PDA

View Full Version : The psychology of racism



Ma Cherie
20-10-05, 04:27
Have you ever wondered why some people are racist or prejudiced towards a certain group of people? There was an interesting discussion in my Political Science about the psychology of racism. What are your opinions on groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nzis (skinheads) and if you know of any other groups that would be great. :p Why do you believe these groups exist and why do you think people become apart of these groups? Is there some inferiority issues involved? I'm kind of doing a little bit of research on this. But I found some links on the issues of racism and prejudices.

I like this wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

lastmagi
20-10-05, 04:53
Good post, Ma Cherie. I'm also interested in the psychological aspects of racism as well.

I think one of the best place to start research on psychology-related materials, besides academic journals and periodicals, would be The American Psychology Association (http://www.apa.org/). A quick search on their site found an annotated bibliography (http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/racebib/psychofrace.html) that may be helpful, although I've only glanced at a couple of the annotations.

If I have time myself (unlikely), I'll see if I can dive into some research as well, because, like I said, I'm interested, too.

edit: hm... upon slightly further review, it looks like there aren't as many hard articles as there are information on conventions and programs and very general stuff. Maybe just check out the annotated bibliography, then? Also, are you a college student? Because being on campus may allow students access to good journal repositories, like jstor.org. Apologies for the false info, and good luck.

No-name
20-10-05, 06:08
Today a muslim parent referred to one of my Jewish colleagues as "despicable creature" in a letter to the superintendant. I know I have heard this epithet in anti-semitic contexts before, but I don't remember where.

Ma Cherie
20-10-05, 06:11
Yes, as a matter of fact I am a college student, I've ran into some interesting articles, but I did find this article about blacks living in France. It's really interesting because even though I do know that racism happens in alot of countries, I never took the time to look at racism beyond the US.
Here's an interesting link, apparently Hurricane Katrina has some influence here.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/21/news/france.php

Kinsao
20-10-05, 11:55
Very interesting articles; thanks for posting, Ma Cherie! :cool:
I find the "psychology of racism" impossible to understand. Normally if I disagree with someone's view, I try and look from their perspective, and usually I can manage to see why they are thinking like that, even if I consider them to be wrong or misguided or immature or ignorant or just plain crazy! But racism, I just cannot get my mind to grips with it. :o :mad:

Maciamo
20-10-05, 12:09
Definition : ethnic, religious & cultural racisms

Strictly speaking, racism is the believe that some race(s) (=ethnic group) is superior to one or several others, or that only one particular race is inferior to all others.

But, the word has taken a much broader meaning nowadays, and we can now speak of "cultural racism", "religious racism", or even "individual racism" (belief that every individual, regardless of their ethnic group, are uniquely different, and that some are superior to others in almost every aspect).

Sabro's example about a Muslim insulting a Jew is "religious racism". Recent discrimination or violence against Muslims due to fears of terrorism, is also religious racism.

If a Japanese were to think that the Japanese are superior to the Chinese (or vice versa), it would be "cultural racism" (they as too genetically similar for it to be ethnic racism).

Ma Cherie, do you want to discuss all of them, or just ethnic racism ?

Violent, active and passive racism

For all these kinds of racism, we could rank the intensity of racism on a scale like this :
- violent racism (e.g. physical assault, murders => like the KKK or Nazi)
- non-violent active racism (use non-violent discrimination, such as refusing admission to a business or turning down a job)
- non-violent passive racism (only in thought, without action)

Rational vs emotional racism/tolerance

We could also divide both racism and tolerance among "rational" and "emotional" types. Rational types will try to demonstrate that a group's superiority, or at the contrary, demonstrate that no such superiority truly exist. The emotional types will just "feel" hate or disdain against one group (if they are racist), or tell people that 'we are all human and equal' and shouldn't hate each others.

Mixed racism and tolerance

Naturally, to complicate things, it is possible to belong to more than one of these categories. For example, it is possible to be racist about religion, while being tolerant about ethnicity and culture. It is possible to be a rational racist about culture, and an emotional racist about ethnicity and rationally tolerant about religion. It's more usual for someone to be either "rational" on all he line, or "emotional" on all the line though.

In extreme situations, it is very possible for a champion of ethnic and cultural tolerance to be very racist in matters of religion (I know many examples among some Christian preachers). It is possible for a champion of ethnic and religious tolerance to believe in the superiority of a particular culture or group of cultures. And it is possible for the most tolerant person about religion and cultures to be very racist about ethnicity.

Ma Cherie
20-10-05, 23:26
I'm very open to discussing relgious racism and cultural racism. I have an example of how some religous groups try to justify their racist beliefs through religion. Here's a perfect example of religous racism:

The Christian Separatist Church Society says:
"We freely admit that we are Christian Supremacists, believing that the true Christian faith is superior to all other religions and that there is no way unto God except through the bending of the knee to Jesus Christ and the claiming of His redeeming blood.
----
We reject the Marxist, Leninist, Humanistic doctrine of religious tolerance that relegates Christianity to the level of voodooism or a demonic practice of the boxer Chinese. Those who make such an affirmation of Christian Supremacy are often called bigots, an antichrist Jewish buzzword allegedly laid upon the king of England, when he refused to capitulate to the Jews and said, "By God, I will not," affirming that by the strength of the Eternal, he would remain unshakably adamant in his position.
----
While we are a law-abiding people, we reject the Marxist-Leninist Jewish ideology that race- mixing is somehow a civil right.
----
Since He is an immutable God that changes not, and is the same yesterday, today, and forever, then we stand sure-footed upon the Rock of Ages in declaring that race-mixing is immoral and is the act of racial murder, not only of those participating in it, but also of the tens of millions that may well have been born in the intended created image of God in the future.

