Racism has plagued our society for years. People who have a differnt skin color have been opressed, just for that. People try to figure out what
causes racism. I'll tell you what causes it. Its a natural occurence.
Its natural in humans to feel they are better to other people. Brother thinks he's better than sister, and its the same in races. The white man
thinks he's better than a black man. Racism is not taught to people, they learn it through instince almost. Does mommy and daddy tell brother he is
better than his sister Sally? And its the same in races. Nearly 150 years ago before any white man set eyes on a black man, were they told they were
better than the Africans even thought they had no idea who they were? It was until they found the black man they suddenly said "We're better than
you. Whites are the supreme race!".
Hitler was another example. His mother and father never told him to hate Jews. But through istince he figured out he was better than them.
From istinct and nature people learn what they learn, and thats how we form our thoughts mainly.
Its off to you John Bull!
ATS Debate: Round 1: JediMaster vs. John Bull 1, page
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
reply posted on 10-6-2003 @ 07:39 AM by John bull 1
Main Entry:rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
You state clearly that, according to your theory,everyone is born a racist.
I believe a child is born neither racist or not racist.A child learns by immitation.Which explains why racism can be seen to be more prevailent in certain societies and family groups.A child learns by example and a child brought up in a racist family or a racist social group is certainly going to immitate his/her role models.
It is important for any child to learn to differentiate but a child needn't learn to discriminate.
Main Entry:in·stinct
Pronunciation: 'in-"sti[ng](k)t
Function: noun
1 : a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity.
2 a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level.
You have mentioned that Racism is instinctive.Yet you also refer to it,in the same sentence,as being an instinct that is learnt.
In your opening statement you say:
"Racism is not taught to people, they learn it through instince almost."
And again in your last reply:
"It takes time to learn it"
Instinct can not be learned.A person may duck by instinct,they may run away by instinct,they may cover the face and head by instinct,there may even be certain features of courtship and procreation that may be instinctive but to be prejudiced takes conscious thought.
You also state that racists discriminate against ethnic groups that they come into contact with.Surely you are making the case here that we are moulded by our experiences.Along with immitation a child certainly does use both pleasant and unpleasant experiences to guide his/her future decisions.We say"Once bitten,twice shy"or "That we have learnt from our experiences".A new born child has neither had a chance to immitate or the experiences to learn from.
The story you have refered to has all the hallmarks of a phobia.Experience can effect us on a conscious or unconcious level.When it effects us on an unconscious level it may appear to be irrational or unreasonable but phobias have been found to be rooted in often unremembered childhood experiences.
I have mentioned that a child in his/her formative years learns by immitating behaviour from the social groups of different sizes he/she is part of and this brings us on to the influences even governments can have on the individual.Most of us live in liberal democracies which generally wish to encourage non racist behaviour because racist behaviour can result in damaging and expensive social problems.In modern western democracies a policy of inclusion is prefered to one of exclusion but occasionally governments are willing to sacrifice the consistent nature of that policy.Recently we have seen a rise in islamaphobia as normally liberal governments balance security with their policy of inclusion.This policy hopes to demonise those who may prove to be a threat but in doing so it encourages prejudice amoungst our populations who,unable to grasp the subtleties of the threat,embrace a simpler form of discrimination that of demonising entire nations and even an entire religion.
This said our governments have not adopted a policy of exclusion,they do not want to encourage racism.Other governments,both past and present,have been willing to sacrifice an inclusive society for an exclusive one.They have been willing to manipulate the media and the arts,change laws,and actively encourage racism to achieve other nationalistic policy objectives.One such example is Hitler's Germany another was Britain during the time of Napoleon.Britons were encouraged to demonise the French.It acted as an insentive to the armed forces but also to domestic production which would both feed the soldier and pay for the war.The story of the monkey is an example of how successful that policy was.The fishermen of Hartlepool were so ignorant of the reality and imformed only by their government that they not only demonised the French but actually de-humanised them.
So a new born child is not racist.The child has not had time to immitate,it has no experience to learn from, and it has not been open to manipulation.
This is from a German Poster "The Eternal Jew".It is a stereotype developed to pervert impressionable minds.
Why did Hitler need this propagana tool if we are all racist anyway?I am only allowed one picture but there are similar examples throughout history of Government manipulation.
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
You state clearly that, according to your theory,everyone is born a racist.
I believe a child is born neither racist or not racist.A child learns by immitation.Which explains why racism can be seen to be more prevailent in certain societies and family groups.A child learns by example and a child brought up in a racist family or a racist social group is certainly going to immitate his/her role models.
