Racism and homophobia: different or the same?

reply to post by Republican08

Well glad you liked it, but unsure of your "metaphysical" or "role-playing' terminology, could you expand a bit more on this?

I suspect by role-playing he means: Both perpetrator and victim are interlocked in a sort of role-play where one side juices the other.

reply to post by Skyfloating

Strange you know, after a month or more of reviewing this thread, I'm surprised by my mention of Haitians.
What I can say is that circumcision is now celebrated as HIV-prevention in Straight circles (to the chagrin of many feminists, who believe this repeats male-orientated prevention campaigns), while in male gay circles it still makes no difference apart from aesthetics!

It seems both pretentious and judgmental to assign humans "worth," whether equal or inequal. A more knowledgeable outlook is to say that each person has a position in which they function at an optimum level, and that when outside of this position, they become incompetent either grossly (externally) or directionally (morally, larger-perspective decisions). On a political level, all people who are not possessed of pathological anti-social behavior like criminality or parasitism are of equal worth, but what determines "worth" in a human sense is what the individual accomplishes in overcoming the challenges life has set before him or her. "Worth" is what we mean to ourselves, and the sense of achievement we have in confronting our fears and making sanity of our lives.

reply to post by concernedcitizan

That is a great way of putting things.

As a footnote I would add that "worth" is a journey.
Worth as a goal can make us feel "worthless".

The whole problem lies in our selves. As long as we keep adding boundaries or limits one way or another. It doesn't matter !

This behaviour is so embedded, we even see situations where there is little rascism left. Suddenly the once victimized group will up them selves in the picture. As if they want to celebrate they are now accepted, starts the whole thing all over again.

If you would classify racism and homo sexual stereotype a disease.

Well... I think the conclusion must be made, this behaviour comes from within. The brain as it's origin. Therefore you must think about the idea all sin is human. Which would end the existence of sin all together.

At this point we arrive at the perspective of a victim.
How our actions and emotions perceived ? But most important. How does man act according to it ?
Because of our obvious boundaries, you can pretty much predict why and how the opposites will act.

Not even mentioning, punishing a disorder.

They are IMO two sides of the same coin.

Interesting question. Now I hope I understand it correct.
If not, I would look so stupid.

I got into this debate many years ago when I was in a left wing party. It is terrible to be part of a “so called visible minority because the low level attacks can be relentless. There have been days when I have just wanted to take time out from the constant racism…

On the other hand I can be very mean so just glare back of make another comment.

Sadly I conclude that prejudice is part of our human make up. However how we work with or against it makes a difference. I believe that anyone can be racist even black people. Well actually as a black person I know we can be racist.

All I want is equality of opportunity. I am not interested in political correctness because on a scale of one to ten it is less than one. The whole PC debate is a non-even upheld by ultra conservatives most sane black people have no time for it as they are to busy with more pressing issues of social justice.

T

reply to post by Tiger5

Since I started this thread a lot has happened: in Haiti we've had some initial blame of "ungodly" black religions inviting the wrath of Jehova (many threads on that, and evangelical finger pointing comparisons for Katrina, Aids again and even 9/11).
We've seen a fundamentalist collection of US preachers known as "The Family" introduce vicious homophobia into Uganda. Malawi and other states are following a royal road of homophobia that is comparible to a witch-hunt.
Even in South Africa with its liberal laws, attacks on lesbians and gays in black communities is on the increase. One hears of mass "curative" rapes against lesbians and people being stoned and knifed to death.
It seems that Africanism has assumed all the hyper-heterosexual myths created by colonialism - when studies clearly show that it was homophobia that was imported by the colonists and not gay people. Blacks were once considered the closest human form to animalistic behaviour (especially in the slavery days), so this also implied that they were the most virile examples of heterosexual breeding. How sad that since Mugabe Africans have further turned black gay people into scapegoats, instead of examples of resistance to colonial discourses and dehumanization.

Different, or the same...

Both.

Different in that the bigotry is expressing differing biases. One is a bias against color, and the other against sexual preference.

The same in that it's bigotry. ...and all the hateful stupidity inherent in it.

All in all? Just a different breed of dog. But a dog nevertheless.

reply to post by seagull

Very true. The color of "blackness" or "whiteness" is still pretty much skin deep or superficial, but DNA tests are likely to blow a lot of the superficiality out of the water.
OK, you say "sexual preference", in my case I'd call it an "orientation", since for me "preferance" had nothing to do with it. In any case, for sexuality we've had the Kinsey scale (based on the pH scale) for three decades which ranges from purely gay or straight polarized extremities to various "preferences" in between.
I think DNA testing will lead to a racial Kinsey scale, especially for extremist groups. But hasn't it all been there before in slavery and eugenics: the half-breed, the mulatto, the coloured, the meztiso, the "octogoon"?
So I actually like the term "preference" - because it implies pride and preferance in identity. And identity is a choice, because it's becoming quite clear that nobody is "pure" racially or sexually or born situated on an "orientation point" on a compass.
I was born attracted to the same-sex (as far back as I can remember), but I choose my gay identity.
And it's strange, I'm not consciously upfront, but people know there's something queer going on as soon as I walk in the room.

reply to post by halfoldman


I think the DNA will prove even more that we're not different, or at least not enough to matter a whit, so far as race is concerned. So far as the terminology is concerned, I've always, since I grew old enough to care, found them distasteful.