Not only is this religious racism, this is an example of how some people justify their ignorant beliefs through religion. :okashii:

I'm reading about cutlural racism at the moment.

Lacan
25-10-05, 23:44
Yes, as a matter of fact I am a college student, I've ran into some interesting articles, but I did find this article about blacks living in France. It's really interesting because even though I do know that racism happens in alot of countries, I never took the time to look at racism beyond the US.
Here's an interesting link, apparently Hurricane Katrina has some influence here.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/21/news/france.php

I'm a black guy living in France and I must say I didn't recognize my country in this article. There are lots of racist in France but it is not that bad. You must know that in France there are west indies blacks, and immigrants from africa who just arrived (you can't really differentiate one from another). Most of west indies blacks are well established and healthy why most of immigrants (black people or not) are poor. The problem is that France is an elitist country, if you don't have a degree (which most west indies blacks have) you're worth nothing, and I must admit it'is a goal that is difficult for an non french speaking immigrant to achieve.
And about the 48 people (4 families) who died in the two building in fire in Paris. Those buildings were refuges for immigrants... alas in France immigrants are mostly black people...

Ma Cherie
26-10-05, 03:07
I don't know much about racial issues in France Lecan, I'll admit. But yes as a matter of fact I did read somewhere that quite a number of immigrants are mostly blacks.

Well as you may have heard, Rosa Parks died at the age of 92. She was a well known civil rights leader and she was arrested in 1955 for basically not doing anything. Well she didn't give up her seat to a white man.

I did however read some stories about race in Africa, well if issues about tribes are considered racism. :?

Invictus_88
27-12-09, 23:59
The current extreme racist groups, like those listed by the OP, seem to be fuelled principally by a sense of fear and insecurity. A sort of terrified rage, hammered out into a pseudo-ideology.

St Delcambre
16-12-10, 11:11
The term "racism" has become so bastardized and consistently misused in the modern-day Western World that I can no longer even take the term seriously much less engage in a conversation where it is the focal point.

Elias2
16-12-10, 19:49
The term "racism" has become so bastardized and consistently misused in the modern-day Western World that I can no longer even take the term seriously much less engage in a conversation where it is the focal point.

I agree with this. I friend of mine was rejected at a job interview because in her view they were racist because she was "brown" skined and she thought they didn't want her to work for them. I know her pretty well and lets just say I don't think that was the reason at all.

Regulus
16-12-10, 19:58
My father was a very rascist person, but in my heart I think that he said most of what he said to keep convincing himself how much he supposedly hated some groups. Then I would see him sitting on the porch of a house owned by a person from that group, talking to the owner for hours more peacefully than he would to his own family.

I never saw the point of just writing off an entire group and have always wanted to stay with idea of sorting out people by good and bad.

Reinaert
16-12-10, 22:08
I think racism is a lot of bullshit. All human beings nowadays are family. There is only once race. Human. DNA proves that.

Bogdan
26-12-10, 05:07
Have you ever wondered why some people are racist or prejudiced towards a certain group of people? There was an interesting discussion in my Political Science about the psychology of racism. What are your opinions on groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nzis (skinheads) and if you know of any other groups that would be great. :p Why do you believe these groups exist and why do you think people become apart of these groups? Is there some inferiority issues involved? I'm kind of doing a little bit of research on this. But I found some links on the issues of racism and prejudices.

I like this wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

It is as a response to something else. For example the KKK was orginally formed by General Nathan Bedford Forrest as a way of resisting the northern radical republicans after the war of northern aggression on the south...

Modern day racism on the other hand in the US at least is rarely white power groups eg KKK, skinheads etc.... rather more black on white racism happens than white on black racism yet this is something that our "god blessed" media seems to ignore

LeBrok
26-12-10, 07:24
Here is my piece I wrote some time ago and posted in different tread:



Racism exists in all races and cultures on Earth with fairly equal intensity.

Racism is not an European invention, it always existed everywhere in every group. Portuguese didn’t run around in Africa rounding up the slaves. The slave market existed in West African countries before they arrived, slaves were local commodities, local culture with long slave tradition. It’s common for one tribe to enslave people from other tribe, all around the world. If you like it or not, black people captured black people and sold them to Portuguese.

I’d say, racism has its roots in basic emotion like aggression against common enemy. It is exactly same emotion of hatred and aggression towards people of different religion or class. This even exists in all territorial mammal spices. One group of wolves chases away other group from their territory. Some can be surprised, but there are well documented records on video, of one group chimpanzees attacking other group, and killing some in process, just because the others were trespassing through their land.
The differences for group aggression can be quite subtle; like soccer fans from other part of same city, or migrant workers from other town stealing our jobs, etc. Of course, if differences between groups are more visible and obvious the easier to segregate the groups and unleash aggression.
Aggression and hatred towards different group has deep evolutionary roots. We are basically born to be racists, laugh at and ridicule others, romanticize and exaggerate our importance. All of it because these traits of behavior were very beneficial for survivor of our ancestors. It made the group more united therefore stronger against common enemy. Unfortunately the legacy of it hunts us now when we’re trying to build one big and happy global village.

