What is the character of a racist?
I think it's a common misconception that intolerance is a sign of poor character. It really isn't. Hear me out. Racism arises from a misunderstanding, not evil intent. Perhaps the most abysmal aspect of racism is that it's nothing personal. The target race is just "vermin" or what have you. It's no more evil than identifying rats as pests.
But wasn't Hitler evil? Yes. He is an example of an evil intolerant person. Intolerant people aren't always monsters, though. People who think that are apt to miss the intolerance in their environment and possibly fail to see it in themselves.
Think of intolerance as a natural survival mechanism. If we keep our culture closed to adulterating influence, we'll keep our awesome traditions intact. If we open our doors, our ways are apt to be washed away by the flood of lunatics. It's an unfortunate side effect of intolerance that the outsider may be dehumanized and this is most dangerous when a society is looking for a scapegoat or someone to exploit.
Racism is an ugly fruit of a natural plant. That's what I'm saying. The people who embrace it are not necessarily ugly at heart. One of the most important reasons for seeing this is that counter intolerance is just as ugly as the primary type. If we label racist people as vermin, we have dehumanized them and shut the door on them. We have failed to realize that people can change.
Agree?
But wasn't Hitler evil? Yes. He is an example of an evil intolerant person. Intolerant people aren't always monsters, though. People who think that are apt to miss the intolerance in their environment and possibly fail to see it in themselves.
Think of intolerance as a natural survival mechanism. If we keep our culture closed to adulterating influence, we'll keep our awesome traditions intact. If we open our doors, our ways are apt to be washed away by the flood of lunatics. It's an unfortunate side effect of intolerance that the outsider may be dehumanized and this is most dangerous when a society is looking for a scapegoat or someone to exploit.
Racism is an ugly fruit of a natural plant. That's what I'm saying. The people who embrace it are not necessarily ugly at heart. One of the most important reasons for seeing this is that counter intolerance is just as ugly as the primary type. If we label racist people as vermin, we have dehumanized them and shut the door on them. We have failed to realize that people can change.
Agree?
Comments (62)
But wait: what about people who are intolerant of people who are intolerant of intolerant people? Isn’t this ugly too and —-
the quasi-phil argument falls flat as it collapses back into infinity.
Analogy: there’s a dude at work who follows you around, fucks with you, gets everyone at work in on it, makes your life a living hell. You talk to HR “yes but we don’t want to demonize him, he has a family, aren’t you kind of doing what you’re accusing him of doing? He’s a person too! Monstrous behavior but if you knew him well, you’d understand where he’s coming from.”
I feel like maybe there’s a kernel of something in your post, but I don’t think your argument works.
However, stuff is always changing, forever, world without end. You hear a lot about traditions, awesome ones, that have been lost. People cite Dante a lot for this, which is insane. He was excommunicated and thoroughly lost. That’s what the damn book’s about. What about Ulysses? What did Michelangelo think of the pope?
The great works and traditions built on them begin in disruption.
So empathy and support for the dislocated, of course, but also an awareness of how contingent tradition is.
Your strawman is pretty interesting, though.
Intolerance works as a survival tactic on the cultural level, not so much among individuals. It's the way it works out in the individual psyche that sucks: as a lightning rod for whatever frustrations happen to be floating in the mists.
Sure, but your post was couched in qualification, and illuminating detail. I responded to the whole of it.
If all you wanted to ask was 'are racist people necessarily evil?' then that's all you would've asked. You're trying to anticipate gut-responses, and frame things a certain way. Rightly so. My post was responding at that level, the one your post was on. I was responding to the way you were framing things. If you don't want people to respond to the framing, don't frame.
[quote=frank] Your strawman is pretty interesting, though.[/quote]
There's another way of doing this: 'You seem to think I'm saying this. What I'm really saying is this. This is the difference between the two." Then I have some place to work from, to respond. "your strawman is pretty interesting' isn't doing any of that work. It's just trying to elicit venom. If you'll meet me, I'll meet you.
My gut-take is that they work (or don't work) on both levels, for the same reasons. What's the difference you see?
Peace.
Yes, true enough, each in-group results in everybody else being in the out-group. We are all out-group members, even if we are lucky enough to have a comfy in-group.
Class, national origin, race, language group, home-town, olympic league, sexual orientation, and more -- all are fault lines along which we build our in-groups. Being in an in-group doesn't ipso facto mean we hate everybody else. Working class, Turkish speaking, gay guys would have to go out of their way to find reasons to hate middle class, Russian-speaking heterosexuals. They are both out-groups to each other, both in-groups to themselves.
