Notre Dame Avenue to the campus to celebrate a symbol of evil on our campus - barring the private ownership rights of the university - to know what the near unanimity of the University of Virginia students who stood up against such a disgusting display.
Rejecting that hate is a fundamental tenet of a society that protects American values, our democracy, and Christian teaching of tolerance for those who believe differently. Those who espouse white supremacy and the elimination of Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, blacks, other minorities etc, etc. from our society - to which they have no allegiance - need to be isolated, condemned and branded as the terrorists they are and every law enforcement agency needs to prioritize the neutering of them and loudly and unequivocally rejecting their foundation. Their speakers have no place on our campus or anywhere near it and should be dealt with as George Wallace was. Each of us have our family histories choosing almost all coming to America for what the ideals she represents. We've overcome a sad part of our history when, in many cases, families have emerged from not having that choice and were enslaved. Institutions and governments that clearly reject their beliefs, label them as true terrorists and address that abscess of hatred have our confidence and our support. As New Orleans' mayor said:

After the Civil War, these statues were a part of that terrorism as much as a burning cross on someone's lawn; they were erected purposefully to send a strong message to all who walked in their shadows about who was still in charge in this city. Should you have further doubt about the true goals of the Confederacy, in the very weeks before the war broke out, the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, made it clear that the Confederate cause was about maintaining slavery and white supremacy. He said in his now famous 'corner-stone speech' that the Confederacy's "cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

WHOSE HERITAGE? PUBLIC SYMBOLS OF THE CONFEDERACY (Southern Poverty Law Center)
The Stubborn Persistence of Confederate Monuments
How Texas is whitewashing Civil War history

We've heard a number of responses to Charlottesville and the Alt-Right from the President on down. Most recently,
Jeff Sessions:

"We’re going to protect the right to assemble and march and we’re going to prosecute anybody to the fullest extent of the law that violates the right to do so, you can be sure about that."

and

"The violence and deaths in Charlottesville strike at the heart of American law and justice. When such actions arise from racial bigotry and hatred, they betray our core values and cannot be tolerated.”

How would you feel?

 

[Wingman Ray]

To be honest, Ive often struggled with racism and more right view of racism for most of my adult life after going through high school with a best friend (and many other friends) who was/were black. It wasnt that I felt I was radical in any sense but leaned on life experiences that led me to justify in my mind at the time racist ideologies. My excuse was "You wait around long enough here and you will see for yourself". My wife, God bless her, never bought into that and refused to let me as well.

But recently (as in the last two months), I came across something that really changed my views. Something that had been there all along but I had just ignored.

Jesus came to save the black guy just as much as the white guy. And all of us are sinners who fall short of the glory of God. How do we love our neighbor if we are too busy looking at skin color?

Honestly, that was the game changer for me. Im not saying I dont ever feel old seeds creep up but I focus on those words and less of what this world (and my past) tells me.

 

[Cackalacky]

To be honest, Ive often struggled with racism and more right view of racism for most of my adult life after going through high school with a best friend (and many other friends) who was/were black. It wasnt that I felt I was radical in any sense but leaned on life experiences that led me to justify in my mind at the time racist ideologies. My excuse was "You wait around long enough here and you will see for yourself". My wife, God bless her, never bought into that and refused to let me as well.

But recently (as in the last two months), I came across something that really changed my views. Something that had been there all along but I had just ignored.

Jesus came to save the black guy just as much as the white guy. And all of us are sinners who fall short of the glory of God. How do we love our neighbor if we are too busy looking at skin color?

Honestly, that was the game changer for me. Im not saying I dont ever feel old seeds creep up but I focus on those words and less of what this world (and my past) tells me.

No one is born racist. Its a learned behavior. Jesus has fuck all to do with being racist.

 

[NorthDakota]

No one is born racist. Its a learned behavior. Jesus has fuck all to do with being racist.

don't think he said anything about being born racist... did he?

 

[Bishop2b5]

No one is born racist. Its a learned behavior. Jesus has fuck all to do with being racist.