Things like education of our kids in spirit of equality, tolerance, inclusivity will help us a lot. We should have same human rights, privileges, responsibility and opportunities. We should be equal under any political, social and religious laws. This will help us a lot, but the racism will never go away.

Did you notice that the fear place big role in it too? How come we are so scared of many different things, basically the things that we are not used to, and ready to ridicule? Things like: disfigured people, people of different races (if not growing up in multicultural country), people dressed up differently (old fashion), stranger knocking at your door, different sexual behavior, etc…
For me fear related to differences has strong evolutionary heritage, and obviously had positive role in our ancestor’s evolution.
Also this trait will hamper our global community, but this could be fixed to some extend through exposing our young to all world’s varieties.

Other thing that stands in the way of global village is that even if we are totally equal in rights, we never will be the same. We are not born as clean slate; we are born with programmed physical and mental abilities, characters, temperaments, and predispositions etc. that are stronger and more prevalent (statistically speaking) in one race than another. Different races are product of tens of thousand years of evolution in different geographical regions, and to some extend (most likely) intermingling with local hominid spices. Personally, I don’t like it at all, because it screws up my romantic view of harmonious global village, but my logic leads me to this explanation, that I can’t resist.
But maybe we’ll be fine, and in 1000 or10 000 years, we’ll be nicely mixed into one race and culture, and racial, religious and class hatred will be a thing of a past.

Reinaert
28-12-10, 17:32
Hmm.. Your story is the usual way to see human beings as "bad". And that is the pretext to take control over society, for the benefit of those who have the power.
With God on their side. Soooooo outdated.

In the history before the Romans in Europe, there lived lots of people in different tribes of clans, who had a relative quiet life together. The Celts knew some rivalry between each other, but the real bloody nations were more in the Middle East, where Agriculture and the Cities made life more complex, but the same time gave more food and also a growing shortage of materials, that needed the upper class to go searching for it.

Well, we have had this discussion already somewhere else.

Conclusion, racism is a propaganda trick to cover stealing people and materials from other regions.

Racism, and I say it again, is an empty word, because there is only one race. Humanoid.

QuestioningAnswers
01-01-11, 10:17
First of all I would like to say that I'm honored to be in the company of what I would consider to be intelligent people.

IMO:

Racism is little different than any other prejudice. Instead of it being a strict intellectual or lifestyle prejudice, its tendency is to be based upon a physical prejudice.

As I see it prejudice tends to go as follows (aka requiring the lowest intelligence to the highest; at least the highest that I can currently fathom):

1) Physical attributes (aka "you're fat" "you're white/black/yellow/red" ect)

2) Lifestyle attributes (aka "you're gay" "you're a nerd" "you're poor" ect)

3) Intellectual attributes (aka typical in the early internet age: "you're stupid", "you're wrong because I currently believe differently" etc)

Sometimes these prejudices can be mixed with each other too. Never-the-less, all prejudices tend to be the product of ignorance; even this one.



Several years ago I wrote the following about racism/prejudice. It was partially in all seriousness and partially in jest, because I know that I personally have not risen above all prejudice:

"There is an innate perfection in everything. Just as the racist person shows their ignorance in thinking colored skin is "bad", when we ourselves think of anything else as "bad", we also show our ignorance towards that thing. In other words, the things that we cannot accept we do not yet know enough about.

In other words, criticism is an admission of your own ignorance...stupid."

I'm sure you can find the irony in this statement.


IMO the only freedom from prejudice; whether it be racism or intellectual prejudice is unconditional love (aka true, unhindered forgiveness).

barbarian
02-01-11, 03:32
Have you ever wondered why some people are racist or prejudiced towards a certain group of people? There was an interesting discussion in my Political Science about the psychology of racism. What are your opinions on groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, Neo-Nzis (skinheads) and if you know of any other groups that would be great. :p Why do you believe these groups exist and why do you think people become apart of these groups? Is there some inferiority issues involved? I'm kind of doing a little bit of research on this. But I found some links on the issues of racism and prejudices.

I like this wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

i think we may handle racism in two different title: individual racism and corporate (or social) racism.
individually, everybody may be racist, nobody can force you to like e.g. yellow race. and if you dont hurt anybody, then you can die with that secret. even a well-educated person can be racist since it is a nature of human. human is a very anxious animal and doesnt like contrast.

However, if it is a social one, then it is impossible to be harmless since it will be too synergic and political. i believe that the ignorance is the main source of this kind of racism since the ignorant people have less self control and open to manipulate. The manipulator will provide or use:
-misinformation
-unemployment which causes hate for anything
-desire for respect
-nationalism which is already given by the goverments.
-the crowd (which lowers the fear)
-the state of belonging to a group (a human characteristic)

and then he will be political/economical power.

with the help of increasing unemployment, internet, political transformation, i believe the racism may rise in EU in these days.

Carlitos
04-01-11, 01:04
It is a complicated issue. I think that racism is innate in human beings when it comes to live with another racial group may be an individual feeling natural and not dangerous to many times the policy is used for economic purposes rather than racist.

They say they know is to love, I think it's an individual struggle to eradicate or control the racism that every human being carries within, irrespective of race, as I have concluded that each race or ethnic group is somehow better believe the rest and no one pound in a given time to be racist or suffer racism.