If you wanted to make middle class Russian-speaking heterosexuals and working class turkish gay guys dislike each other, an intensive program of integration, endless sensitivity training, harangues about equal opportunity, and so on directed at each group, would probably be sufficient for each group to finally loathe that out-group that they had never interacted with but were now supposed to be accepting of -- hell, celebrative over.
The question that interests me is What makes you morally culpable? Are certain beliefs morally obligatory? If you fail to understand what actually causes the behavior you attribute to someone’s race, is that a moral or an intellectual failure? By analogy, you wouldn’t fault a deaf guy for ignoring your calls. I’m tempted to suggest goals and desires - hell, maybe just actions. But it’s all wound up with what you believe.
It would help to know what does qualify as evil, if anything.
I’m sincerely willing to engage with you on this topic. I think we’re closer than you think here. But I have no patience for passive “just saying” games. Which is absolutely what you’re doing.
Assert yourself. Say what you mean.
Do you hear yourself? "Nothing personal blacky, I just believe you're a pest because of your skin color". Who cares if it's personal, people can be maniacally bad to people they don't know, of course it doesn't have to be personal, but that doesn't mean it has no bearing on character. I personally think believing someone is vermin because of their race or ethnicity is evil, it is a sign of poor character. It shows your willing to make blanket assumptions about a group with no reason as to why (other than the one's you make up so you don't eel bad about it) and go on to use these to justify whatever you want done to them. That's a sign of poor character.
Pretending that these will simply exist in a vacuum and not have an affect on one's behavior is ridiculous. Most people want to get rid of vermin. Pair that with a belief that "race/ethnicity X is vermin" and you get "We should get rid of X".
The idea of being intolerant of people who are intolerant of people who are intolerant of.... is interesting to me. There's a story in there (or a painting).
My point in the OP is that malignant intolerance is a result of a misunderstanding. A side ramble was about this:
X-race fails to see the humanity of Y-race.
Y, with a psyche full of angst from having to deal with X, begins to fail to see the humanity of X
Y has fallen into the same misunderstanding as X. I would not suggest that anyone should be intolerant of Y because of that. That intolerance formed naturally. No regress. I'm not trying to congratulate myself here. There just isn't a regress.
As for the bully at work: I personally have to deal with assholes in a way that allows me to put it to rest. I just don't have the constitution to carry a broiler around with me all the time. Understanding the asshole helps some. But there's an irrational aspect to it. If I've taken a hit, sometimes I just have to hit back. There won't be any closure around it until I do. I don't know of any fine principles to apply to it, really. I just feel my way.
Quoting csalisbury
That's a possibility I hadn't considered. I picked up a talking-to-the-wall kind of vibe from your post.
The world is full of people who have every reason to understand why prejudice is folly, yet they still fail to get it. Why do you think that is?
Utter and total horseshit.
So I do think we ought not treat the curable fully as monsters, but we ought not fool ourselves into thinking that none are monsters.
Why isn't there a regress for you though? What's arresting the regress?
Another way to ask this same question. You describe two groups mutually not-recognizing each other. Which group are you in? And to whom is your op addressed?
I'm multi-racial. I'm also off to reddit. Had enough of this forum for a while.
Great, another topic started about a subject without a definition of the subject. How do you define racism?
I define racism as the misconception that the differences between races are greater than the differences between the individuals within a race. The fact that it's a misconception has been prooved by numerous research, wich clearly demonstrates that the differences within a group (in this case specific race) are greater than the differences between groups (in this case different races).
(as in that the differences between the averages of two groups is less than the standard deviations of the groups measured)
So we can get rid of this kind of racism by educating people to get to know and understand the research done, and to apply its conclusions consistently.
Next to rasism, there also is the human tendency to dislike/fear the unknown, wich is a completely different motivater, but wich could result in the same human behaviour. Hence it's not always that easy to distinguis actual racism from just the dislike/fear of that what's different/unknown.
Quoting Hanover
Wich would be correct, since racists assume that the differences between racial groups are greater than the differences within a racial group, wich is demonstrably incorrect. The scientific data on this overwhelming. Though it's not uncommon that the people saying this fall into the same trap, and are just as ignorant about the underlying facts.
What is the character of a racist.
This is an odd question. I would have assumed by definition that a racist is someone who is devoid of character? Outside of that we are all racist to a greater or lesser degree and not all racism is bad racism.
Perhaps one needs to define ones use of the term a little better?
Also what is "multi-racial"?
M
This affect may have had roots in the needs of survival. As one person in ancients times, you were vulnerable to raiders, marauders and predators. If you we're part of a larger defense group, you are more secure. It is very important to maintain the group, for your own survival. If the group is attacked or defeated you are made vulnerable. This survival foundation has been extrapolated, to ego-centric needs.
