Sexism/Racism

Specifics

Ok, so it seems my mind is not so easily controlled by what my egotistical self deems boring or worthy.

And it has decided that, for me, a more realistic starting point for a debate on racism/sexism than whether words mean what they mean, would be:

1. Is it wiser to accept natural bias/bigotry and seek to understand it, or to seek to justify and ignore it? (could possibly lead to (Edit:) the same arguments as previously)

OR

2. To what degree if any is natural bias/bigotry necessary for us to reach full understanding and potential as a race? like two cogs in a machine, do we fight and interact together, or smoothly and peacefuly turn together, to form something greater?

anyways, debate or don't debate, thats me off for a good anglo-saxon male meal of meat and potatoes and to watch x-men 3 and get paid for it:)

angelica

Specifics wrote:

Ok, so it seems my mind is not so easily controlled by what my egotistical self deems boring or worthy.

And it has decided that, for me, a more realistic starting point for a debate on racism/sexism than whether words mean what they mean, would be:

1. Is it wiser to accept natural bias/bigotry and seek to understand it, or to seek to justify and ignore it? (could possibly lead to the same ego tickling bullshit as previously)

OR

2. Is a reasonable amount of natural bias/bigotry necessary for us to reach full understanding and potential as a race? like two cogs in a machine, that, rather than fight and deny, interact together to form something greater.

anyways, debate or don't debate, thats me off for a good anglo-saxon male meal of meat and potatoes and to watch x-men 3 and get paid for it:)

As human beings natural bias/bigotry is necessary to reach full understanding and potential as a race, for sure.

It is always wise to seek wisdom. We'll recognize when we're off-track, cause we'll find conflict with life. It's a sure sign there is something to pay attention to, and it's always a good idea to widen our horizons to beyond our own ego, in embracing others, in order to resolve the conflict and move on.

Collin

Specifics wrote:

Ok, so it seems my mind is not so easily controlled by what my egotistical self deems boring or worthy.

And it has decided that, for me, a more realistic starting point for a debate on racism/sexism than whether words mean what they mean, would be:

1. Is it wiser to accept natural bias/bigotry and seek to understand it, or to seek to justify and ignore it? (could possibly lead to the same ego tickling bullshit as previously)

OR

2. Is a reasonable amount of natural bias/bigotry necessary for us to reach full understanding and potential as a race? like two cogs in a machine, that, rather than fight and deny, interact together to form something greater.

anyways, debate or don't debate, thats me off for a good anglo-saxon male meal of meat and potatoes and to watch x-men 3 and get paid for it:)

I agree that this is a much better starting point. I'll try to answer your question without too much ego tickling bullshit and without too much intelligence.

I'd say it's wiser to accept natural bias and bigotry as a part of human nature. I also agree we should try to understand it and where it comes from.

That being said, I think the "victims" should also recognize it for what it is. When it comes to language in a direct form, I think it isn't a bad idea to ignore it, and educate people (not that certain words can't be used) but rather educate them about you as a targeted group of bias or prejudice. Show people that their conceptions about a race, a gender, a group are false. That way more people are likely to not use a word, or perhaps rise above the negative meaning of a word.

When we're talking about actions, the active discrimination of people, I don't think ignoring is a perfect strategy, though, at some levels it might work. Thee are certain organization that will help people that are discriminated against to take legal action, for instance. This is, however, forcing people to accept your view, but it can work. Again, education is a vital instrument against prejudice.

I'd like to add one more thing and that is we should be careful how much power he give these organizations and how much power the oppressed get.

Anyway, you get paid to see X-men 3 :eek: (you will notice that prejudice and oppression are major themes in those movies )

Specifics

angelica wrote:

As human beings natural bias/bigotry is necessary to reach full understanding and potential as a race, for sure.

It is always wise to seek wisdom. We'll recognize when we're off-track, cause we'll find conflict with life. It's a sure sign there is something to pay attention to, and it's always a good idea to widen our horizons to beyond our own ego, in embracing others, in order to resolve the conflict and move on.

You'll have to excuse me angelica, i don't mean to be rude, i just popped back to change my original post as i wasnt actually asking the question i felt to ask, now i have to dissapear again. I think to be honest that i am just satisfied that i have reached conclusion with what was bugging me about the whole b-word (i've noticed you won't say it ) thing, and i thank all involved for that.

with respect to bigotry, i feel it's one thing that i really do have under control, and i also think that lessons are learned rather than taught! so i will be refraining from conversation for a while, and going off to learn something!

Have a good one.

Specifics

Collin wrote:

I agree that this is a much better starting point. I'll try to answer your question without too much ego tickling bullshit and without too much intelligence.

I'd say it's wiser to accept natural bias and bigotry as a part of human nature. I also agree we should try to understand it and where it comes from.