Christianity is a good antidote to racism, although many have dared to raise the cross, while blacks were killed as in the case of Kukus klan, but again had economic interests behind that excuse in the race.

LeBrok
04-01-11, 03:27
The key is to be inclusive to all peoples, and teach our children that we all belong to one group. Will it work,...theoretically yes. :)

himagain
08-01-12, 02:27
Racism, the attitude that some are somehow better than others and, have the right to torment those who are not
like them. This is taught and perpetuated by the culture around both groups. It is harmful to be racist, and even more harmful
to be on the receiving end of racism. This intolerant state of affairs can, and should, be changed.

ritageorge
20-08-14, 15:13
Racism could be owing to cultural factors inculcated from childhood, certain religious principles that do not tolerate certain groups, other times its perpetuated by ignorance, fear, a desire to control and inferiority.

albanopolis
20-08-14, 17:03
Racism could be owing to cultural factors inculcated from childhood, certain religious principles that do not tolerate certain groups, other times its perpetuated by ignorance, fear, a desire to control and inferiority.

Racism is biological! In an experiment at CNN there was exactly the same graphic girl painted in 7 different colors. Among the colors there was black as well. The picture was offered to 2 or 3 years old white kids. They don't know what racism is. They were asked: "Which is the ugly girl?". They all pointed to the black colored one. The same one was offered to black kids. They did not necessarily pointed to the black one but seemed that they were confused. They did not name the white one as ugly.
This shows that racism is not a social construction. We are born with certain instincts. Let say to go from point A to point B we all go in a straight line, not in a curbed one. We are also born with certain attributes of what is beautiful. Certain races do not fit in our biological construction of beautiful. Of course this ideas are transmitted from parent to child as an important knowledge the same way we teach farming or science.
I believe in the future before the people get married will require each other a DNA test to avoid miscegenation.

LeBrok
20-08-14, 17:58
Racism is biological! In an experiment at CNN there was exactly the same graphic girl painted in 7 different colors. Among the colors there was black as well. The picture was offered to 2 or 3 years old white kids. They don't know what racism is. They were asked: "Which is the ugly girl?". They all pointed to the black colored one. The same one was offered to black kids. They did not necessarily pointed to the black one but seemed that they were confused. They did not name the white one as ugly.
This shows that racism is not a social construction. We are born with certain instincts. Let say to go from point A to point B we all go in a straight line, not in a curbed one. We are also born with certain attributes of what is beautiful. Certain races do not fit in our biological construction of beautiful. Of course this ideas are transmitted from parent to child as an important knowledge the same way we teach farming or science.
I believe in the future before the people get married will require each other a DNA test to avoid miscegenation.
I pretty much agree, racism/nationalism seems to be a genetic trait based on evolution of group protection mechanism. However there is a social learned aspect of racism. The selection, the identification of the group you belong to. For example you can adopt a white european kid into a family in Kenya. He will grow up loving Kenya and treating black Kenyans as their own kind. Perhaps even dreaming about being black to fit in even better.

albanopolis
20-08-14, 19:21
I pretty much agree, racism/nationalism seems to be a genetic trait based on evolution of group protection mechanism. However there is a social learned aspect of racism. The selection, the identification of the group you belong to. For example you can adopt a white european kid into a family in Kenya. He will grow up loving Kenya and treating black Kenyans as their own kind. Perhaps even dreaming about being black to fit in even better.
I suggest you another example. Suppose in soccer world cup, a black player from your team gets in fight over a ball with a white player of the opposite team. Normally the white players of your team will go in defense of the black player and beat the white player of the opposite team. This does not mean the white players who defended the black player did it because staying together they changed the view about race. Race is an obvious biological difference and we perceive our world through our vision. Races have different views of what is beautiful or valuable and what is not. As an example: Arab architecture is quite intricate and distinct when you compare it to North European architecture. But it was never embraced and replicated in Northern Europe. Because the way Northern Europeans perceive the elegance is different and has to do with biology of the brain.
What am I trying to say is that biology is the prime cause of racism. Society has a role on how severe racism is.
In societies that do fight racism then its expression is subdued but it does not mean is cured. We areborn with that syndrome.

kamani
23-08-14, 15:24
race is a social concept. It does not exist if you grow up in a mixed society where everybody sees everybody else as equally close human beings. But once you start differentiating among people and forming in your head different ethnic and racial groups, you become automatically racist. As an example, a black person in the ghetto that starts every other sentence with "Black people...", is actually very racist. Once people identify themselves with a racial group, you have automatically racism. So to make it less damaging, there needs to be no constant talk about races and no "stick to your own..." between people. The problem is a lot of people among the most powerful group in a nation, actually like the apartheid system (why would you want equality if you have the power?!). On the other hand, a lot of minority spiritual leaders also like the apartheid system, because they base their existence and social importance on "fighting" it. So unfortunately, we're never getting out of it...

oriental
23-08-14, 21:30
Race is a recent concept especially with the invention of photography. With photography people could see masses of people from far and near and notice the physical differences. Most people before modern times never traveled far from their towns or villages and tales of travelers, merchants, adventurers were thought to be farfetched or exaggeration. People from beyond the hill were thought to be monsters or devils.

