Sexism/Racism

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.

Specifics

angelica wrote:

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.

Ok, so you have added layers of academia and self control on top of what comes natural, thats where you are leaving me behind..:)
I'm sorry to get slightly off track with it all, or maybe it isnt really, it's just that corruption of humanity by unnatural powers is something that i find very interesting, and very necessary. I certainly intend no offence! i know i have made some insensitive jokes lately )

Now work unfortunately!

Specifics

angelica wrote:

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.

hmm, but we could have made, and still could make a much better world without the corrupting influence!

angelica

Specifics wrote:

Ok, so you have added layers of academia and self control on top of what comes natural, thats where you are leaving me behind..:)

I'm sorry to get slightly off track with it all, or maybe it isnt really, it's just that corruption of humanity by unnatural powers is something that i find very interesting, and very necessary. I certainly intend no offence! i know i have made some insensitive jokes lately )

Now work unfortunately!

Enjoy your day!

angelica

Specifics wrote:

hmm, but we could have made, and still could make a much better world without the corrupting influence!

I see things are perfect as they are.

Specifics

angelica wrote:

Enjoy your day!

My night..:)

angelica

Specifics wrote:

My night..:)

oh, right!

Specifics

angelica wrote:

I see things are perfect as they are.

I love the simplicity, but i shall have to think about this one!!

DixieN

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.

I think it's all "natural." Children are less aware of differences than adults are. Especially very small children. They don't see any difference between themselves and the next person. But, just as soon as they start being able to put things into categories, this "I accept everyone equally" disappears--and at a surprisingly young age. I think of this as an unconscious survival tactic, too. An abandoned child that will accept other human beings no matter how different from mom and dad has a much greater chance of living than one who will only go with people who "look like me." And children's openness is very much valued by adults. Even racist people express feelings of finding other people's children enchanting--even a child from a normally reviled group.

I think you're right in that nurture shouldn't be overlooked. However, I really believe that nature has a primacy that nurture builds upon.

When my father was a young child, I hate to say how long ago...but LONG ago, he lived in an area of the country were everyone was Scandanavian or of Germanic descent. He was about 9 before he saw the first person who was anything other than than white. The person he saw was a Black man. He might have been vaguely aware that Black people existed, but he might not have been aware of it--there were almost no books or magazines available--these were high-priced items, and my dad's family was dirt poor and lived in a fairly isolated area. His first reaction on seeing a Black man, a person he had never been taught to fear, was one of utter fright. It seemed impossible that a human being could look so different from himself. He said that to him, the man seemed almost a caricature of a human. To him, people only had white skin. To see a human with this color of skin was a shock. He hid from the man at a distance. He said he noticed adults in the community either openly stared at the man, or essentially also hurried off to "hide"--less openly than he had done, though.

I would imagine this same experience might very well be mirrored by a Black person in the old days who had never seen anyone white and had maybe never even heard of such a strange possibility.

I guess, what I'm trying to do by relating this experience, is to show that nature is primal, but that nurture will reinforce things. My dad had said that the behavior of the adults around him reinforced that he might be right to be afraid. And all the whites tended to reinforce one another's reactions of fear or suspicion--without ever having said a word.

I would like to say, though, that although nurture continued to teach my father "fear of other," education and experience taught him something 100% different. He lived most of his life traveling around the world, marrying someone out of his religion and out of his culture. And then I came along--a multicultural, multi-ethnic packet if ever there was one--and although I was not his natural child, I am very proud to call myself the daughter of a remarkably broadminded man, who ultimately was not shaped just by nature or nurture, but by reason and deep moral sense.

Specifics

angelica wrote:

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.

This is perfect to my mind, i have been all over the place with it, i even wrote a poem a few weeks back when i had this held clear in my mind, then i fell back on almost pure blame for governments and powers, this seems perfect, especially when you take in collins guilt/responsibility thread too,

Leaves me wide open on this one tho....

angelica wrote:

I see things are perfect as they are.

in terms of working out my own guilt responsibility.

Specifics

DixieN wrote:

I think it's all "natural." Children are less aware of differences than adults are. Especially very small children. They don't see any difference between themselves and the next person. But, just as soon as they start being able to put things into categories, this "I accept everyone equally" disappears--and at a surprisingly young age. I think of this as an unconscious survival tactic, too. An abandoned child that will accept other human beings no matter how different from mom and dad has a much greater chance of living than one who will only go with people who "look like me." And children's openness is very much valued by adults. Even racist people express feelings of finding other people's children enchanting--even a child from a normally reviled group.

I think you're right in that nurture shouldn't be overlooked. However, I really believe that nature has a primacy that nurture builds upon.

When my father was a young child, I hate to say how long ago...but LONG ago, he lived in an area of the country were everyone was Scandanavian or of Germanic descent. He was about 9 before he saw the first person who was anything other than than white. The person he saw was a Black man. He might have been vaguely aware that Black people existed, but he might not have been aware of it--there were almost no books or magazines available--these were high-priced items, and my dad's family was dirt poor and lived in a fairly isolated area. His first reaction on seeing a Black man, a person he had never been taught to fear, was one of utter fright. It seemed impossible that a human being could look so different from himself. He said that to him, the man seemed almost a caricature of a human. To him, people only had white skin. To see a human with this color of skin was a shock. He hid from the man at a distance. He said he noticed adults in the community either openly stared at the man, or essentially also hurried off to "hide"--less openly than he had done, though.

I would imagine this same experience might very well be mirrored by a Black person in the old days who had never seen anyone white and had maybe never even heard of such a strange possibility.

I guess, what I'm trying to do by relating this experience, is to show that nature is primal, but that nurture will reinforce things. My dad had said that the behavior of the adults around him reinforced that he might be right to be afraid. And all the whites tended to reinforce one another's reactions of fear or suspicion--without ever having said a word.

I would like to say, though, that although nurture continued to teach my father "fear of other," education and experience taught him something 100% different. He lived most of his life traveling around the world, marrying someone out of his religion and out of his culture. And then I came along--a multicultural, multi-ethnic packet if ever there was one--and although I was not his natural child, I am very proud to call myself the daughter of a remarkably broadminded man, who ultimately was not shaped just by nature or nurture, but by reason and deep moral sense.

Excellent stuff, thank you!!

I feel i have a LONG way to go myself.