To a certain extent Cack, I have to disagree with you on this. Xenophobia is almost certainly part of our genetic programming, and for good reason. Look around at countless animal species. They are generally NOT welcoming to any outsider (especially those who look or act differently) and will usually drive them away or kill them. Wolves, lions, chimps, elephants, and countless others come to mind. There are several reasons: scarcity of resources (including food, shelter and mates), the threat of attack from outsiders, diseases brought in by outsiders, threats to the power structure or status of current group members, etc., etc.

Human history has shown that we as a species are no different. In prehistoric times, almost any outsider coming into the tribe was viewed as a threat in one way or another. An outsider would be another mouth to feed, might be bringing in new diseases, would likely compete for mates, or might mean to kill you, and was thus rarely tolerated or welcomed. Xenophobia was a strong survival advantage, and the more xenophobic a person or group was, the better their chances of survival.

Such mistrust and shunning of those who "aren't us and aren't like us" is a trait that cuts across virtually every culture worldwide, which is a VERY strong indication that it's not just a learned behavior, but a genetically programmed one. None of this is to justify racism today, but an explanation of why many people are naturally racist/xenophobic, or why it's likely that racism isn't entirely a learned trait. I think it's probably more likely that NOT being racist is the learned behavior.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Just to be "academic" about this: prehistoric times are defined as times before "history" (i.e. documentation). The only opinions that we can have about the day-to-day attitudes of prehistoric humans are just that: "opinions." There is no data on whether "they" were "racist"/xenophobic or not. Attempting to universalize from modern technologically primitive hunter gatherers finds that tribal customs widely differ between one group and another. The same was true of Native Americans. The peoples of the mid-Asian deserts had a cultural trait of welcoming the stranger, even elaborately; so too is this spoken of in the Bible.

One cannot make the idealistic argument that "Man" is a noble savage, but neither can one make the argument that we are ignoble xenophobes "in the state of nature."

And, just to add an entirely different dimension: computer game contests have shown that the "nasty" self-oriented programs lose the survival contests to the Tit-for-Tat programs and even to the "nice" programs in the end. A better argument can be made for cooperation and neighborliness leading to survival (and certainly to thrival) more so than self-centeredness and violent isolationism.

 

[Cackalacky]

To a certain extent Cack, I have to disagree with you on this. Xenophobia is almost certainly part of our genetic programming, and for good reason. Look around at countless animal species. They are generally NOT welcoming to any outsider (especially those who look or act differently) and will usually drive them away or kill them. Wolves, lions, chimps, elephants, and countless others come to mind. There are several reasons: scarcity of resources (including food, shelter and mates), the threat of attack from outsiders, diseases brought in by outsiders, threats to the power structure or status of current group members, etc., etc.

Human history has shown that we as a species are no different. In prehistoric times, almost any outsider coming into the tribe was viewed as a threat in one way or another. An outsider would be another mouth to feed, might be bringing in new diseases, would likely compete for mates, or might mean to kill you, and was thus rarely tolerated or welcomed. Xenophobia was a strong survival advantage, and the more xenophobic a person or group was, the better their chances of survival.

Such mistrust and shunning of those who "aren't us and aren't like us" is a trait that cuts across virtually every culture worldwide, which is a VERY strong indication that it's not just a learned behavior, but a genetically programmed one. None of this is to justify racism today, but an explanation of why many people are naturally racist/xenophobic, or why it's likely that racism isn't entirely a learned trait. I think it's probably more likely that NOT being racist is the learned behavior.

I know of no genetic component regarding racism so I am not sure what you are getting at. This post reeks of eugenics and made up BS. I know of no anthropologists or studies that show people are inherently even quasi racist at conception.

Racism is typically introduced in cultures and subsequent cultural upbringing as a learned behavior. Though not all cultures as OMM stated many have cultural practices that promote cooperation and altruism. To go further, racism is but one aspect of cultural actions taken by a majority to suppress a minority. It has zip to do with genetics, it isnt a biological trait but a cultural one and it isnt passed on by sexual or assexual reproduction. Babies dont leave the womb as racists or predisposed to be except into the family unit's cultural rearing they are raised in.