That being said, I think the "victims" should also recognize it for what it is. When it comes to language in a direct form, I think it isn't a bad idea to ignore it, and educate people (not that certain words can't be used) but rather educate them about you as a targeted group of bias or prejudice. Show people that their conceptions about a race, a gender, a group are false. That way more people are likely to not use a word, or perhaps rise above the negative meaning of a word.

When we're talking about actions, the active discrimination of people, I don't think ignoring is a perfect strategy, though, at some levels it might work. Thee are certain organization that will help people that are discriminated against to take legal action, for instance. This is, however, forcing people to accept your view, but it can work. Again, education is a vital instrument against prejudice.

I'd like to add one more thing and that is we should be careful how much power he give these organizations and how much power the oppressed get.

Anyway, you get paid to see X-men 3 :eek: (you will notice that prejudice and oppression are major themes in those movies )

Excellent!

I would say that much of the spoken side of bigotry can definitely be overcome by the victim taking the power of the word away, whether that helps the aggressor to overcome their problem, is, i guess, their problem, and their lesson to learn. Also i think there is an amount of this possible in relation to the second question in my op.

When it becomes a more real or "active" thing this is wholly different, and i am by no means a committed pacifist or a believer necessarily in appeasement (or good spelling maybe!), and neither do i have time right now to relax here where i have internet connection, i have to go back to work, as a security guard, where i can indeed watch movies, or play my guitar or do whatever i want but all on my own which is the downside to it sometimes!

And i had planned all along to watch xmen3 this evening, but i posted it as i yes it does fit very nicely into the subject..:)

And i may not be around to take part too much in any debate that may follow as i really have had enough of hearing my own bullshit for a while!!

Collin

Specifics wrote:

Excellent!

I would say that much of the spoken side of bigotry can definitely be overcome by the victim taking the power of the word away, whether that helps the aggressor to overcome their problem, is, i guess, their problem, and their lesson to learn. Also i think there is an amount of this possible in relation to the second question in my op.

When it becomes a more real or "active" thing this is wholly different, and i am by no means a committed pacifist or a believer necessarily in appeasement (or good spelling maybe!), and neither do i have time right now to relax here where i have internet connection, i have to go back to work, as a security guard, where i can indeed watch movies, or play my guitar or do whatever i want but all on my own which is the downside to it sometimes!

And i had planned all along to watch xmen3 this evening, but i posted it as i yes it does fit very nicely into the subject..:)

And i may not be around to take part too much in any debate that may follow as i really have had enough of hearing my own bullshit for a while!!

Ah, I see. Well, I'm off to bed anyway, where I'll probably be thinking about your second question, which I find very interesting.

Enjoy your movie, I thought it was great, maybe the best one out of the trilogy.

rebornFixer

I think in-group biases are indeed natural and to-be-expected ... This does not mean that they should be disregarded, though, when they become obviously harmful. Obviously, humans also have the capacity to rise above in-group bias, at least under certain conditions. The basic finding here is that familiarity with members of other racial or cultural groups breeds a greater degree of tolerance, acceptance, and even liking for members of the "out-group". People should be encouraged to learn about other groups of people ... I have my own opinions on how this should be done. I do not advocate laying guilt trips on white people (or any other group), but I do support educating people about racial differences in a way that fosters empathy and understanding. For example, I have taken two very different sociology classes. One was taught by a bitter individual who spent 90% of the time railing against "the white man" (yes, she used this term explictly) and how they'd done her (and her people) wrong. You can imagine how fun that was to sit through, as a white male. I left these lectures feeling resentful, pissy, exhausted, or guilty, depending on the day, and I experienced a lot of reactance. My attitude at the time was basically "get off my fucking case already, and take some personal responsibility for your own actions and those of your people". Helpful attitude to have? Probably not ... A bit too far in the knee-jerk reaction direction. I later took another class, same basic subject matter ... But the instructor conceded that their were different views of race relations. She let you have an opinion that was contrary to hers, and she gave permission to one to air said opinion. She wasn't shy about poking holes in people's arguments, and she was open about her own biases. In the end, I walked out of there with a new attitude about those people who are indeed less fortunate than I am. Empathy came, finally ... I still have opinions about race relations that do not jive all that well with standard "left wing" approaches to the problem, but I like to think that I am a lot more sensitive now.

angelica

Specifics wrote:

...the whole b-word (i've noticed you won't say it ) ...

I think I finally did say it, in quotes! You are observant, though! I don't use what I consider profane words. I'm a Taurus, and being ruled by Venus, the planet that inspires me with appreciation for love and beauty, I prefer to rather use words that inspire than offend. There are a million ramifications I am conscious of with such choice.

angelica

Specifics wrote:

...2. To what degree if any is natural bias/bigotry necessary for us to reach full understanding and potential as a race? like two cogs in a machine, do we fight and interact together, or smoothly and peacefuly turn together, to form something greater?