MtDNA
23-08-14, 22:27
Not anyone is immune to the effects of racism. Sure, wanting to protect people that have similar phenotypes is good, but when it crosses a certain line, it can become troublesome. Take for example, if there is a white guy. He sees two strangers hanging from a cliff: a white disabled (mentally and physically) man, and a black healthy non-disabled man. Of course, based on logic, one must choose the healthy one to save. However, imagine if the guy is racist. He will choose the disabled man. This not only applies in these situations, but reproduction too.

LeBrok
23-08-14, 23:04
Not anyone is immune to the effects of racism. Sure, wanting to protect people that have similar phenotypes is good, but when it crosses a certain line, it can become troublesome. Take for example, if there is a white guy. He sees two strangers hanging from a cliff: a white disabled (mentally and physically) man, and a black healthy non-disabled man. Of course, based on logic, one must choose the healthy one to save. However, imagine if the guy is racist. He will choose the disabled man. This not only applies in these situations, but reproduction too.
I understand your logic, though the example might not be the right one. Here is why for couple of reasons. Even if the pulling white guy is racist, he could decide to pull up black guy first or only if there is one choice allowed. It is easier to walk to safety, work, play and live with a healthy fellow. Second reason, if slavery is allowed in this hypothetical world scenario, he might decide to acquire a healthy slave than a crippled white guy to be a nurse to.
I would design this experiment differently. It happens in today's Canada, two guys are hanging off the cliff, both healthy and same size, one black on white, and assuming the rescuer is not gay to go for a beautiful one, lol. The white rescuer comes from one side, see both guys hanging, and the black guy is the closest to grab. Oh, and there are no witnesses to influence politically correct outcome.
Who would you guys pull up first? I don't expect the answers, just a self test. ;)

PS. This test might not work for Oriental. Change white hanging guy with oriental looking one.

epoch
24-08-14, 00:39
The term "racism" has become so bastardized and consistently misused in the modern-day Western World that I can no longer even take the term seriously much less engage in a conversation where it is the focal point.

I third that.

MtDNA
24-08-14, 17:43
I understand your logic, though the example might not be the right one. Here is why for couple of reasons. Even if the pulling white guy is racist, he could decide to pull up black guy first or only if there is one choice allowed. It is easier to walk to safety, work, play and live with a healthy fellow. Second reason, if slavery is allowed in this hypothetical world scenario, he might decide to acquire a healthy slave than a crippled white guy to be a nurse to.
I would design this experiment differently. It happens in today's Canada, two guys are hanging off the cliff, both healthy and same size, one black on white, and assuming the rescuer is not gay to go for a beautiful one, lol. The white rescuer comes from one side, see both guys hanging, and the black guy is the closest to grab. Oh, and there are no witnesses to influence politically correct outcome.
Who would you guys pull up first? I don't expect the answers, just a self test. ;)

PS. This test might not work for Oriental. Change white hanging guy with oriental looking one.


The example could be used for any race, but there needs to be a distinction for ability.

There is a person of 'racial group A'. Xe sees two strangers, same gendered people hanging off a cliff. One is a disabled (mentally, physically, intellectually) person of the same race, while the other is a healthy (in all three ways) member of 'racial group B'. You can only save one.

The logical, Eugenist solution would be to choose the healthy person of the other race.
The illogical, extremely racist solution would be to choose the disabled person of the same race.


When this basic template is applied to reproduction, it describes why, in certain populations, certain disadvantageous genes tend to survive, and be passed on to many offspring, despite the presence of healthy individuals in that same area and time frame.

LeBrok
24-08-14, 18:42
The example could be used for any race, but there needs to be a distinction for ability.

There is a person of 'racial group A'. Xe sees two strangers, same gendered people hanging off a cliff. One is a disabled (mentally, physically, intellectually) person of the same race, while the other is a healthy (in all three ways) member of 'racial group B'. You can only save one.

The logical, Eugenist solution would be to choose the healthy person of the other race.
The illogical, extremely racist solution would be to choose the disabled person of the same race.


This example will test which feeling in a person are the strongest. The feeling of racism or feeling of eugenics. Ability of people to hold both feelings at the same time will render this test imprecise. For example, a person could be racist but also have stronger eugenics feelings, will pick a black person to save, therefore racism in this person won't be discovered.

In the test, from my post, we only test feeling of racism in a person, for that reason all other variables must be the same.




When this basic template is applied to reproduction, it describes why, in certain populations, certain disadvantageous genes tend to survive, and be passed on to many offspring, despite the presence of healthy individuals in that same area and time frame.
Certainly, to make matter more complicated, in the past, it was more about choices of parents than the newlyweds. We had arranged marriages for at least as long as civilization itself. Even Jesus was teaching contemporaries that a slave should know his/her place in society.

kamani
24-08-14, 19:19
The logical, Eugenist solution would be to choose the healthy person of the other race.
.

In practice, 99% of Eugenists are also racist, so he would save neither of them. That's why having a disability is just as inviting of discrimination as being a minority.

