ATS Debate: Round 1: JediMaster vs. John Bull 1

ATS Great Debate
Round One

JediMaster vs. John Bull 1

Topic: Racism is a natural reaction, and not a societal learned response.

Jedimaster will take the affirmative position, agreeing with the statement and will have first opening statement.

John Bull 1 will take the contrary position, and will have first closing statement.

Editing of your posts is strictly prohibited! For obvious reasons. Editing your post results in immediate forfeiture.

1- Competitors assigned the affirmative position go first with an opening statement, and have right of passing their opening statement post to their contrary position competitor. Opening statements cannot contain links.

2- Each competitor in turn contributes six posts to support their side of the topic. (For a total of seven posts) These are the only posts within the debate that may contain links to articles, or embedded pictures/graphics. (one link or graphic per post). No more than 18 hours between posts or you forfeit your turn.

3- The competitor representing the contrary position has first right of closing statement. As with the opening statement, they have an opportunity to pass to their competitor representing the affirmative position. Closing statements cannot contain links.

4- Each competitor can submit one rebuttal to their competitors closing statement, but cannot exceed 200 words. Rebuttals are not required.

This is a total of 18 posts, the debate is closed, and voting begins. Forum members will vote on the merits of your capabilities arguing your side of the position, not their opinion of the position.

The debate begins at 23:00 GMT today. Opening statement from the affirmative side is due by 17:00 tomorrow, or the opening statement is passed to the contrary side.

Good luck, and have fun.

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!

At first glance Jedimaster may appear to have made some attractive points but it is an illusion.
He has put a few bricks on top of each other and is claiming he has built an argument but the bricks are few and there is no cement holding those bricks together.

The argument that racism is somehow 'natural' is only an excuse used by racists to justify their racism.It has no basis.

If Jedimaster is going to convince us all of his argument he will have to answer a few important questions.Questions that can not be ignored and must be addressed by him.

1/If racism is 'natural' why are we not all racist?

2/If Hitler truly believed racism to be natural why did he form the Hitler youth specifically to teach the young to be racist?

3/Not all racisists are racist against every ethnic group other than their own.Some white racists may hate blacks but not hate Jews or Native American Indians.Why is that if we are pre-disposed to racism?

I have many other questions but,for the moment,I will keep my powder dry.

As many on ATS will know I have a 7 month old daughter called Eleanor.
Every Monday I take her to get weighed where she meets babies her own age.In that group of 11 babies only 1 is black.He is a boy named Herbie.Herbie is of the same age as Eleanor.Eleanor crawls around and it was only a matter of time before she would come across Herbie who was sitting in the middle of the floor.
What happened?
Did Eleanor cry and scream in fear?Jump on him in a rage?Of course not.She sat down next to him and,to a chorus of sighs from the assembled mothers,she held his hand.
You see she has not learnt to be racist.

I would like to finish my opening statement by telling a true story which I hope will illustate clearly that racism stems from ignorance and misplaced fear.The story would be funny if it was not for the fate of one unfortunate individual.

During the Napoleonic Wars a ship was wrecked off the Hartlepool coast.The fishermen of Hartlepool fearing an invasion kept a close watch on the French vessel as it struggled against the storm but when the vessel was severely battered and sunk they turned their attention to the wreckage washed ashore. Among the wreckage lay one wet and sorrowful looking survivor, the ship's pet monkey dressed to amuse in a military style uniform.

The fishermen apparently questioned the monkey and held a beach-based trial. Unfamiliar with what a Frenchman looked like they came to the conclusion that this monkey was a French spy and should be sentenced to death. The unfortunate creature was to die by hanging, with the mast of a fishing boat providing a convenient gallows.

Here are my answers to your questions John.

1.) We are not all racist because parents teach their kids not to be racist. Not being racist is society learned. We are born with racism. Your daughter. She is to young to understand racism. To her, Herbie is just another babie.It takes time to learn it, just like a lion cub takes time to learn to hunt. It takes time for the racist instinct to open up.

2.) Hitler uses that group to help brainwash those who were told by there parents racism is wrong. Most likely those children were raised by non-racist parents.

3.) First of all, whites are most likely to fear and hate blacks, than Jews. The Israiles will hate the Palestinians, but maybe not the Indian. Because the hatred for those races exists inside them.

When the white man came to America, and saw the Indian why did he hate them and try to wipe them out? Because it was in their genes to feel they are better, and the strongest. Because of our fear for other people, and the fact that we cannot understand each other we resort to hatred.

And your true story was does that have to do with racism? Killing a moneky has nothing to do with racism. Please elaborate on that one. I'm sorry, all I can get is that a little monkey was hung, or are you calling the French monkeys?

Another example is this. I will share a true story from around my neighrbor hood. This happened not too long ago, about 3-4 months ago. I was taking a walk down the street and I saw a car filled with black men who looked like they ment trouble, listing to rap music and the volume was turned up so high it could wake to dead. I saw a white boy, about 14 years old walking on the opposite side of the street, where the black men where. He saw the black men in the car, and as soon as he saw them he ran towards my side of the street, and he had fear in his eyes. I aksed him why did he run. He replied "Those Negros scare me. I hate them." I was shocked by his words, and I asked him to take me to his parnents. He did. I know the boy's father, and he was no racist. After I met his mother, I discovered she was no racist either. I asked if the boy knew any skinheads or racists. They said no, and so did the boy. A week later, the boy saw the same situation only it was white men. He did'nt notice them.