In order to evolve as we are, at a level of developing our human individuality, much of the journey includes developing our egos. We must develop separately, which includes bia, and as we grow, so many blindspots. It is a necessary part of our evolution to do this. There is a light on the other side of this tunnel vision: the Light of pure Potential. Our evolution is glorious. When we make our horrific errors, we are, as NMyTree recently alluded to, like small children burning ourselves on the stove. We don't know any better.

We have the choice, as you point to, to smoothly and peacefully turn together to form something greater. I endeavor to do this all the time, and I've gotten quite developed in human development. And still, By virtue of looking through individual lens, I err all the time. It's par for the course.

DixieN

I think the foundations of racism are based in survival. The desire of genes was to protect this particular gene pool (without any sentient consent from humans), so intermingling with "the other," whether human or not was very much verboten. In general, I believe racism has been the promotion of one set of genes at the expense of other sets because maybe this one set of genes would be the only set left when nature was done with us. When there were dozens of discretely scattered sets of human genes across the planet, this made sense. A disease that might wipe out one population might not do so well with another. It no longer makes much sense, though, as the world is "much smaller" than it once was and discrete populations of humans are rapidly fading into history. In a big world with vast divides, strength was in diversity of groups. Now, it is to our advantage to work together and intermingle. In a small world our strength now lies in the diversity of individuals.

I like to think that in the beginning biology on autopilot was necessary, but as we become more knowledgeable and share that knowledge amongst ourselves, what we know and what can know will become more powerful tools for our survival than simply what biology dictates we are.

In the end, racism was good for conferring survival on a group, but it is, ironically really, antithetical to the survival of humans as a whole or to the survival of humans as individuals at any time. If find it interesting, as I type this, to compare this a bit to physics. Rules that apply to the micro don't apply in the macro. Kind of the same thing for micro populations of humans vs. macro populations. Racism persists because we have, as a species, only recently entered the stage where we have enough knowledge and enough leisure to question and more directly shape our own possibilities.

Specifics

Specifics wrote:

(could possibly lead to the same ego tickling bullshit as previously)

Specifics wrote:

with respect to bigotry, i feel it's one thing that i really do have under control, and i also think that lessons are learned rather than taught! so i will be refraining from conversation for a while, and going off to learn something!

Speaking of ego tickling bullshit! defence? tired, in a hurry and human i guess! what i was really thinking was the mouth learns nothing! however it helps inspire others to teach us i guess. Poses another question to me of what part the ego has to play in inspiring our learning, would we bother without it?(which i now notice angelica beat me to!!), but anyway thers a topic to this thread ye!

Specifics

angelica wrote:

In order to evolve as we are, at a level of developing our human individuality, much of the journey includes developing our egos. We must develop separately, which includes bia, and as we grow, so many blindspots. It is a necessary part of our evolution to do this. There is a light on the other side of this tunnel vision: the Light of pure Potential. Our evolution is glorious. When we make our horrific errors, we are, as NMyTree recently alluded to, like small children burning ourselves on the stove. We don't know any better.

We have the choice, as you point to, to smoothly and peacefully turn together to form something greater. I endeavor to do this all the time, and I've gotten quite developed in human development. And still, By virtue of looking through individual lens, I err all the time. It's par for the course.

But i also point to another choice. I mean, and i think you do make it clear what you think about it, but is there a place for the fighting and the friction, within reasonable boundaries? or even within limitless boundaries i guess, does this also inspire us and keep us learning? I think you may be saying that this is the initial part of the journey from where we move on to the smoother more peaceful revolution.

What i am saying with this, and it refers strictly to sexism rather than racism i think, i think its a big mistake to put these 2 together as they are wholly different things i come to realise, is that i think there is a place for a man to be a man, and a woman to be a woman, and to accept and respect each others differences, but to battle them just the same, i think that this is healthy and possibly what life is. Rather than to become a perfect balance between the 2? this suggests it is impossible for one to become whole, rather its necessary to be a part of a couple to realise the wholeness of it all, and i guess, even gets into homosexuality! .

And im also a taurus, which going by your explanation, would explain why i feel like a big girl a lot these days..:)

Specifics

DixieN wrote:

I think the foundations of racism are based in survival. The desire of genes was to protect this particular gene pool (without any sentient consent from humans), so intermingling with "the other," whether human or not was very much verboten. In general, I believe racism has been the promotion of one set of genes at the expense of other sets because maybe this one set of genes would be the only set left when nature was done with us. When there were dozens of discretely scattered sets of human genes across the planet, this made sense. A disease that might wipe out one population might not do so well with another. It no longer makes much sense, though, as the world is "much smaller" than it once was and discrete populations of humans are rapidly fading into history. In a big world with vast divides, strength was in diversity of groups. Now, it is to our advantage to work together and intermingle. In a small world our strength now lies in the diversity of individuals.