Theodorik
24-08-14, 19:55
Eugenics in the 21st Century
http://whatwemaybe.org (http://whatwemaybe.org/)/
This book may be downloaded free of charge at this URL.
Recent discoveries in DNA and genetics have emphasized the importance of genes in determining, intelligence, health, happiness, crime, aggressiveness, and mental illness. The old liberal idea that "We are all created equal" has been destroyed forever. Old Communist and liberal theories that social problems are caused by racism, capitalism, sexism, poverty, or Christianity have now been disproved beyond any doubt. The only way to solve the world's problems and build a better world is through eugenics. Eugenics should not be confused with euthanasia. The word eugenics comes from the Greek "good birth", whereas euthanasia comes from the Greek "good killing." Of course euthanasia is wrong except where it prevents unbearable suffering, such as with cancer patients who request it. Eugenics need not be forced. It should be voluntary and based on incentives. The idea of eugenics was first proposed by Plato in his book THE REPUBLIC. This is the basis of all modern democracy.
This valuable book has been translated into English, Russian, French, German, Hebrew, Arabic, Italian, Norwegian, Chinese, Farsi, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Spanish, and Urdu.
http://whatwemaybe.org/images/figurines.jpg
Executive Summary of The Most Widely Read Book On Eugenics Ever Written
"Evolutionary selection has been radically relaxed in the human species as a result of the development of civilization, science in general, and medicine in particular. While these advances have hugely benefited current populations, they have to a significant degree released the species from the biological process which created it and maintains its viability. Formerly, natural selection took place largely as a result of differential mortality, but now that most people survive well beyond their child bearing years, selection is determined largely by differential fertility. Aside from genetic illnesses, this new selection is also characterized by a negative correlation between fertility and intelligence–the core of eugenic concern for over a century.

"Eugenics views itself as the fourth leg of the chair of civilization, the other three being a) a thrifty expenditure of natural resources, b) mitigation of environmental pollution, and c) maintenance of a human population not exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity. Eugenics, which can be thought of as human ecology, is thus part and parcel of the environmental movement. Humanity is defined, not as the totality of the currently living population, but as the number of people who will potentially ever live. This is a book about the struggle for human rights and parental responsibility.

"John Glad (http://whatwemaybe.org/txt/txt0000/glad.john.2006.biography.htm) is a retired professor of Russian studies, having taught at Rutgers University, the University of Chicago, the University of Iowa, and the University of Maryland. He is also the former Director of the Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies in the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, in Washington, D.C. A Guggenheim grant recipient, he is the author, editor, or translator of twenty books, some of which have been honored in the American Book Awards. Future Human Evolution is part of his long-standing work on behalf of human rights, in this case of future generations. According to the Russian “Electronic Dissertations Library,” just in the period 2004-2010 his work was cited in 144 dissertations (123 CANDIDATE’S dissertations [recognized as the Russian equivalent of a Ph.D.] and 17 DOCTORAL dissertations [the equivalent of promotion to Full Professor] in exile and human rights studies, plus additional citations to his more recent work dealing with sociobiology, bioethics, and eugenics in two DOCTORAL and two CAissertations.) The data base indicates that roughly half of these dissertations cite him multiple times—even in the dissertation abstract"

shttp://forums.delphiforums.com/eugenics1
http://forums.delphiforums.com/chromosome
http://forums.delphiforums.com/racism13
http://forums.delphiforums.com/biohistory
http://forums.delphiforums.com/nordichistory4
http://forums.delphiforums.com/truthseekers23

albanopolis
24-08-14, 19:57
In practice, 99% of Eugenists are also racist, so he would save neither of them. That's why having a disability is just as inviting of discrimination as being a minority.
Only Hitler hated disable people. I think he committed genocide against them, but since they were racially white for most part, it is not mentioned as often among his many crimes. But society as a whole do not look down on them. Society sees disability as work of nature and shows sympathy for them. But large sections of homogeneous societies do not sympathize with other race. White race has had severe race struggles but should be noted that other races are racist too. I know Japanese are racists against whites. I don't know Indians. Most Asians I think sympathize with whites for their technological achievements not necessarily for their looks.
So, I am reemphasizing my view that racism is biological and because of biological construction of the brain we tend to see things differently.

oriental
25-08-14, 00:48
I remember reading that Greeks drowned or left deformed babies by the river and Romans let the deformed in the woods for animals to eat them. In the old days people were not so nice. There wasn't the comfort of today. It was more survival as wars and starvation were common.

Modern days where rich women checking the unborn to see whether to abort or not. Yes in Audrey Hepburn's autobiography she did such a check and luckily the baby was fine.

MtDNA
25-08-14, 01:34
In practice, 99% of Eugenists are also racist, so he would save neither of them. That's why having a disability is just as inviting of discrimination as being a minority.

As a Eugenist, I find your statment offensive. True Eugenics and and true Racism are not compatible with eachother. Eugenists care about ones who have good genes, while racists care about only one race. By saying they can coesxist, you are feeding the notion that "some races are better than others".
Sure you can have a natural affinity to your race even as a Eugenist. But, that connection needs to stay within boundaries. You must inheritely know that preserving healthy genes is much more important than preserving your race.

Yetos
25-08-14, 01:57
I remember reading that Greeks drowned or left deformed babies by the river and Romans let the deformed in the woods for animals to eat them. In the old days people were not so nice. There wasn't the comfort of today. It was more survival as wars and starvation were common.

Modern days where rich women checking the unborn to see whether to abort or not. Yes in Audrey Hepburn's autobiography she did such a check and luckily the baby was fine.

true but not all Greeks,
Spartans did that they throw them from a mountain cave a hole καιαδας keadas

http://www.anthropologie.ch/d/publikationen/archiv/2010/documents/03PITSIOSreprint.pdf

In Athens they were used as special abilities workers such as sellers, message carriers, artisants, but with limited rights, since they could not help in a war.
major class that time was the able ones who could take part to a war,

kamani
25-08-14, 04:01
As a Eugenist, I find your statment offensive.

