What is Racism?

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by FyreByrd

Racism has been practised a lot longer then 400 years. It was used, certainly, by Europeans to justify colonization but didn't start there.

No? Please show me some instances where the term 'race' existed prior to the 1600's. You might be able to re-write history.

edit on 22/5/13 by masqua because: (no reason given)

You are absolutely correct:

race (n.2)
"people of common descent," c.1500, from Middle French razza "race, breed, lineage," possibly from Italian razza, of unknown origin (cf. Spanish and Portuguese raza).

Original senses in English included "wines with characteristic flavor" (1520), "group of people with common occupation" (c.1500), and "generation" (c.1560). Meaning "tribe, nation, or people regarded as of common stock" is from c.1600. Modern meaning of "one of the great divisions of mankind based on physical peculiarities" is from 1774 (though even among anthropologists there never has been an accepted classification of these).
Just being a Negro doesn't qualify you to understand the race situation any more than being sick makes you an expert on medicine. [Dick Gregory, 1964]
Klein suggests these derive from Arabic ra's "head, beginning, origin" (cf. Hebrew rosh). Old English þeode meant both "race" and "language;" as a verb, geþeodan, it meant "to unite, to join." Race-riot attested from 1889, American English.

etymonline.com...

But I cannot look up equivalents in Asian Languages.

reply to post by FyreByrd

You and Masqua hit it on the head,while there were stereotypes about the other it really took a long time for folks to develop a comprehensive race theory, yes ancient folks have their somantic norms which they preferred but they were much more nationalistic that means when you became part of a nation despite your features and you join the in crowd there was little to keep you from moving up the ladder.

The ancient Greeks despite being cocky and self satisfied kinda coin the whole Black is beautiful thingy this seemed to go against their somantic norm,the Romans cruel to the extreme but inclusive when folks joined the empire.
Black and White Intelligence

Many ancient and medieval writers commented on how skin color correlated with intelligence. To the shock of many modern readers the Greeks and Romans equated dark skin with intelligence and lighter skin with stupidity. The Greek historian Lucian (125?-90) wrote that the Ethiopians (name for all black people), "Being in all else wiser than other men," invented astrology and taught it to the Egyptians.1 Aristotle (398-332BC) believed that, "The races that live in. Europe are full of courage and passion but somewhat lacking in skill and brain power Those who are too black are cowards, like for instance, the Egyptians and Ethiopians. But those who are excessively white are also cowardsThe complexion of courage is between the two." 3

Aristotle believed, liked many Greeks and Romans, that they lived in the perfect, "mid-position geographically," between the intelligent, yet cowardly dark skinned southerners, and brave, yet dull pale-skinned northerners. Vitruvius Polio (1st century BC) in his book, On Architecture, wrote the following passage about the different innate attributes of people: "Now while the southern peoples are of acute intelligence and infinite resource, they give way when courage is demanded because their strength is drained away by the sun; but those who are born in colder regions by their fearless courage are better equipped for the clash of arms, yet by their slowness of mind they rush on without reflection, and through lack of tactics are balked of their purpose Italy presents good qualities which are tempered by admixture from either side both north and south, and are consequently unsurpassed. And so, by its policy, it curbs the courage of the northern barbarians; by its strength, the imaginative south. Thus the divine mind has allotted to the Roman state an excellent and temperate region in order to rule the world.

endingstereotypes.org...

Racism = an inferiority complex projected onto other people in an effort to inflate one's failing ego.

To me,racism is discriminating against another person/people based on skin color-instead of how they treat you,conduct themselves and their lives,their work performance,etc.

But there is another form of racism too-bending over backwards to accommodate a certain race group and walking on eggshells around them,going out of your way to be "politically correct"-Treating them differently,based on their skin color,even if in a way that is (falsely) perceived by many to be positive.