I like to think that in the beginning biology on autopilot was necessary, but as we become more knowledgeable and share that knowledge amongst ourselves, what we know and what can know will become more powerful tools for our survival than simply what biology dictates we are.

In the end, racism was good for conferring survival on a group, but it is, ironically really, antithetical to the survival of humans as a whole or to the survival of humans as individuals at any time. If find it interesting, as I type this, to compare this a bit to physics. Rules that apply to the micro don't apply in the macro. Kind of the same thing for micro populations of humans vs. macro populations. Racism persists because we have, as a species, only recently entered the stage where we have enough knowledge and enough leisure to question and more directly shape our own possibilities.

I like the scientific approach, but what it makes me wonder is about how much of it is actually natural? i don't think its evident in small children. And yes we change a lot as we grow, and we become more aware of survival needs which could maybe bring on a natural suspicion of differences. But also i have to wonder about how much of it is passed down through psychological social control, religion maybe? basically divide and conquer. Call it paranoia if you like but i often get stuck on this, and i think its always worth taking into account.

Heineken Helen

reborncareerist wrote:

I think in-group biases are indeed natural and to-be-expected ... This does not mean that they should be disregarded, though, when they become obviously harmful. Obviously, humans also have the capacity to rise above in-group bias, at least under certain conditions. The basic finding here is that familiarity with members of other racial or cultural groups breeds a greater degree of tolerance, acceptance, and even liking for members of the "out-group". People should be encouraged to learn about other groups of people ... I have my own opinions on how this should be done. I do not advocate laying guilt trips on white people (or any other group), but I do support educating people about racial differences in a way that fosters empathy and understanding. For example, I have taken two very different sociology classes. One was taught by a bitter individual who spent 90% of the time railing against "the white man" (yes, she used this term explictly) and how they'd done her (and her people) wrong. You can imagine how fun that was to sit through, as a white male. I left these lectures feeling resentful, pissy, exhausted, or guilty, depending on the day, and I experienced a lot of reactance. My attitude at the time was basically "get off my fucking case already, and take some personal responsibility for your own actions and those of your people". Helpful attitude to have? Probably not ... A bit too far in the knee-jerk reaction direction. I later took another class, same basic subject matter ... But the instructor conceded that their were different views of race relations. She let you have an opinion that was contrary to hers, and she gave permission to one to air said opinion. She wasn't shy about poking holes in people's arguments, and she was open about her own biases. In the end, I walked out of there with a new attitude about those people who are indeed less fortunate than I am. Empathy came, finally ... I still have opinions about race relations that do not jive all that well with standard "left wing" approaches to the problem, but I like to think that I am a lot more sensitive now.

I think that's very well said. It's way too easy to dismiss someone as a racist when perhaps they have a good point or maybe it's more productive to get to the root of their opinions and to try and prove them wrong through positive action.

Specifics

Collin wrote:

Ah, I see. Well, I'm off to bed anyway, where I'll probably be thinking about your second question, which I find very interesting.

Enjoy your movie, I thought it was great, maybe the best one out of the trilogy.

definitely the best for me, and i guess bang on topic. would be interesting to see how many people would want a cure for being white, or a cure for being black..

Specifics

............double post

Heineken Helen

Specifics wrote:

definitely the best for me, and i guess bang on topic. would be interesting to see how many people would want a cure for being white, or a cure for being black..

I think quite a few... whites use make up and fake tan to look darker all the time... blacks, well there's make up too to look lighter... people can never just accept what they are, of either race.

Specifics

Heineken Helen wrote:

I think quite a few... whites use make up and fake tan to look darker all the time... blacks, well there's make up too to look lighter... people can never just accept what they are, of either race.

Maybe there are black people trapped in white bodies and vice versa...

angelica

Specifics wrote:

But i also point to another choice. I mean, and i think you do make it clear what you think about it, but is there a place for the fighting and the friction, within reasonable boundaries? or even within limitless boundaries i guess, does this also inspire us and keep us learning? I think you may be saying that this is the initial part of the journey from where we move on to the smoother more peaceful revolution.

What i am saying with this, and it refers strictly to sexism rather than racism i think, i think its a big mistake to put these 2 together as they are wholly different things i come to realise, is that i think there is a place for a man to be a man, and a woman to be a woman, and to accept and respect each others differences, but to battle them just the same, i think that this is healthy and possibly what life is. Rather than to become a perfect balance between the 2? this suggests it is impossible for one to become whole, rather its necessary to be a part of a couple to realise the wholeness of it all, and i guess, even gets into homosexuality! .