It is important for any child to learn to differentiate but a child needn't learn to discriminate.
Main Entry:in·stinct
Pronunciation: 'in-"sti[ng](k)t
Function: noun
1 : a natural or inherent aptitude, impulse, or capacity.
2 a : a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason b : behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level.
You have mentioned that Racism is instinctive.Yet you also refer to it,in the same sentence,as being an instinct that is learnt.
In your opening statement you say:
"Racism is not taught to people, they learn it through instince almost."
And again in your last reply:
"It takes time to learn it"
Instinct can not be learned.A person may duck by instinct,they may run away by instinct,they may cover the face and head by instinct,there may even be certain features of courtship and procreation that may be instinctive but to be prejudiced takes conscious thought.
You also state that racists discriminate against ethnic groups that they come into contact with.Surely you are making the case here that we are moulded by our experiences.Along with immitation a child certainly does use both pleasant and unpleasant experiences to guide his/her future decisions.We say"Once bitten,twice shy"or "That we have learnt from our experiences".A new born child has neither had a chance to immitate or the experiences to learn from.
The story you have refered to has all the hallmarks of a phobia.Experience can effect us on a conscious or unconcious level.When it effects us on an unconscious level it may appear to be irrational or unreasonable but phobias have been found to be rooted in often unremembered childhood experiences.
I have mentioned that a child in his/her formative years learns by immitating behaviour from the social groups of different sizes he/she is part of and this brings us on to the influences even governments can have on the individual.Most of us live in liberal democracies which generally wish to encourage non racist behaviour because racist behaviour can result in damaging and expensive social problems.In modern western democracies a policy of inclusion is prefered to one of exclusion but occasionally governments are willing to sacrifice the consistent nature of that policy.Recently we have seen a rise in islamaphobia as normally liberal governments balance security with their policy of inclusion.This policy hopes to demonise those who may prove to be a threat but in doing so it encourages prejudice amoungst our populations who,unable to grasp the subtleties of the threat,embrace a simpler form of discrimination that of demonising entire nations and even an entire religion.
This said our governments have not adopted a policy of exclusion,they do not want to encourage racism.Other governments,both past and present,have been willing to sacrifice an inclusive society for an exclusive one.They have been willing to manipulate the media and the arts,change laws,and actively encourage racism to achieve other nationalistic policy objectives.One such example is Hitler's Germany another was Britain during the time of Napoleon.Britons were encouraged to demonise the French.It acted as an insentive to the armed forces but also to domestic production which would both feed the soldier and pay for the war.The story of the monkey is an example of how successful that policy was.The fishermen of Hartlepool were so ignorant of the reality and imformed only by their government that they not only demonised the French but actually de-humanised them.
So a new born child is not racist.The child has not had time to immitate,it has no experience to learn from, and it has not been open to manipulation.
This is from a German Poster "The Eternal Jew".It is a stereotype developed to pervert impressionable minds.
Why did Hitler need this propagana tool if we are all racist anyway?I am only allowed one picture but there are similar examples throughout history of Government manipulation.
reply posted on 12-6-2003 @ 05:45 AM by John bull 1
The origins of racism are unfortunately lost in the mists of time.We can,however,make some educated assumptions based on our growing knowledge of
early man.
Our first glimpse of our early ancestors can be found within our DNA.Within our genetic make up is a strand known as Mitochondrial DNA.Although we all have it, it is only passed on along the female line.
Members may have heard the term "Mitochondrial Eve".She is the most recent common ancestor of everyone alive today.Dating is difficult and only approximate as it is based on what appears to be regular mutations within our Mitochondrial DNA but she is thought to have existed around 200,000 years ago.It is doubtful racism existed then.
Members may of recently read of the discovery of three skulls unearthed in what is now Ethiopa.These skulls represent the earliest examples of Homo-Sapien remains dating from around 160,000 years ago and add further to the growing evidence that Eastern Africa was the cradle of modern man.
It is no longer of any serious scientific contention that we are all Africans by decent.
It is doubtful that racism existed at this time as there were no racial differences.Mankind had only just evolved as a seperate species and the enviroment that we had evolved to take advantage of was abundant and so man had no need to evolve further at this time.
It is only as the Ice Barrier recedes about 100,000 years ago that mankind begins to migrate out of Africa.
Soon after the racial differences we see today begin to evolve to allow mankind to be better adapted to the new enviroments it inhabits.
Still it is doubtful that racisism existed.Migration was outward and racial differences between neighbouring tribes would of been negligable.