For example, the White Supremacist may build their self esteem defenses, by relating to being white. This team affect works in their minds, because they may say that most of the innovation and shakers and movers of modern western history were white. By relating to this group, they can sort of accept credit for all the accomplishments of anyone in the group. As an individual, there is no such connection for self esteem. But as the group, one can become buddies with Albert Einstein and George Washington all wrapped into one; my race.
With the blacks the opposite dynamics is often in affect. This group has a lot of dark times. Relating to the group gives one the power of the group, in terms of the fortitude needed for suffering and the power to fight the man. If you attack the group, to release the individual from the spell, they will take it personally, since they need to wear the group like armor. They want to keep the armor shiny and colors pure for self defense.
The antidote is to help children learn individual self esteem. The hurt that people feel about racism is connected to an internal fear of someone taking off their group armor. Individual self esteem, apart from the herd affect, is not vulnerable the same way.
Yes.
Quoting Fool
Ignorance is just the darkness prior to living through an experience that sheds light. People who diligently behave tolerantly because that's what they think they're supposed to be doing are just as ignorant as racists. They're also the ones most likely to become monstrous if society turns in that direction, because they think they're virtuous when they're really just untried.
A racist person who experiences a transformation because of going through the whole ethical cycle of guilt and redemption is a stronger, more graceful person than the untried poster carrier.
Where is culpability? It's there in that sense of guilt the transforming person feels, but otherwise, I think it's just a social fixture. What do you think?
"Evil" is an honorific for spectacular failures. :D
Devoid of character? Why do you say that?
Multi-racial in this case means more than bi-racial.
Well I assume by racism you are referring to the manner of considering another person inferior or superior on the basis of race.
I am a racist in that I think that there are real racial differences between races. I think that white people need to use more sun block than black people, I think that black people are better at rap and singing the blues than white people, I think that on the whole black American culture has more of an insight into the pain of discrimination than white people generally do. I think Asian immigrants generally have a more disciplined work ethic than white westerners... and so on
I am certain that I may be right or wrong in some of these assumptions but they are all essentially racist, I make the same assumptions of my children in that I love them equally but being familiar with them I think one might be better or worse at certain tasks than another might be.
In respect of 'negative racism' I don't think that it actually exist. It is merely a euphemism for 'hatred' 'greed' 'resentment' 'self-interest' etc.
I am not a Christian but I think the Christian ideal of hating hatred is itself a more fruitful engagement with the hatred that is contained within negative racism.
Those who profess 'negative racism' are to be pitied by Philosophy and reviled by social systems.
Character in my estimation is one thing that makes humans different to animals. Ones character is an outward reflection of the depth of ones thought. Negative racists possess no depth of thought and as such no character.
M
You’re good. I responded a bit aggressively. I agree with your overall point that a compassionate approach is better than a vilifying one. I disagree that the the two hatreds are on the same level. I do think that the ability to paint someone as ‘racist’ is sometimes wielded cynically by people playing power games. But I think that needs to be disentangled from the larger dynamic. The office example was meant to highlight how it’s not a symmetrical vilification.
There’s a difference between defending a tradition and defending a tradition from people who you identify as inherently bad. Anyway, I have a link to an article you might like that I’ll send you when I’m free. (& it’s not an article that condescendingly ‘educates’ you on why you’re wrong. I sincerely think you’d like it)
Just don't identify oneself as any race.
And if you come across someone who wants to define you as a race then merely regard them as either a bit unintelligent (thereby merely has particular limitations) or is just a bit silly.
I don't think that 'racism' is natural, I don't even believe it is correct terminology since there is only one human race which is comprised of separate ethnic groups. I don't necessarily disagree that those who embrace some form of bigotry are 'ugly at heart', but that conclusion is only possible if it can be viewed from a position the outside the biased position.
While bias is natural, it also follows norms. As societal norms begin to condone such biases it becomes the easier for bias proponents to express opinions without fear of societal backlash. Here is a video with Don Lemon describing how norms are shifting in the United States.
Funny story: I took a class in post-colonialism taught by a black Jamaican professor. When I told her about reading how race doesn't exist according to science, she told me that those findings were white, male privileged attempts to erase people's identities...
Racists, like everyone else are not evil. I don't usually recommend regular crime novels, but John Grisham's book The Chamber really makes a good case as to how racists are people too. (And, yes, the book IS better than the movie ;)).
That being said, racism does arise from some fundamental psychological traits. I think most racists are insecure about themselves (yes, even loud-mouthed bullies like Trump can be insecure...in fact, especially such people are insecure). Whatever the issue is that they feel poorly about, they like having someone or some group to point to and tell themselves "I may be stupid/poor/fat/alone/a criminal/whatever, but at least I'm not one of them!"