Well then you are offended by reality, because most 20-th century and later eugenism has been associated with things like: fascism, nazism, anti-semitism, war against the weak, anti-immigration, racism, aryanism, and all that crazy stuff.


Eugenists care about ones who have good genes.
Who are we to decide who has the good genes and who should procreate ?!

LeBrok
25-08-14, 06:22
Well then you are offended by reality, because most 20-th century and later eugenism has been associated with things like: fascism, nazism, anti-semitism, war against the weak, anti-immigration, racism, aryanism, and all that crazy stuff. Mostly the crazy ones became famous. Eugenics is in all of us to some degree. Don't you want your kids to be the smartest, healthiest and good looking? We all do.



Who are we to decide who has the good genes and who should procreate ?! For that extremely difficult dilemma, this problem will be left for parental discretion. Although with medical advances in the future, which will give parents abilities to make "designer babies", their got to be regulations and guidelines in this matter set by the state.

FBS
25-08-14, 17:23
The smart, the looks and the health have had their evolution without direct interference of Eugenists for centuries, why interfere with mother nature? Where are the Spartans now? Throwing their "lesser" human beings did not help their way of life to survive.

Human experiments and interference have created problems over and over. What we need is learning to adapt more successfully to the environment and society and not create some closely controlled breed. Would that be boring! Everybody healthy, everybody good looking. Imagine the irony, everybody will look for someone who is the other way round - not perfectly good looking because it will make them.. well... unique. Uniformity is boring and stagnating.

MtDNA
25-08-14, 18:01
The smart, the looks and the health have had their evolution without direct interference of Eugenists for centuries, why interfere with mother nature? Where are the Spartans now? Throwing their "lesser" human beings did not help their way of life to survive.

Human experiments and interference have created problems over and over. What we need is learning to adapt more successfully to the environment and society and not create some closely controlled breed. Would that be boring! Everybody healthy, everybody good looking. Imagine the irony, everybody will look for someone who is the other way round - not perfectly good looking because it will make them.. well... unique. Uniformity is boring and stagnating.

In the past, those that were of lesser intelligence and ability didn't have it great. In fact, they would bury themselves six feet under by drowning, eating poison mushrooms, getting diseases, etc. They usually woudn't live to have children. But now, they are given support to survive. This means that they can live to reproduction age.

And also, Eugenics was performed in the past. There was a taboo against marrying people who can barely support themselves, nonetheless, a family. Nowadays, with the media's glamorization of "love", naiive girls marry disabled men that say "I love you, I need you". This does not make any evolutionary sense, and it causes those girls to become pregnant by men that shouldn't have ever procreated by natural laws. This has caused a sudden decrease in the universal quality of the human genome.

hope
25-08-14, 18:50
There was a taboo against marrying people who can barely support themselves, nonetheless, a family. Nowadays, with the media's glamorization of "love", naiive girls marry disabled men that say "I love you, I need you". This does not make any evolutionary sense, and it causes those girls to become pregnant by men that shouldn't have ever procreated by natural laws. This has caused a sudden decrease in the universal quality of the human genome.
So are you saying disabled people should not be allowed to have children, do you say they should forcibly be sterilised? Do you say poor people should likewise not be allowed to procreate? Where do you draw the line? Should we consider making a table with disabilities and ranking them, who or what disability would make the list? What about the disabled person who becomes pregnant, should the state usher them off for a forced termination? I never heard such nonsense.
As for the naive young women, give them more credit. I think you will find many women who are equally adapt at finding themselves a wealthy husband..take a look in the tabloids.
And if a disabled person finds they are in love with an able bodied person who in turn is in love with them, that is their choice..we still, thank God, live for the most in countries that allow such.

Aberdeen
25-08-14, 18:58
In the past, those that were of lesser intelligence and ability didn't have it great. In fact, they would bury themselves six feet under by drowning, eating poison mushrooms, getting diseases, etc. They usually woudn't live to have children. But now, they are given support to survive. This means that they can live to reproduction age.

And also, Eugenics was performed in the past. There was a taboo against marrying people who can barely support themselves, nonetheless, a family. Nowadays, with the media's glamorization of "love", naiive girls marry disabled men that say "I love you, I need you". This does not make any evolutionary sense, and it causes those girls to become pregnant by men that shouldn't have ever procreated by natural laws. This has caused a sudden decrease in the universal quality of the human genome.

But eugenics has nothing to do with racism, fascism or making war on whatever group is currently unpopular? Really? I do hope you realize that one hundred years ago you would have been refused admission to Canada because eugenicists would have considered you to be a member of an "inferior race". Eugenics has almost always been manipulated to suit political agendas.

Angela
25-08-14, 20:23
Yes, we all would wish our children to be intelligent, and healthy, and beautiful, and that is more likely to be the outcome if we marry people with those traits and whose families exhibit those traits.