This story shows, racism is inside all of us. Our parents teach us NOT to be racists, or bigots. But there is racism in all of us. It takes us to beat that.

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.

external image

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.

First of all, if racism is learned then, where did it come from? Where did they parent get it from?

And how does a child whose parents are not racist, become racist with out any contact with racism in his family? I've seen racist kids and does not know any racists around him to influence him. Surely if he has no influence then, he must get it by nature. A friend of mine is a racist pig, yet he was raised in a liberal household and had no contact with racism. Then where did he learn it from?

Hitler simply used those anti-Jew posters to strengthen his cause. He needed to move his message, and that was the only real way he could do it way back then.

People learn non-racism through society, we are born with racism. Let me bring this up again. Look at the white man and the black man. The white man has always had a vendetta against the black man since we are born with racism. Before the white man saw the black man, he had no idea what he would find in Africa. When they saw the black man they realized that the blacks are differnt, and their racist "genes" jumped in.

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.

external image

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.

Well, there was no racism then since we were with our one kind. Jews were with the Jews, the whites were togheter, and so were the blacks. When these differnt kinds came togheter and interacted with one another then the racist gene came alive since we were with other people. We were still racist but we had no one to hate.

After 9/11 our racial hatred heated up again. As soon as we saw what those Muslim extremists did to our race, we hated them. No one needed to tell us to hate them we just did. Same with the slave trade, no one told is to hate them, we did automaticly through ourselves.

We all hate/dislike someone or some group of people. My grand-father does'nt like the Mexicans, but his family never told him too. I did'nt like the Muslims after 9/11 but no one told me to hate them.

We are racist to show secruity over one's self. That is why we are born with it, to make us feel better, and more secure.

I'm sure both you and the other members will of known that it would be around another 70,000 years before Judaism emerged and for much of the time since, the Jews would of resembled other races in that region.

As I've mentioned above all racism can be traced to childhood immitation,formative experience,or Authorative manipulation.

It was your experience on 9/11 that precipitated in you racist feelings towards Muslims.

As a nation the USA did not hate the African slaves they exploited initially but they did come to fear them.
In many rural areas in the South slaves often outnumbered whites.In this social enviroment,where the oppressed outnumber the oppressors,fear would dictate that strict social guidelines must be adhered to to maintain the status quo.These rigid discriminatory rules would have been passed down.
Son immitated Father through the generations.

You say your Grandfather didn't like Mexicans.Well,perhaps a mexican once stole his wallet.

Often the real reasons some people discriminate will never be known and if known then rarely understood.

There is no racist gene.
There is no part of the brain specifically put aside for racial hatred.

Even in with our own kind we hated each other. In ancient tribes there was always some group of people everyone hated. Whether it was based on race, money, religion or whatever someone was hated to death. Ever since the Jews knew the Palestinians they hated each other through genetic factors. It is a natural occurnence for us humans to feel better than someone else.

The Africans are all of the same skin tone, and many of their tribes war with each other since the dawn of man. It was our racist genes and oru violent ones that lead to that.

Absolutely.A good example of this behaviour can be found in India where people of the same race,same religion,and living in the same villages discriminate on grounds of caste.

There will be rivalries within society but this is not genetic.
As I've already established racial differences developed because of enviromental factors.It's easy to imagine Palestinians as archetypal arabs and Jews as a seperate race entirely but this would be grossly untrue.Jews traditionally are the decendents of one man who lived in exactly the same region as many of todays Palestinian's ancestors.Though we can not account for subsequent migration it is highly probable that racial differences between many members of the two groups is virtually zero.

The problems today in that region stems from religious differences and not race.

I must make the point that this debate is specifically about whether racism is natural not whether any two groups given a shortage of resources may or may not come into conflict.That is an interesting yet totally different debate.

Yes, we did sort of sway aside, but still it is not dull and we are still in the ballpark discussing wheter or not racism is natural or society learned.

Homosexuality is a genetic disorder. No one teaches you to be gay, unless you were born straight and was molested by a pedophile. Homosexuality is a brain disorder, caused by genetic facotrs. Racism is along to same lines. Its a genetic factor we are born with. Some of us will not show it because they are afriad they will be sunjected to criticsm. Everyone at heart dislikes some race.

Today however, most racist occurences happen from religous intolernace,which comes from that same genetic factor that causes racism.

I'll be honest and say that I do not think this is relevant.

However,I will quickly address the point you're making.

There is some scientific evidence to show that some incidences of Homosexuality may be related to genes.
Conservatives ,on this issue,still claim that all homosexuality behaviour is a product of experience and choice.Liberals,on this issue, claim that all homosexual behaviour is a product of genetic orietation.
A sensible view is that the truth lies somewhere in between these two extremes.Individual cases will lean more to one side of the argument than the other.