And im also a taurus, which going by your explanation, would explain why i feel like a big girl a lot these days..:)

Yes, I'm saying that as much as we like to think about better ways, even with the best intentions, we all learn the hard way all the time! We're here gaining experience from real situations and learning. Often boundary-less. I see it's a natural part of our evolution.

It's considered possible for men and women to become independently whole in terms of male/female, on a psychological level. We can become whole humans. Men do so by getting in touch with the traits they were taught to deny as children; women do so by getting in touch with the traits they were taught to deny as children. Many of these traits are considered typically male/female. So, for example, men might become more in touch with their emotions, and women, in touch with logic. By middle age, if we are learning from our life experiences, we tend to start balancing that out. And those who keep rigidly to their "roles" and ego have escalating big consequences for lack of balance. Unfortunately, in our societies, we deny those consequences, follow our male-dominated-intelligence route and deny any connection to our consequences...we say the heart attack so-and-so had was random. And we overlook the brilliance of life and the evolution that shapes us in each day, due to our imbalances!

And at the same time, when we learn to appreciate our differences, we realize that we're all here to share our journeys, and we each have natural strengths that can be used to the benefit to a male/female team, or to our larger group. If, on the other hand, we've decided being logical was the only way to understand life realistically, and we expect everyone to be logical at the expense of emotional or intuitive intelligences, we continue to cripple ourselves at great expense. (huge HUGE expense) And of course men and women have physical and complementary differences as well.

At many of our "lower" developmental phases, we think in terms of right and wrong. Therefore we prioritize some traits, and devalue others. Again, perpetuating denial of valid evolved traits (or ideas, thought processes, etc.) which could benefit us, therefore perpetuating imbalance. By doing so, and by learning through consequences, we eventually evolve ourselves into the higher phases, where we come to understand that we have done so. And we are loathe to continue imbalance. Therefore at the higher phases of human evolution at this time, we learn to understand the whole picture, and to find ways to see it as it is, rather than through our bias. We therefore become at-one (having "atoned" with life and our one-time "sins") with what actually is, rather than living in the separation of the ego. It's all perfect, though, as we must travel all stages before getting to such levels. When we understand this, we can accept humans at all levels, and with all views. We know views cannot be imposed from outside, but must be evolved from within. We can certainly teach one another in accepted, non-power-laced ways as has been suggested. Such teaching can only provide a map, however. We each must still walk the territory and learn from experience.

And with racism, for example, we must learn to bumble through our lower level awarenesses, and learn to embrace our own culture ethnocentrically, before we can truly move on and embrace other cultures. Which is not to say that we can't be ethnocentrically taught to act respectful to other races and cultures. The thing is at lower stages, we still see other cultures through our own ethnic lenses, rather than understand them as they are. By doing so, we have situations like with the US, believing they are "right" and expecting to impose their way onto the world around them. On one level, they talk about freedom, yet they don't always stand behind such rhetoric for other cultures and ethnicities. They don't truly understand what freedom is yet, as a whole....rather they have a distorted small-minded ethno-centred vision of it.

Specifics

I definitely need a cup of tea and another few reads of that angelica..:) it may take me some time to truly absorb...

cornnifer

Specifics wrote:

I like the scientific approach, but what it makes me wonder is about how much of it is actually natural? i don't think its evident in small children. And yes we change a lot as we grow, and we become more aware of survival needs which could maybe bring on a natural suspicion of differences. But also i have to wonder about how much of it is passed down through psychological social control, religion maybe? basically divide and conquer. Call it paranoia if you like but i often get stuck on this, and i think its always worth taking into account.

Racism, in my humble opinion, is not a natural phenomenon. It is a socially constructed one, and, in fact, a relatively new one. Historically, it didn't really exist troughout the world. And you are exactly right about small children. i am reminded of my five year old son. A few months ago he was discussing with me a picture of his preschool class. In this particular class there was ONE black student. As he was giving me accounts and anecdotes about some of his classmates, at one point, while pointing out this student he said "This boy, here, with the red shirt on...",. He didn't point him out as the black kid, or the kid with the dark skin. In fact, when pointing him out to me he didn't reference the boy's "race" at all. He simply pointed him out as the kid with the red shirt on. It may sound silly, but it was a proud moment of mine. Now, i realize we live in the united states and sooner or later i will have to teach him, with a little more detail, about racism as, socially, the topic is simply unavoidable.
i think racism has been created out of a need to justify treatment of certain groups. For example, it was easier to justify the near extermination and violent, forced removal of native Americans if they were viewed as inferior. The same is true of slavery, jim crow, etc. Pretty hard things to inflict on your equals. From there it has germinated and been passed down from generation to generation until it as become a way to balm the wounds of various social inequalities. "i may be poor, but at least i'm not black..., i lost my job and its all the fault of that black guy..." etc. For some reason we like to feel superior and race has been used to create that sense of superiority. Racism isn't natural, it is learned, and it has become so ingrained in our society that it almost seems natural. If it were natural, it would be pretty hard to explain the various degrees of its existence in various societies around the world. It may be hard to admit, but, te United States is probably the most racist nation, in terms of its policies and attitudes, of any nation on this earth. This isn't to say that racism isn't a global phenomenon. It most certainly is. It seems to be far more prevalent in the United States, however. The enormous diversity of the United States, its obvious history, which i will not detail any further than i already have, and its socio-economic system and policies that have been created around and are fully dependent upon brutal competition, may explain this.