I think it's also true that people who even a few generations ago would not have survived or been allowed to reproduce do so now, and that this might have deleterious consequences for society as a whole. (Of course, marrying one's offspring to diseased or otherwise genetically unattractive people has often been done when there was a financial or social benefit to it, and those marriages had consequences too. Close cousin intermarriage has also been practiced by certain groups in certain eras and we know the deleterious results of that. )

However, that's a far cry from letting any entity. or any other person, for that matter, make that decision for other individuals. As Aberdeen stated, eugenics has almost always been manipulated to suit political agendasor nefarious ideologies of one sort or another. I don't trust any group to make those kinds of decisions. Perhaps we all need to read Brave New World again? :)

I even wonder about the long term effects of people choosing to alter the genetic make-up of their own offspring through new techniques. It sometimes seems to me that it's the very diversity of the human genome and the constant random permutations that has allowed for our survival. Who knows when a supposedly deleterious gene might come in handy? It's happened before. That's not to mention that, as someone else stated, it would become a very boring world. Moreover, would these things mean anything anymore? What would beauty become, for instance? What would it mean, if there was no ugliness?

Ed. Just another thought. Physical weakness is often the enemy of human progress. How many eminent scientists, or artists of one sort or another, were lost to us not only before they could reproduce and pass on their talents, but before they could put them to the use of all mankind? I have Keats on my mind lately, and he died at 26 of tuberculosis. Susceptibility to TB definitely was genetic...it wasn't just about exposure. Everyone would have been exposed. How many geniuses and their otherwise valuable genes did we lose?

MtDNA
25-08-14, 20:24
But eugenics has nothing to do with racism, fascism or making war on whatever group is currently unpopular? Really? I do hope you realize that one hundred years ago you would have been refused admission to Canada because eugenicists would have considered you to be a member of an "inferior race". Eugenics has almost always been manipulated to suit political agendas.

Eugenists do not believe in "inferior races". There are Africans that can't use an abacus, and there are African mathematicians. Similarly, there are Caucasians that can't read, and there are Caucasians that are poetry enthusiasts. Within each race, there are abled people, and less-abled people. The goal is to increase the ratio of abled : disabled within the population. There are many ways to go about that.

Plus, one hundred years ago, Canada would've admitted me. By the way, the immigration back then had nothing to do with Eugenics. They just wanted to bring in anyone that can cultivate their land, and increase the population of their country. Mostly, the poorest people from Europe, that had it going rough, would come.
If anything, my family wouldn't even want to come back then. A hundred years ago, their dynasty was intact. As princes and princesses, they had no need to immigrate to a faraway place. Plus, I do not know where "considering Persians an inferior race" came up from. Maybe, in very bigoted, recently published text you read, they might've mentioned that, but back then, a hundred years ago, Persians interested people. They were compelled by the Aryan migrations, and didn't hate Persians and Iranic people.


This is getting slightly offtopic. Let's discuss how racism affects population composition instead.

Angela
25-08-14, 20:36
As for the psychology of "racism", first you have to define it. If we are to define it as fear, or perhaps even hatred, of a sort, of certain "peoples" because they are perceived as alien to ones's own "people", then it may be to some extent a "natural" although not very attractive human trait. If it is defined as the application of political, economic, and social power to marginalize a group of people different from oneself in order to take or keep more than one's own share of resources, then it's a different although perhaps related phenomenon.

Aberdeen
25-08-14, 21:56
..............

Plus, I do not know where "considering Persians an inferior race" came up from. Maybe, in very bigoted, recently published text you read, they might've mentioned that, but back then, a hundred years ago, Persians interested people. They were compelled by the Aryan migrations, and didn't hate Persians and Iranic people.


This is getting slightly offtopic. Let's discuss how racism affects population composition instead.

If you think Persians would have been admired or welcomed in this country one hundred years ago, you have absolutely no idea about the racist attitudes of the Orange Lodge types who ran this country back then. As I said before, any discussion of eugenics has often been guided more by political agendas than by science. And no, it's not off topic. The members of the Orange Lodges were usually enthusiastic eugenicists.

MtDNA
25-08-14, 22:47
If you think Persians would have been admired or welcomed in this country one hundred years ago, you have absolutely no idea about the racist attitudes of the Orange Lodge types who ran this country back then. As I said before, any discussion of eugenics has often been guided more by political agendas than by science. And no, it's not off topic. The members of the Orange Lodges were usually enthusiastic eugenicists.

The original point was that racism is against Eugenics.
With racism, you are degrading your genome. On the other hand, Eugenics strives to improve the genome.

Imagine there is a young lady that is not that attractive. All of the abled men within her ethnicity are taken. The only marriable people of her ethnic group are disabled. However, there are abled men of different ethnicities in that community.
In situations in which there is widespread racism, the lady would choose to marry a disabled man, than one from the out-group. Her children will be of a "pure" race, but what's the point when they can barely speak, and drool themselves to sleep (exageration).
It is natural to have preferences for your own race, but when the human genome is at risk, that's when it crosses the border, into the danger-zone.

Tchek
25-08-14, 23:51
Let's agree on words definition here. Racism is a nebulous concept. It has diverse meanings and it's politically instrumentalized, too.

Eugenics has different meaning as well. There is passive eugenics and active eugenics. Obviously, state planned eugenism (like Nazism) is an ugly concept; but when you are attracted to beautiful, smart, healthy individuals you are applying your own eugenism.

kamani
05-09-14, 14:24
There is a very easy way to measure racism. Give a person some authority and look at how fairly does he treat someone of a different race. From what I have seen, once given authority, all races have some racist individuals. Some of my white friends have reported that it is very rare for an East-Asian boss to hire a white employee, even when they're qualified. In non-violent western society, I don't see anything more racist than that.