 

[Cackalacky]

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/10/new-evidence-that-racism-isnt-natural/263785/
There are links to the research in the article.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

"Racism", as we know it today, is a thoroughly modern phenomena that didn't really exist in the West during the Classical and Medieval periods. Ancient Greeks and Romans certainly discriminated along cultural, religious and linguistic lines-- separating the world between the civilized and the barbaric-- but they didn't much care about something so obviously superficial as skin pigmentation. See Herodotus' descriptions of "Ethiopians" (which basically refers to all sub-Saharan Africans) in his Histories for one good example.

Racism was invented as a post-hoc justification for an economic caste system.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I know of no genetic component regarding racism so I am not sure what you are getting at. This post reeks of eugenics and made up BS. I know of no anthropologists or studies that show people are inherently even quasi racist at conception.

Racism is typically introduced in cultures and subsequent cultural upbringing as a learned behavior. Though not all cultures as OMM stated many have cultural practices that promote cooperation and altruism. To go further, racism is but one aspect of cultural actions taken by a majority to suppress a minority. It has zip to do with genetics, it isnt a biological trait but a cultural one and it isnt passed on by sexual or assexual reproduction. Babies dont leave the womb as racists or predisposed to be except into the family unit's cultural rearing they are raised in.

Facts and evidence couldn't care less about opinions and agendas. You see racism as something evil people do just to be mean or because of a character flaw. I gave you a very sound, easily demonstrable example of how it almost certainly has a strong genetic component that predisposes us or even drives us to practice it. Not a justification for it, but a biological underpinning of it. Similar to a biological explanation of the genetic underpinnings for sexual behavior. If I tell you that the drive to mate sometimes becomes so compelling that people commit rape, that doesn't justify rape nor make it OK nor absolve those who commit it. It just explains the biological forces that contribute to it. Understanding and recognizing those things is very helpful in learning to eliminate the problem.

Racism is a form of xenophobia: a fear, mistrust or dislike of outsiders or those different from ourselves. There are absolutely some genetic predisposition to such behavior for the simple reason that such behavior has a survival advantage. If you don't think it's a common trait across countless species, drop an ant from one colony into another and see what happens. Put an outside wolf into a pack and see how they treat him. Do it with lions, zebras, dolphins, gorillas, or most especially our closest relative, chimps. Look at a group of kids when a new kid moves to town and starts attending school with them or wants to join them on the playground. Sometimes they're welcoming, but most of the time they can be vicious little xenophobic shits for awhile. It's human nature.

Genetic and archaeological evidence clearly shows that most (not all, but most) encounters between prehistoric humans typically led to fighting and killing before the groups assimilated with each other (or one wiped the other out). Historic records show much the same in most cases. We are (as are most other species) genetically programmed to be xenophobic. Understanding that, why we're programmed to be that way, how it manifests itself, and what the advantages and disadvantages are can go a long way towards helping people see why it may not be a useful trait any longer and learn to rise above it, as we've learned to rise above many of our other baser instincts as we've become more civilized.

 

[Bishop2b5]

"Racism", as we know it today, is a thoroughly modern phenomena that didn't really exist in the West during the Classical and Medieval periods. Ancient Greeks and Romans certainly discriminated along cultural, religious and linguistic lines-- separating the world between the civilized and the barbaric-- but they didn't much care about something so obviously superficial as skin pigmentation.

Racism was invented as a post-hoc justification for a caste system created for economic reasons.

To a great extent, we tend to think of racism in today's America or at least Western civilization as something primarily involving Blacks & Whites, with a few other groups floating around on the fringe in a minor way. I'm speaking more of what would more accurately be termed bigotry or a xenophobic reaction to anyone of a different culture, nationality, religion or such, not just a different race. Our current form of racism is nothing more than a subset of that or its most visible current manifestation in our society today.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

To a great extent, we tend to think of racism in today's America or at least Western civilization as something primarily involving Blacks & Whites, with a few other groups floating around on the fringe in a minor way. I'm speaking more of what would more accurately be termed bigotry or a xenophobic reaction to anyone of a different culture, nationality, religion or such, not just a different race. Our current form of racism is nothing more than a subset of that or its most visible current manifestation in our society today.