Heineken Helen

cornnifer wrote:

Racism, in my humble opinion, is not a natural phenomenon. It is a socially constructed one, and, in fact, a relatively new one. Historically, it didn't really exist troughout the world. And you are exactly right about small children. i am reminded of my five year old son. A few months ago he was discussing with me a picture of his preschool class. In this particular class there was ONE black student. As he was giving me accounts and anecdotes about some of his classmates, at one point, while pointing out this student he said "This boy, here, with the red shirt on...",. He didn't point him out as the black kid, or the kid with the dark skin. In fact, when pointing him out to me he didn't reference the boy's "race" at all. He simply pointed him out as the kid with the red shirt on. It may sound silly, but it was a proud moment of mine.

my niece used to refer to them as the brown people... I wonder if that was the socially accepted term about 6 or 7 years ago?

I got in trouble as a kid... my mother was friends with this woman who had indian kids. I asked the daughter, who I was friends with, something about her skin... the mother went nuts and never spoke to us again. I was about 6 I think. It was ridiculous... of COURSE I was going to be inquisitive or at least NOTICE., Why go nuts and get angry when I'm sat there wondering what I did wrong and why I'm not allowed to be friends with this girl anymore and still wondering why her skin's a different colour... I'll have to ask that one again then!

Collin

cornnifer wrote:

Racism, in my humble opinion, is not a natural phenomenon. It is a socially constructed one, and, in fact, a relatively new one. Historically, it didn't really exist troughout the world. And you are exactly right about small children. i am reminded of my five year old son. A few months ago he was discussing with me a picture of his preschool class. In this particular class there was ONE black student. As he was giving me accounts and anecdotes about some of his classmates, at one point, while pointing out this student he said "This boy, here, with the red shirt on...",. He didn't point him out as the black kid, or the kid with the dark skin. In fact, when pointing him out to me he didn't reference the boy's "race" at all. He simply pointed him out as the kid with the red shirt on. It may sound silly, but it was a proud moment of mine. Now, i realize we live in the united states and sooner or later i will have to teach him, with a little more detail, about racism as, socially, the topic is simply unavoidable.
i think racism has been created out of a need to justify treatment of certain groups. For example, it was easier to justify the near extermination and violent, forced removal of native Americans if they were viewed as inferior. The same is true of slavery, jim crow, etc. Pretty hard things to inflict on your equals. From there it has germinated and been passed down from generation to generation until it as become a way to balm the wounds of various social inequalities. "i may be poor, but at least i'm not black..., i lost my job and its all the fault of that black guy..." etc. For some reason we like to feel superior and race has been used to create that sense of superiority. Racism isn't natural, it is learned, and it has become so ingrained in our society that it almost seems natural. If it were natural, it would be pretty hard to explain the various degrees of its existence in various societies around the world. It may be hard to admit, but, te United States is probably the most racist nation, in terms of its policies and attitudes, of any nation on this earth. This isn't to say that racism isn't a global phenomenon. It most certainly is. It seems to be far more prevalent in the United States, however. The enormous diversity of the United States, its obvious history, which i will not detail any further than i already have, and its socio-economic system and policies that have been created around and are fully dependent upon brutal competition, may explain this.

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think people genuinely believed that they were superior. The Western world was "enlighted." There was literature, science, humanism, and still a very heavy religious influence... people were "learned" whereas the people in Africa, for instance, lived in tribes, had no clothes, hunted... They were "savages."

Although what you said is definitely also through, people do create hatred, prejudice in order to justify their actions (just look at the depiction of jewish people in nazi propaganda).

Also, cool story about your son!

angelica

Collin wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think people genuinely believed that they were superior. The Western world was "enlighted." There was literature, science, humanism, and still a very heavy religious influence... people were "learned" whereas the people in Africa, for instance, lived in tribes, had no clothes, hunted... They were "savages."

Yes. Again, depicting different human natural developmental phases, and our idea that one is right and another wrong, or "unenlightened".

It's like the symbolism of the biblical Adam and Eve story...as humans reached towards knowledge (or the knowledge of good and evil/better or worse) we developed separation from life. We fell from the Grace of the whole. We developed the ego, and the idea of individual gain. We also decided much of nature was wrong and that we could better it, conquer it etc....