Mankind is not the only animal that shows homosexual behaviour.It can be found in many species.

Man is the only animal that shows signs of racist behaviour.

You also say that:
"Today however, most racist occurences happen from religous intolernace,which comes from that same genetic factor that causes racism."

I just want to unravel this statement.

Race and religion are rarely related.Christians,Hindus,Budhists,and Muslim hail from many different races.
The race of the Jews is Semites but Palestinians are also Semites.

So,races may be of different religions and religions may be of different races.
There is no genetic factor involved with religion and the only genetic factors involved with race are the ones specifically related to the different ethnic features related to enviromental change.

Religious sectarianism has no relation to racism except that it manifests itself in similar ways.

I asked you, if racism is learned then where did it come from. Surely if it is society learned it came from somewhere. But if it is genetic we know where it came from. From what you saying, racism just appeared out of nowhere. But since it is genetic we can easily show were it came from.

I was showing how that something like homosexuality can be traced as a genetic disorder, like racism.

We may have created religous intolerance but not racial. By being racist we become more secure since we become closer to our own kind. There are many genetic factors in our brain that open up. In animals too. An animal is born witht he instinct to hunt just as we are born with racism.

We can only guess when the first racist incident took place.

The first Civilisation (Sumer) emerged in the fertile lands between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in what is now southern Iraq no earlier than 5,500 years ago but this was only agriculturally based settlement.It is still hard to imagine racism at this time.

4,500 years ago the Akkadian Empire emerged in the same area claiming land up either side of the Euphrates and Tigris past their sources and as far as what is now Turkey.

I would hazzard a guess and say that the first racist incident originated around this time probably used as a spur by Sargon 1st the leader of invading forces.

Since that time it has been used as an effective tool for similar adventures right up to the present day.
It would not have developed into the social racism until populations(not armies) first came into contact at a much later date.

Still since "Mitochondrial Eve" it took around 195,000 years for the first racist incident to occur.

If you wish to argue that racism is genetic then try and name other similar genetic innovations that mankind has developed in less than 5,000 years.

5,000 years is nothing in evolutionary terms.

I've just realised it's my turn again for my closing statement.

As I've already pointed out there is no evidence what so ever of a Racist gene nor a particular racist part of your brain.Jedi failed to supply any evidence to back up the claim anyway.
Jedi also claimed that racism was a deep rooted instinct but I think that I've shown enough contrary evidence to dispel any lingering doubts on that point.

I've shown that racism probably didn't emerge until fairly recently and I believe that if such a deep rooted instinct did exist it would take far longer than 5,000 years to take hold.

I've shown that racism has it's roots in the 3 distinct areas:Immitation,Experience,and manipulation.

Jedi has claimed that we are all racist ,or at least born racist.He has not substantiated this claim.

Again and again the words race,instinct,religion,and genetics are jumbled together in the hope,we are left to feel,that he might stumble on a magic combination of the 4 words that might prove the theory he is advocating.
There is no magic combination.

Jedi talks of Genes coming alive,and of instincts being learnt.

There were ocassions when I thought he had forgotten which side of the debate he was on so well was he making the points for me.

The subject of this debate was:

Racism is a natural reaction, and not a societal learned response.

I would like to make my penultimate point using Jedi's own words.

In your opening statement you say:
"Racism is not taught to people, they learn it through instinct almost."
And again in your first reply:
"It takes time to learn it"

I would like you to vote for me so that I may go on and meet the winner of the Xaos/Ninja debate.

I will leave you with some of my opening words.

"The argument that racism is somehow 'natural' is only an excuse used by racists to justify their racism.It has no basis."

Thankyou for following this debate.
JB1.

Well, John we probaly first used our racist genes after we mixed with other races. For a couple thousand years we were with our own kind, there was no competion. When we first met the black man then things heated up. Many people use their racist gene to feel better, and more secure like I mentiond before. Racism is just like the maternal instinct women are born with. It'll come out when they have some experiance.

Maternal instinct in women has existed always like racism.

However according to a creationist we are all born with everything at the start. By using the creationist theory we are all born with what we will learn. But is evolutionary terms, we devolp our genes through nature.

I will forego my option to rebut.

Thankyou Jedi for this challenging debate.
You were a gentleman.

Here's my closer.

In this debate I have done my best to prove racism is caused my nature meaning it can be a genetic factor.

John failed to show me where society created racism, therefore if he does not show where it came from in society it must be natural.

I have shown we use our racist factors to feel better, and through fear and ignorance. It is much like a women's maternal instinct it comes out when we need it.

John has also ranted about a "eve". This in my opion was totaly useless nad proved nothing at all.

Our debate was long and tiring, but we made it through. Members please cast your vote in for me. I look forward as well to go up aganst either xaos or ninjaofthenight.

Racism has plagued our society since we merged toghter. Only through nature could we have gotten it from.

I would like to thank John for a wonderful deabte. I had a great time doing this with you. May the best man come out alive .

John Bull 1 has been voted the winner.