King of Tokyo said:
Sorry, If someone is going to believe they have a superior race or make broad generalizations about races then I simply cannot agree with them.
Do you agree that some people are superior to others (within any ethnic group) ?
If races were kept separate, then I doubt anyone of the forum would be alive, no one is 'pure' one race.
Very well said. Everyone is unique genetically. There are genetical differences between all humans, although some are closer together (inside the same family, or distant relatives). What is certain is that major differences exist within the main "races" (Caucasian, African, etc.) to say that "white" or "black" people are 2 races. They may each be hundreds, or thousands, or millions or races, especially if we include "mixed blood" people.
As genetical science progresses and people are slowly become more educated and better aware of those genetical differences, could it be that a new form of racism develops, based on the individual's genes - a racism that could exist even within the same family ? Do you believe in what Nietsche call "uebermenschen" ("superhumans") ? This would be "scientifically approved" racism, and could lead to eugenism. But which form of racism (primitive or scientific) do you think is "better" ? (just to see your reasoning)
FirstHousePooka said:
1) What are your views on religion. Especially Islam or Christianity. I've met a few people who are very anti-racism but say some of the most horrifying things about muslims or christians. Is this intolerance of organised religion any different to intolerance based on race?
Racism is based on "race" or "genes", not religion, culture or ideas (as these can change and be adapted). What you describe is just called intolerance (a word which has a wide meaning and also includes racism, but I don't think we have any single word to describe "religious intolerance" or "cultural intolerance").
2) What about reverse racism? Is it right that the majority should be treated unfairly to ultimately make things easier for a minority?
Why should racism always be the majority oppressing the minority ? History has many cases of minorities (at the government or upper-classes of a society) oppressing the majority. Look at colonialism, look at the Aryans in India who create the caste system to stay at the top of society, while the dark-skinned Dravidian majority stayed at the bottom.
3) Extending on Rocklee's post. Is racism ever justified? Now I believe RockLees example isn't justified. But I will give you an example.
The Sydney gang rapes in Australia.
...
When arrested the lebonese community around Sydney flocked to the boys defence desptie overwhelming evidence of guilt, stating that the arrests were just racist police picking on Muslims.
Racism cannot be based on religion or nationality, as each religious or national group can be mixed ethnically (and Turkish people certainly are very mixed). Maybe we should invent new words for "hate toward a national or religious group" (not just intolerance, in this case).
5) Japan. Its been established that there is DEFINATELY racism in effect in Japan. Banning gaijins from establishments, difficulties gaijin have getting accomodation, percieving Gaijin (especially Chinese and Koreans) as criminals or people worthy of mistrust. Even minor things like assuming I can't use chopsticks because I'm not Japanese.
Japan is an interesting case because most of the racism is tacit and non violent. We could call it "discrimination toward foreigners". It it not only based on race (as Japanese can't even tell a Korean or Chinese from a Japanese if they have Japanese names and speak Japanese without accent), but on prejudice toward national groups. More interestingly, Japanese also discriminate among themselves with the Burakumin, and have done it for centuries (they were formerly known as "Eta"). So you can't call that racism, but "intolerance and discrimination toward people who are different or outside the approved group." There should also be a name for that ("outsider discrimination" ?).
Glenn said:
Are people who are intolerant of racists close-minded in the same way that racists are? I suppose that some could be. However, I think that being intolerant of some things is a good thing. For example, should we be tolerant of rapists? I doubt that anyone would think so.
So, why should we tolerate racists?
"Intolerance" is not a bad thing in itself. It is actually a good thing to be intolerant of certain matters. Being intolerant of errors we commit ourselves (so as to try not to make any), being intolerant of cruelty, unfairness, corruption, bad governments or discrimination are all praiseworthy attitudes. Being tolerant of such things as a bad government or corruption could only make the problem persist, instead of inciting change. Taken to the extreme of tolerance, we could even say that a girl who hates her rapist is not being tolerant of his need to satisfy his hormonal impulses and instincts, which is part of his nature. There are always ways of justifying deeds. That is why it is dangerous to think that tolerance is always good, and intolerance necessarily bad, when very often it is the opposite.