Specifics

angelica wrote:

Yes, I'm saying that as much as we like to think about better ways, even with the best intentions, we all learn the hard way all the time! We're here gaining experience from real situations and learning. Often boundary-less. I see it's a natural part of our evolution.

It's considered possible for men and women to become independently whole in terms of male/female, on a psychological level. We can become whole humans. Men do so by getting in touch with the traits they were taught to deny as children; women do so by getting in touch with the traits they were taught to deny as children. Many of these traits are considered typically male/female. So, for example, men might become more in touch with their emotions, and women, in touch with logic. By middle age, if we are learning from our life experiences, we tend to start balancing that out. And those who keep rigidly to their "roles" and ego have escalating big consequences for lack of balance. Unfortunately, in our societies, we deny those consequences, follow our male-dominated-intelligence route and deny any connection to our consequences...we say the heart attack so-and-so had was random. And we overlook the brilliance of life and the evolution that shapes us in each day, due to our imbalances!

And at the same time, when we learn to appreciate our differences, we realize that we're all here to share our journeys, and we each have natural strengths that can be used to the benefit to a male/female team, or to our larger group. If, on the other hand, we've decided being logical was the only way to understand life realistically, and we expect everyone to be logical at the expense of emotional or intuitive intelligences, we continue to cripple ourselves at great expense. (huge HUGE expense) And of course men and women have physical and complementary differences as well.

At many of our "lower" developmental phases, we think in terms of right and wrong. Therefore we prioritize some traits, and devalue others. Again, perpetuating denial of valid evolved traits (or ideas, thought processes, etc.) which could benefit us, therefore perpetuating imbalance. By doing so, and by learning through consequences, we eventually evolve ourselves into the higher phases, where we come to understand that we have done so. And we are loathe to continue imbalance. Therefore at the higher phases of human evolution at this time, we learn to understand the whole picture, and to find ways to see it as it is, rather than through our bias. We therefore become at-one (having "atoned" with life and our one-time "sins") with what actually is, rather than living in the separation of the ego. It's all perfect, though, as we must travel all stages before getting to such levels. When we understand this, we can accept humans at all levels, and with all views. We know views cannot be imposed from outside, but must be evolved from within. We can certainly teach one another in accepted, non-power-laced ways as has been suggested. Such teaching can only provide a map, however. We each must still walk the territory and learn from experience.

And with racism, for example, we must learn to bumble through our lower level awarenesses, and learn to embrace our own culture ethnocentrically, before we can truly move on and embrace other cultures. Which is not to say that we can't be ethnocentrically taught to act respectful to other races and cultures. The thing is at lower stages, we still see other cultures through our own ethnic lenses, rather than understand them as they are. By doing so, we have situations like with the US, believing they are "right" and expecting to impose their way onto the world around them. On one level, they talk about freedom, yet they don't always stand behind such rhetoric for other cultures and ethnicities. They don't truly understand what freedom is yet, as a whole....rather they have a distorted small-minded ethno-centred vision of it.

What i take from this is a greater understanding of our differences, and the funny thing about the way i read it, and i may be wrong, is that it seems, in your ways, that i take the more feminine role, and yourself the more masculine.. you see where you seek to understand through deep thought and intelligence, i feel more to clear myself of mind and simply understand through being. I understand much more now, i think, about the previous debate, and where i was horribly wrong to take the stance i did. like 2 roads that eventually lead to the same place, neither way is wrong. What makes us so different i wonder? i used to work with a couple of south africans, and what interested me was the differences in our understanding of Nelson Mandela. Here in the UK he is seen as a very good guy, we are or have already im not sure, erected a statue in his honour, over there it is completely different amongst the white SA, lets just say they see him as wholly opposite for sake of argument. The reason that interested me was that it made me really wonder about the power of nationality over the mind, and how that comes about. i think its very important to take into account at all times the degree to which individual governments seek to influence the minds of their people, for obvious, although horribly corrupting reasons. But also how much truth is there in the seperate stereotypes of our peoples when you look at the differences we display? You a more calculated approach, and maybe you would be better placed to tell me mine! i would say a more emotionally based for queen and country attitude. Its interesting that maybe once you start to understand the simple meaninglessness of the more xenophobic aspects, we still seem to use our stereotypical traits to find our way. maybe i am heading down a wrong path here i don't know right now, its definitely off subject but im not too bothered about that!..:)

Edit to clear page of lots of annoying smileys!!

cornnifer

Collin wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think people genuinely believed that they were superior. The Western world was "enlighted." There was literature, science, humanism, and still a very heavy religious influence... people were "learned" whereas the people in Africa, for instance, lived in tribes, had no clothes, hunted... They were "savages."