This example came to me today as I was driving along and out of nowhere an Othello-Alien mashup went through my mind where John Hurt plays Othello and the alien that bursts out of his chest is the horrific outcome of his vulnerability to Iago's scheming (Iago played by Ian Holm, Ash the Robot).
It's a social construction. :razz:
Yes, I think it is a normative construction, a way of talking which assumes that the words we use are what are expected of us as members of the same group or culture.
Social Construction has two flavors: Weak & Strong, where the Weak view assumes certain foundational realities or brute facts and Strong constructionist denies any such brute realities. Where do you think "racism" lies?
Yes my explanation was not the best. Here is an explanation
In most cases where the word "race" is used, whatever humanity that happens to be on the scene has been analyzed in some way. Sometimes the word is referring to culture, as in the Persian race. The unique characteristics of the Persian culture are not fictional. They're as real as mountains.
I'd say look to context to know what's meant.
Disgust was actually quite important in the archaic past (people who look too different from one's own people bring different diseases that one's own tribe won't have the immunity to cope with), but it's less meaningful now with modern medicine, so in a sense it's a trait that for politeness' sake we ought to control (like other impulses that are out of place in a modern open society full of relative strangers, like being quick to anger).
The other problem was well illustrated in a diagram in James Damore's famous essay. Different racial/ethnic groups have different groupings of traits, and different averages with regard to given traits. A stereotype takes the average as representative of the race or ethnic group. As a quick and dirty guide, it's not inherently problematic, and in the past, stereotypes were treated more or less light-heartedly. In essence, a stereotype is a blend of statistical categorization and categorical categorization.
If you combine these two factors (high psychological disgust and stereotyping), that's when you get racism proper (I don't mean the modern Left's thing of calling anyone to the Right of Mao a "racist", that's just pure garbage and is bringing the Left into disrepute, and is of course, ironically, itself an example of stereotyping). When you have a person high in disgust who's also stereotyping and doesn't understand that a stereotype is just an average, then they tend to literally pre-judge everyone from the stereotyped group as if they're necessarily going to fit the stereotype.
Whereas the classical liberal position is to take cognizance of stereotypes and averages, certainly (they are important for public policy and for personal behaviour in relation to groups), but to await an individual's manifest behaviour before judging them as an individual. (IOW they may fit the stereotype or they may not, you have to wait and see.)
Who cares if someone is racist? If dumb beliefs are a sign of poor character, then we all lack good character.
The problem isn't that someone is racist. It is if that racism manifests itself in pernicious ways.
We have civil rights laws that address this in areas, such as employment. We engage in social measures in private settings outside of the law, like shunning a Nazi.
Some people cannot just countenance allowing someone a belief that they find repugnant. It goes back to some wanting to control others' thoughts, like religious, government, etc.
It's not a problem to society unless it manifests perniciously. Could it not eat away a person's mind and heart though?
What is the best way to change people's hearts and minds?
Has anyone ever negotiated? What happens when you simply refuse to consider the other party's position? They dig their heels in. They will not budge without coercion.
I've seen the old trope of complaints regarding calling out those intolerant of intolerant people. But there is no logic in that.
You mentioned evil in your OP. Is racism evil? No, it is not.
Trump is considered by many to be a racist. Okay, so what? Some of our greatest Presidents have been racists. In fact, we have a monument to one of the alleged greatest, who is from the modern era - Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
How can people speak with moral authority authority about the wrongness of racism, when this country put up an idol to a racist? Trump is compared to Hitler, but he has done nothing worse than FDR.
Ah, but it was a different time, right? That is the most common excuse used. However, that confirms exactly what I have come to believe - morality is an exercise in subjectivity. It is all opinion. Do people like having their opinion dictated to them. I would say for the most part no.
I submit that a racist is entitled to their belief. I in no way say people should sit quietly in the face of racism, but the counter must come from a place of respect, as we are merely arguing opinion. As I stated before, a world without prejudice is not the principle we are seeking to implement. Given all the mixed messages our society has floating about regarding racism, pretending not to be racist makes one morally superior is absurd.
The counter should come from respect because the racist is human.
How is that exactly?
Like a Taoist master, capitalism does without doing.
Capitalism is a system by which the vast majority are defrauded of much of the value of their labour in order to transfer it to a few very rich crooks. To do this it must keep the mugs living totally in the past.
I guess we should add slave owner to that list of defects.
As opposed to what? Settling into communities started wealth inequality to the degree it exist to in the present.
The means of production being controlled privately or centrally always seem to produce a 1%.
Are you advocating for the end of civilization to save our progeny from the crooks?