That is not to say there was no conflict.Tribes would have competed for resources but certainly not along racial lines and conflict would of been temporary as population growth in newly inhabited regions would of coincided with new lands being relinquished by the glaciers.
Why fight when new resources are waiting to be exploited?
The climate warms quite sharply ,in geographical terms, for about another 25,000 years and we can assume migration at this time continues outwards.
Then around 75,000 years ago the climate goes into another cold snap.It is then ,and only then,That mankind would have been forced to halt his northerly migration.As the ice reclaimed the newly discovered land he would of had to move south into areas already occupied.I've used terms like "occupied" and "inhabited" but it should be remembered that mankind was almost certainly nomadic.There is no evidence of permanent settlements this early.
It is possible that at around this time some contact between humans with different racial characteristics first came into contact.It is possible that on occasion that these racially different tribes may have competed for finite resources but would there behaviour have been any different from any other tribal conflict?I doubt it.The racial differences between the tribes,on the rare occasions they did occur,would not have been marked.
Do not imagine a white tribe in conflict with a black tribe.
This simply wouldn't of happened.As we see today racial differences are gradual and geographical boundaries and aggressively defended tribal hunting grounds would of acted as a natural buffer against distinct racial groups meeting.
So no racism then.
Up to 75,000 years ago,125,000 after "Mitochondrial Eve"and we still have not seen racism.
The instincts that I've mentioned in my previous posts are already well established.If you could meet an ancestor of yours from around this time you could shine a bright light in his eyes and he would blink,you could threaten to hit him and he would flinch but if you were able to ask him about racism he simply wouldn't know what you were talking about.
Our first glimpse of our early ancestors can be found within our DNA.Within our genetic make up is a strand known as Mitochondrial DNA.Although we all have it, it is only passed on along the female line.
Members may have heard the term "Mitochondrial Eve".She is the most recent common ancestor of everyone alive today.Dating is difficult and only approximate as it is based on what appears to be regular mutations within our Mitochondrial DNA but she is thought to have existed around 200,000 years ago.It is doubtful racism existed then.
Members may of recently read of the discovery of three skulls unearthed in what is now Ethiopa.These skulls represent the earliest examples of Homo-Sapien remains dating from around 160,000 years ago and add further to the growing evidence that Eastern Africa was the cradle of modern man.
It is no longer of any serious scientific contention that we are all Africans by decent.
It is doubtful that racism existed at this time as there were no racial differences.Mankind had only just evolved as a seperate species and the enviroment that we had evolved to take advantage of was abundant and so man had no need to evolve further at this time.
It is only as the Ice Barrier recedes about 100,000 years ago that mankind begins to migrate out of Africa.
Soon after the racial differences we see today begin to evolve to allow mankind to be better adapted to the new enviroments it inhabits.
Still it is doubtful that racisism existed.Migration was outward and racial differences between neighbouring tribes would of been negligable.
That is not to say there was no conflict.Tribes would have competed for resources but certainly not along racial lines and conflict would of been temporary as population growth in newly inhabited regions would of coincided with new lands being relinquished by the glaciers.
Why fight when new resources are waiting to be exploited?
The climate warms quite sharply ,in geographical terms, for about another 25,000 years and we can assume migration at this time continues outwards.
Then around 75,000 years ago the climate goes into another cold snap.It is then ,and only then,That mankind would have been forced to halt his northerly migration.As the ice reclaimed the newly discovered land he would of had to move south into areas already occupied.I've used terms like "occupied" and "inhabited" but it should be remembered that mankind was almost certainly nomadic.There is no evidence of permanent settlements this early.
It is possible that at around this time some contact between humans with different racial characteristics first came into contact.It is possible that on occasion that these racially different tribes may have competed for finite resources but would there behaviour have been any different from any other tribal conflict?I doubt it.The racial differences between the tribes,on the rare occasions they did occur,would not have been marked.
Do not imagine a white tribe in conflict with a black tribe.
This simply wouldn't of happened.As we see today racial differences are gradual and geographical boundaries and aggressively defended tribal hunting grounds would of acted as a natural buffer against distinct racial groups meeting.
So no racism then.
Up to 75,000 years ago,125,000 after "Mitochondrial Eve"and we still have not seen racism.
The instincts that I've mentioned in my previous posts are already well established.If you could meet an ancestor of yours from around this time you could shine a bright light in his eyes and he would blink,you could threaten to hit him and he would flinch but if you were able to ask him about racism he simply wouldn't know what you were talking about.
.Pages: ^^TOP^^