Although what you said is definitely also through, people do create hatred, prejudice in order to justify their actions (just look at the depiction of jewish people in nazi propaganda).

Also, cool story about your son!

Prior to the period of western "enlightenment" you mention though, not even these attitudes existed. Humans definitely have developed a need to feel superior (heck, we see it every day in this forum as many seem to be competing for the title of most "enlightened" poster. We boast of our esentially meaningless IQ's, level of education, post count, etc.) Where this need to feel superior comes from, i don't know. Perhaps it sprang up as the world became more competitive. Perhaps we ARE just "wired" in a manner that makes us feel good to be "better". Racism and racial prejudice is when we attach this feeling of superiority specifically to race, however, and i don't think this in any way natural. Again, it didn't always exist. Its just an easy "out". An easy way to feel "superior to someone else when nothing else in our lives satifies that. Interesting discussion.

Specifics

Collin wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you said, but I think people genuinely believed that they were superior. The Western world was "enlighted." There was literature, science, humanism, and still a very heavy religious influence... people were "learned" whereas the people in Africa, for instance, lived in tribes, had no clothes, hunted... They were "savages."

Although what you said is definitely also through, people do create hatred, prejudice in order to justify their actions (just look at the depiction of jewish people in nazi propaganda).

Also, cool story about your son!

my question would be how much of that belief in our own "enlightenment" was fed to us as a means again to control our actions through our thoughts and keep us divided from the "savages"? as opposed to a natural belief.

Specifics

cornnifer wrote:

Interesting discussion.

a bit of a round about! i like it..

bit of a shame for me i have to get ready and go to work soon :(

angelica

Specifics wrote:

What i take from this is a greater understanding of our differences, and the funny thing about the way i read it, and i may be wrong, is that it seems, in your ways, that i take the more feminine role, and yourself the more masculine.. you see where you seek to understand through deep thought and intelligence, i feel more to clear myself of mind and simply understand through being. I understand much more now, i think, about the previous debate, and where i was horribly wrong to take the stance i did. like 2 roads that eventually lead to the same place, neither way is wrong. What makes us so different i wonder? i used to work with a couple of south africans, and what interested me was the differences in our understanding of Nelson Mandela. Here in the UK he is seen as a very good guy, we are or have already im not sure, erected a statue in his honour, over there it is completely different amongst the white SA, lets just say they see him as wholly opposite for sake of argument. The reason that interested me was that it made me really wonder about the power of nationality over the mind, and how that comes about. i think its very important to take into account at all times the degree to which individual governments seek to influence the minds of their people, for obvious, although horribly corrupting reasons. But also how much truth is there in the seperate stereotypes of our peoples when you look at the differences we display? You a more calculated approach, and maybe you would be better placed to tell me mine! i would say a more emotionally based for queen and country attitude. Its interesting that maybe once you start to understand the simple meaninglessness of the more xenophobic aspects, we still seem to use our stereotypical traits to find our way. maybe i am heading down a wrong path here i don't know right now, its definitely off subject but im not too bothered about that!..:)

Edit to clear page of lots of annoying smileys!!

Actually, my natural preferred intelligences are first emotional, and second intuitive. My emotional and intuitive intelligences score way higher than average in tests. For the sake of balance and whole-brain/realistic awareness, I have well trained myself in using logic and so called masculine traits as tools. Also, I'm well trained in masculine ways of presenting that, so as to assert the full value of the subject matter. Where I give my true intentions away, is that this masculine energy is always in service of my heart, spirituality, and the Truth beyond my personal sense. Many years ago, I set out to develop these traits to the best of my ability, to honour the spiritual revelations I am naturally open to and see.

My understanding is that even when we are fairly balanced, we do tend to rely on our most basic preferences (as you say stereotypical traits) to find our way. This is considered the healthy way to go, from what I've learned. As I say, as long as we can step outside ourselves. As long as we can suspend judgment and learn from those around us and that are also cells in the human body.

You are quite correct that the roads lead to the same destination, and that none are wrong. Yes, it's very interesting how different nations see things entirely differently.

If you understood that key issue about sexism that I commended you for in the other thread, it looks like your basic preferences aren't too far off from my own.

cornnifer

Specifics wrote:

my question would be how much of that belief in our own "enlightenment" was fed to us as a means again to control our actions through our thoughts and keep us divided from the "savages"? as opposed to a natural belief.

i tend to think most of it.

angelica

cornnifer wrote:

Specifics wrote:

my question would be how much of that belief in our own "enlightenment" was fed to us as a means again to control our actions through our thoughts and keep us divided from the "savages"? as opposed to a natural belief.

i tend to think most of it.

This is the external view. And at the same time, we've all had internal agendas, too, that such external views met for us, which caused us to then internalize the external, giving it life and power. It's a double edged sword. and one that each of us along the way have been an integral part of.