You and Cacky seem to be arguing past each other, because while there may be some overlap between "xenophobia" and "racism" as concepts, they aren't the same thing. The former is often rational; the latter is, strictly speaking, never rational.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Bishop, respectfully: My education in both biology and anthropology was apparently from differing schools of thought. Almost every comment relating to genetic predisposition (intra-species, not of course inter-species) differs rather radically from the claims/assertions stated. The only way that I could imagine making a scientific argument for genetic xenophobia for ones own species would be from analysis of sub-species pheromone signals. My understanding of that science seems (to my reading) to come to the exact opposite deduction.

 

[Bishop2b5]

You and Cacky seem to be arguing past each other, because while there may be some overlap between "xenophobia" and "racism" as concepts, they aren't the same thing. The former is often rational; the latter is, strictly speaking, never rational.

And I would agree with you on both counts. My point is that racism, while irrational, stems to a certain extent from xenophobia. Maybe a better way of putting it is that irrational racism is a misguided or misapplied form of rational xenophobia, similar to how rape is a misapplied manifestation of our natural instinct to mate. My larger point to Cack is that viewing racism as nothing more than ignorance or a character flaw is not likely to address the total cause nor be particularly effective in eliminating it when it ignores the deeper, genetically ingrained contributions to human behavior.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

And I would agree with you on both counts. My point is that racism, while irrational, stems to a certain extent from xenophobia. Maybe a better way of putting it is that irrational racism is a misguided or misapplied form of rational xenophobia, similar to how rape is a misapplied manifestation of our natural instinct to mate.

You can find plenty of historical examples of elites mobilizing public opinion against a specific out-group for nefarious reasons. The pseudo-science of eugenics is probably the most obvious example of it. But you'll invariably provoke a very strong negative reaction from those sensitive to the evil wrought by these ideas if you try to argue that they've got any sort of firm empirical basis. Put another way, I think you'd do better focusing on the sociological aspects of in-group/ out-group behavior rather than trying to bring in evolutionary psych.

My larger point to Cack is that viewing racism as nothing more than ignorance or a character flaw is not likely to address the total cause nor be particularly effective in eliminating it when it ignores the deeper, genetically ingrained contributions to human behavior.

The best rhetorical strategies for combating racist ideology is well worth discussing, and I think you'd likely agree that much of the recent media coverage has been self-defeating to that end. But that's a very different subject than any alleged biological basis for racism.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Bishop, respectfully: My education in both biology and anthropology was apparently from differing schools of thought. Almost every comment relating to genetic predisposition (intra-species, not of course inter-species) differs rather radically from the claims/assertions stated. The only way that I could imagine making a scientific argument for genetic xenophobia for ones own species would be from analysis of sub-species pheromone signals. My understanding of that science seems (to my reading) to come to the exact opposite deduction.

Mike, to a large degree, we may indeed be talking past each other. I know myself that I'm struggling here to find the right words to accurately express my views, so I apologize if I do a poor job of doing so or give offense. My background is biology and psychology, and over the past 30 years or so I've found myself more and more drawn to genetic psychology (or behavioral genetics if you like): the study of genes on behavior or how our dna shapes our actions.

Certainly much of our behavior is learned, but a lot of it is strongly driven by our dna. Much of our sexual behavior, how we act when frightened or threatened, or how we act when angered (just to name a few things) are very strongly determined by our genetic programming and are essentially hard-wired into us and can only be changed with much effort.

To address your pheromone comment, I have no doubt that does play a large or even primary part in some species where rational or even emotional thought isn't paramount. As we move up the scale in cognitive and sensory abilities though, other factors come into play that may eliminate such. Most mammals would recognize an outsider as such simply by sight or smell. Higher apes such as chimps would rely on sight and even facial recognition. Several species of birds have been shown to avoid or outright reject birds from closely related subspecies due to slight differences in plumage (or their own group if plumage was altered).

