How racism exists.

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by fleinn, Mar 24, 2008.

  1. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    As a spinoff of a recently locked thread:
    And what happens here? Essentially, it's that racism has become a politically unacceptable term, without racism being unacceptable.

    Anyone have a good explanation for how this is, and what social mechanisms are involved? (Denigrating language about intolerant idiots is encouraged :p ).

  2. soot

    soot Registered Member

    I'd love to know who said that. (What you've quoted there.)

    It is truly remarkable in its stupidity.

    Moving on to your thoughts though...

    I'm curious why you say that racisim is politically acceptable? I don't think that it is, generally.

    Everything will always be acceptable within certain circles, and intolerant idiots will always speak freely and controversially when afforded a little anonymity (for instance, on Internet chat forums).

    But to make the leap from there to the position that racisim is rampant or pervasive within a society at large, even if it's something we don't discuss among polite company, is really quite a stretch.

    My experience with racisim in America is actually quite the opposite.

    While I often hear racial epithets flung about with a frequency approaching reckless abandon I very seldom see racisim-based discrimination in actual practice.

    As a socialist (or liberal facist? - your "friend's" term, not mine) you probably see social injustice where I see any number of other, or contributing, circumstances that lead to an individual's or group's failure to climb the socio-economic ladder.

    But to blame that failure (and maybe you're not) on wide spread and institutionally acceptable racisim is overshooting the mark, in my opinion.
  3. fleinn

    fleinn 101010

    :) Oh, it just wrote itself. (I had some help, though).
    But what does that mean? In my experience people rarely think of themselves that they are specially intolerant. People tend to have some in- grown skepticism, or thoughts about how things should be in society - they rarely decide on agitating for some sort of experiment in eugenics.
    True. But what happens, is that we sanction specific phrases and words, and promote the views in more politically acceptable speak.

    I should probably explain what brought this on (other than the locked thread). Before logging on today, I was explained to by a person I know that - while some Poles and Estlanders might not be lazy criminals, they don't really have anything to do around this part of the world - they "don't create families and new tax- payers". So that's why we should just stop all immigration (even though that's what we already have done, while it's almost impossible to become a citizen around here unless you stay and work "selfishly" for only your own salary for about ten years). Because it ruins our economy, and upsets the way honest people make a living to have all that stuff come over here (such as, when they hire cheap labour from Estland).

    So how else should I explain this than that this person is a xenophobic jackass, who will use any excuse to express his uneasiness about people outside the tribe, if it's possible to do so in less than directly unacceptable terms. Because it's not the idea of how to best maintain the tribalistic law this guy is interested in discussing - it's using the acceptable terms to express the views he apparently will have no matter what.

    To quote Shakespeare: a racist, by any other name. ...or something like that.
    It's typically the same here, and anywhere else I know - you don't see racism- related discrimination as such. What you really see are ways to keep the tribe happy and constant.
    Such as? We're anonymous on the net, remember - no one's forcing you to be elliptic about what aspects of certain groups are the cause for their failures.

    As far as social injustice: No, that's what the liberal naive morons in the US would think. I see factors that lead and contribute to individual failures. What makes me a socialist is that I believe some of those factors can and should be addressed by the state (clear rules for salaries, equal pay for the same work, and serious punishments for companies who hire part- timers to deliberately avoid their responsibilities as an employer, skirt on the regulations, etc. - in other words, I think the state should intervene when a business exploits it's workers for short- term economical gain. That makes me a socialist). While other factors should not be addressed by the state (thoughts, background, social make- up, cultural compatibility, religion, etc.). Of course, that's only in theory - in practice things are not clear cut like that.

    Regardless - that's not what we're talking about - we're talking about the attitudes that may or may not lie behind thoughts about social class and ability to succeed.

    Just a reminder: social darwinism is not a new invention.
    Ok. Then consider this. If you fail in society. If you end up half- way there, so to speak, with working your ass off for a lousy salary. And then you end up losing your job, and the salaries rise less than the price- increases. I.e., you end up working more for less pay - What are you going to think about the factors that cause you to fail in progressing on the socio- economic ladder?

    Does that answer change when you're talking about failures "outside your group"?
  4. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Fleinn is right in that racism is still politically acceptable. As we saw with the Rovian hatchet job on McCain in South Carolina eight years ago, and the race-based attacks peppered throughout this campaign, and in a two years before in regards to illegal immigration (as part of communications class I saw some political ads about immigration, and there literally can be no doubt they're racial in nature). Sure people can't go up and call Obama a nigger, but in terms of how much gets through in speech language, advertising strategies, and just the general way people have approached race recently, it's surely still pervasive.

    So it's more passive, less shocking, and thus how we traditionally use racism (the Klan, people from the Cotton belt, racial epithets, open disenfranchisement) as a term is gone. But racism, as it truly is defined, now exists in a manner that is still publicly acceptable.
  5. Westy

    Westy Registered Member

    Racism does exsist and always not a philospher but the nature of the human race simple as?

Share This Page