As for the sexual orientation -vs- sexual preference, which ever you prefer is the one I'd use in a discussion with you. I don't see a great deal of difference between the two, other then semantics.

reply to post by seagull

Sure in our framework it's a matter of semantics and terminology.
But there are people out there who do still hate and discriminate.
"Preference" in their religious context means that I wilfully and sinfully "prefer" to be gay, when I could also just change my preference and be hetero. In that context "preference" implies that I'm just a very sinful, perverted straight person.
So it is to avoid my words ever being twisted that I make a semantic difference.

reply to post by halfoldman


True enough. I can see where they would indeed use "preference" as opposed to "orientation". That honestly hadn't occurred to me. I'll be a lot more careful about how I use it.

Thanks.

reply to post by seagull

Yeah, you know they once had government schools in the US and Canada that tried to drive being Native, or American Indian out of these poor, essentially kidnapped children. The maxim then was "Kill the Indian, save the man".
I don't wanna make comparisons, but to a degree there are religious schools and camps that claim to heal "homosexuality". I suppose the maxim is: "Kill the queer and save the man". The term "preference" sure makes it easier for them to justify their activities.
However there are many academics and others who choose the term "sexual preferance". They argue that the innate gayness of a term like "orientation" merely gives us the right to be gay - it doesn't argue for any equal rights in society.
However, "preference" implies the right of all adults to make democratic decisions on their relationships and choices. So it's coming from a position of giving everyone equal rights to their sexuality, rather than gays being just a minority. It's all quite silly and disputed, and also divisive at times.

reply to post by halfoldman


They are different and you do not have the right to act in any manner you want and expect to not be discriminated against. Now that might be the result of this society being dominated by white males, but thems the breaks. There is absolutely no reason for homosexuals to "act gay". Some homosexuals only act gat when they are with other gays only act gay. Gays can turn it off and on. You can't turn your race off and nor should you desire to

As far as acting or behaving the way you like because of who you are, you absolutely can be discriminated due to your behavior. lets take work. I am not going to hire a person of any race who addresses a customer with "Yo". I am not going to hire a person who deals with a client who has visible tattoos. I am not going to hire a gay person who prances about the office, I'm not going to hire a person with body piercings or who wears a hat sideways and baggy pants. I will hire any qualified individual who acts in conformance with the mores of our society and believe that a diverse workplace based on the experience set of the people in the work place is not only the most interesting but also the most creative and in many cases the most productive.

reply to post by dolphinfan

Well good for you.
In South Africa you would be hiring according to race because there is a strict Affrirmative Action program set by government quotas.
Your context and mine are obviously very different.
In our white culture it's still best to be butch, while in our coloured-Malay culture the guys are so camp they are virtually transvestites. They are highly sought after employees.
You are implying that gays are acting "funny" just for the sake of it? That is a huge generalization.

Yes, I agree Homophobia is much like Racism. The Gays seems to hate and demonize the natural fear and aversion to degeneracy. This natural and healthy disdain for homosexuality is known as Homophobia. And the prejudice Gays can't seem to tolerate them. I am homophobic and very proud to be so. Yes, the gays are prejudice against the poor innocent homophobic just as some have racial intollerance.

reply to post by ReelView

I don't think you are homophobic at all. I don't know what experiences you've had or who filled your mind with trash, but you sound like a hurt person rather than a hateful person.
I wish you good friends and a warm outlook for the future.

I don’t recognise race. I don’t believe race exists. Racism is a term coined in order to divide and conquer the masses. I can back my claim that race does not exist but would like to provoke reaction first.

Sexuality is indeed a strange concept. Time and place can influence sexual preference. Think the Greek Empire, think the Roman Empire, think prison. Maybe sexuality has links to power and control as much as it has links to attraction.

Coining phrases like homophobic, homosexual, black, white etc has effect in dividing the masses.

One point of note is that nature seems to suggest that promiscuous behaviour is detrimental to health.

Therefore it is my suggestion that racism and homophobia are the same as they have no relevance.

It is a game that is ultimately destructive to our purpose.

Get sucked into the game and you will take your eyes off the ball and miss the bigger picture.

Peace.

reply to post by Phantasmagoria

Yes, it is very much a case of divide and rule.
Promiscuity is an issue that has been linked to colonial racism: the idea that black or native sexuality was an uncontrollable force.
As long as humans lived in isolated, contained pockets the diseases spread by promiscuity were not an issue. As soon as the sailing ships connected the globe, venereal and other diseases became pandemics. In the Pacific for example European men bemoaned the "moral sexual laxity" of the natives, but they took full advantage of customs like wife borrowing or sex for trade-goods, and syphillis spread rapidly.
In South Africa HIV was denied by the black government, because it linked black sexuality to colonial notions of African promiscuity.
Yet, strangely promiscuity itself is not the origin of these viruses, like many other diseases (eg. TB, smallpox, Spanish flu) they came from human contact with livestock and bush-meat.
Before Aids there was little reason for the men in the Western centres of gay liberation not to be promiscuous, and gays were already shut out by conventional morality. However, now there is a strong movement towards long-term partnerships.
I think that if straight people find gay sex-acts repulsive that is not homophobia, but people are not usually confronted with such acts when dealing with gay people on a daily basis (unless they seek it out or become obsessed with certain acts - in the latter case that would border on repressed homosexuality). Recently in Uganda there was an outcry after a homophobic pastor showed gay porn in a church! I mean that is just wierd.
The real issue seems to be that the mannerisms of some gay men challenge the Western gender dichotomy. In parts of India and Indonesia for example there is a "third gender" and in some societies as many as five! The harmony between these genders is considered crucial, as they are thought to keep the cosmos in balance.



[edit on 24-2-2010 by halfoldman]