As humans we probably don't rely much at all on pheromones or scent, but visual clues such as skin color, hair color or texture, clothing, adornment; auditory clues such as language or accents; and even cultural clues such as the music they listen to, their courtship behavior, or what they think is "cool" to label others as outsiders to be shunned, at least initially. Think of the typical reaction to and acceptance of (or lack thereof) you'd likely see if you took someone from rural GA and put them in Brooklyn (or vice-versa), an Iowa farm kid transplanted to Hollywood, or any countless other similar exchanges. They'd be instantly identified as definitely "not us" and more often than not be shunned, ostracized, or even mistreated for at least awhile. This isn't necessarily logical behavior and certainly isn't nice, but it sure appears to be exceptionally common across almost all cultures and races, which strongly suggests that there's a genetic component and is typical of human nature.

 

[Bishop2b5]

You can find plenty of historical examples of elites mobilizing public opinion against a specific out-group for nefarious reasons. The pseudo-science of eugenics is probably the most obvious example of it. But you'll invariably provoke a very strong negative reaction from those sensitive to the evil wrought by these ideas if you try to argue that they've got any sort of firm empirical basis. Put another way, I think you'd do better focusing on the sociological aspects of in-group/ out-group behavior rather than trying to bring in evolutionary psych.



The best rhetorical strategies for combating racist ideology is well worth discussing, and I think you'd likely agree that much of the recent media coverage has been self-defeating to that end. But that's a very different subject than any alleged biological basis for racism.

But therein lies a big part of the problem with current beliefs and discourse concerning them, Whiskey. You can't state facts, offer differing opinions, ask the ideologically fixed to consider different views or explanations, nor bring any ideas to the discussion that might offend without some getting angry and wanting to burn you at the stake for even suggesting that there might be other or better explanations or solutions. History is littered with examples of those vilified for suggesting the popular beliefs at the time were wrong when time eventually showed they WERE wrong. Those who have a meltdown or get offended when their beliefs are challenged are stifling discourse and likely missing some things that will be shown to be true eventually. Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Alvarez, Churchill, and a hundred others approve this message.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

But therein lies a big part of the problem with current beliefs and discourse concerning them, Whiskey. You can't state facts, offer differing opinions, ask the ideologically fixed to consider different views or explanations, nor bring any ideas to the discussion that might offend without some getting angry and wanting to burn you at the stake for even suggesting that there might be other or better explanations or solutions. History is littered with examples of those vilified for suggesting the popular beliefs at the time were wrong when time eventually showed they WERE wrong. Those who have a meltdown or get offended when their beliefs are challenged are stifling discourse and likely missing some things that will be shown to be true eventually. Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Alvarez, Churchill, and a hundred others approve this message.

I'm sympathetic to this problem, because there are many aspects of Catholic doctrine that conflict with the prevailing consensus. But the "science" of eugenics isn't new. It has not only been used as justification for some of the worst atrocities in human history, but it has been empirically debunked over and over again.

So if you've got a particular study you'd like to discuss, by all means, let's do that. But these issues can never be completely divorced from social context, and our own history of racial apartheid makes people justifiably wary of the subject.

 

[Bishop2b5]

I'm sympathetic to this problem, because there are many aspects of Catholic doctrine that conflict with the prevailing consensus. But the "science" of eugenics isn't new. It has not only been used as justification for some of the worst atrocities in human history, but it has been empirically debunked over and over again.

So if you've got a particular study you'd like to discuss, by all means, let's do that. But these issues can never be completely divorced from social context, and our own history of racial apartheid makes people justifiably wary of the subject.

Maybe I missed something earlier in the thread, but I don't know how eugenics got brought into this. I never mentioned it nor even thought about it. I was simply pointing out that much of our behavior is strongly influenced by genetics and that there was almost certainly a genetic component to our xenophobic behavior, which likely contributes to our all too common racist behavior. I don't see any connection to eugenics. Did I miss something here?