You're still sending the message that they are "different" whether you react to that perceived difference in a positive or negative way.All of the human race,every single person of any race+skin color should be viewed AS EXACTLY THE SAME.The ONLY criteria for deciding whether some one should be your friend/husband/wife/an employee of your company,etc-SHOULD BE THE WAY THEY CHOOSE TO CONDUCT THEMSELVES.

Till the day that is achieved-there will always be "racism" of some kind or the other.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Exactly. Racism is simply believing that one race is superior to another. Period. That means we can all be different and be specialized in certain things but it doesn't make one inferior or superior over another.

It doesn't even need to be race. There was a great experiment a teacher did with her blue eyed students and the brown eyed students to show them the effects of racism. Simply google it for the video if you want to watch it.

You could hate homosexuals, overweight people, the list is really endless of what a person could be racist against.

Its also important to note that racism is not something you can directly control. You can't help it if you like or dislike vanilla ice cream for instance. You could try to dismiss it but that feeling will still usually be there except with a lot of effort.

As long as it stays at that level however, it is harmless.

The problem is you're muddying the term with other meanings. You can't be racist if you don't like homosexuals. Homosexual is NOT a race.

You're a bigot in these cases.

You said initially that you can be racist for not liking people just because they belong to a certain group.

Well I don't like footballers. Yet, no one is claiming it is racist to dislike meat heads that think ball games is employment.

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by FyreByrd

 

It might be off point but, . .. I Fail to see how Negligence equates to Racism or Prejudice.

Maybe it was a bad example on your part.

In any event

Racism is basically the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race.

Prejudice is an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

Example ... . I am Racist Towards Nazis and EVERYTHING they Stand for.

Example .. I am Prejudice towards anyone who does not share my Biased opinion.

No, Nationalist Socialism is not a race.

Gah, stop it !!!

reply to post by Hopechest


Simply disliking someone because they are members of a specific group is NOT racism, it is bigotry.. Disliking someone because they are a member of a specific RACE is racism.

Originally posted by gamesmaster63
Disliking someone because they are a member of a specific RACE is racism.

Labeling someone as being of another race of human beings, even in a friendly manner, is also racism. In my humble opinion, of course.

reply to post by kimish


No, because dogs, wolves, jackals, and other members of the Canis genus are all different species/subspecies.
There is only one extant member of the Homo species, and that's us. The closest we had to a different species was Homo Neanderthalensis, who lived alongside (and interbred with) Homo Sapien tens of thousands of years ago.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata
Class: Mammalia
Subclass: Theria
Infraclass: Eutheria
Order: Primates
Suborder: Anthropoidea
Superfamily: Hominoidea
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: Sapiens
Subspecies: Homo Sapiens Sapiens

^Taxonomy for humans.

Kingdom: Animalia
Subkingdom: Eumetazoa
Phylum: Chordata
Subphylum: Vertebrata (have spinal columns)
Class: Mammalia (fur bearing)
Subclass: Theria
Order: Carnivora (meat eaters)
Suborder: Caniformia
Family: Canidae
Subfamily: Caninae
Tribe: Canini
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus (wolves and dogs)
Subspecies: C. l. familiaris)

^Taxonomy for dogs.

Now, so you better understand why there is only one race in regards to the human race:

Even the staunchest advocates of racial science despaired of establishing race as a real, physical entity. Every ‘scientific’ measure of racial type, from headform to blood group, was shown to be changeable and not exclusive to any one group. As racial scientists searched desperately for more and more trivial manifestations of race, the biologist WJ Solas noted, apparently without a hint of irony, that ‘it is on the degree of curliness or twist in the hair that the most fundamental divisions in the human race are based.’

Link
So, as you can see, there simply is not enough difference within our species to signify any kind of subspecies division. Skin color is about all we have to go off of, and that's simply not enough.

reply to post by masqua


You are correct, I mispoke myself in my zeal, we are all of one race, we have differring physical characteristics due to the environments our genetic antecedents spent many generations evolving in.