 

[Cackalacky]

Facts and evidence couldn't care less about opinions and agendas. You see racism as something evil people do just to be mean or because of a character flaw. I gave you a very sound, easily demonstrable example of how it almost certainly has a strong genetic component that predisposes us or even drives us to practice it. Not a justification for it, but a biological underpinning of it. Similar to a biological explanation of the genetic underpinnings for sexual behavior. If I tell you that the drive to mate sometimes becomes so compelling that people commit rape, that doesn't justify rape nor make it OK nor absolve those who commit it. It just explains the biological forces that contribute to it. Understanding and recognizing those things is very helpful in learning to eliminate the problem.

Racism is a form of xenophobia: a fear, mistrust or dislike of outsiders or those different from ourselves. There are absolutely some genetic predisposition to such behavior for the simple reason that such behavior has a survival advantage. If you don't think it's a common trait across countless species, drop an ant from one colony into another and see what happens. Put an outside wolf into a pack and see how they treat him. Do it with lions, zebras, dolphins, gorillas, or most especially our closest relative, chimps. Look at a group of kids when a new kid moves to town and starts attending school with them or wants to join them on the playground. Sometimes they're welcoming, but most of the time they can be vicious little xenophobic shits for awhile. It's human nature.

Genetic and archaeological evidence clearly shows that most (not all, but most) encounters between prehistoric humans typically led to fighting and killing before the groups assimilated with each other (or one wiped the other out). Historic records show much the same in most cases. We are (as are most other species) genetically programmed to be xenophobic. Understanding that, why we're programmed to be that way, how it manifests itself, and what the advantages and disadvantages are can go a long way towards helping people see why it may not be a useful trait any longer and learn to rise above it, as we've learned to rise above many of our other baser instincts as we've become more civilized.

I agree 100 percent on facts and evidence. I dont think you have presented any such yet, just assertions and claims. Please provide me with any info on genetic xenophobia and I will glady read it. I like wise have astrong background in Biology (Marine and envrionmental) and many if my classes were anthropological in scope (evolutionary anthro, ecological anthro and environmental anthro).

What it seems to me is that you are taking evolutionarily adapted responses to stimuli such as the "fight or flight" response to danger and any internalized analaysis and applying it to some sort of genetic condition. I dont think that one could make the case that any such group of humans has genes of any variety that control how they respond to external dangers. We know external stimuli produces chemical and physical responses which lead to external manifestations but I dont think or have read that xenophobia is one. Xenophobia or its rejection is a learned behavior. We know that conditions like anxiety are genetic to an extent such that yes maybe someone could be more inherently afraid but usually these things take time to develop and can be reconditioned if identified. As OMM said, i have found nothing of the sort and I am sorry to come off as disagreeing so strongly but I dont know what else to say. You have not provided anything that I can review or read, just assertions, which on their surface appear unsound. I dont mean to be harsh.

To be clear xenophobia is not even a clinically defined condition and it certainly isnt a genetically based condition such as depression or anxiety or other phobias, its primarily a social construct/realization between ingroup and outgroups. Racism is not equivalent xenophobia either. It is a social tool used by majorities to suppress minorities. I think Whiskeyjack has already stated this but I am acknowledging I agree with his statements.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Maybe I missed something earlier in the thread, but I don't know how eugenics got brought into this. I never mentioned it nor even thought about it. I was simply pointing out that much of our behavior is strongly influenced by genetics and that there was almost certainly a genetic component to our xenophobic behavior, which likely contributes to our all too common racist behavior. I don't see any connection to eugenics. Did I miss something here?

The connection is this:

• Some of the behaviors typically classified as "xenophobia" have a rational basis;
• "Racism", strictly speaking, is never rational; and
• Arguing that racism is a subset of xenophobic behavior imputes a rational basis to the former that doesn't really exist.

If there were a genetic component to racism, we should expect to find it all throughout human history; but we don't. The ancient Greeks, Romans, and medievals really didn't care much about the color of your skin. That's why racism, and the "science" of eugenics that attempts to give it empirical respectability, are a modern phenomenon.