Racism, deconstructing the social construct:

Which reasons are the most prevalent causes of racism?

  • Natural, or evolutionary

    Votes: 6 35.3%
  • Experienced, or reactionary

    Votes: 5 29.4%
  • Parental

    Votes: 5 29.4%
  • Institutional

    Votes: 4 23.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • Total voters
    17
And when I think of 'institutional' I think more in the realm of education at all levels or certain cultural norms that have become the expectation.

And perhaps that includes the social and political factors that I think are the primary source of racism and those are born of and nurtured through pure opportunism . But I'm not sure that really does belong in any of the other categories.

As long as racism is profitable for the beneficiaries and those distributing or lobbbying for the benefits, there will continue to be racism.

Then we are in a sort of agreement.

While I do not doubt that "group think" certainly is evolutionary those sort of behaviors are not neccesarily racist in and of themselves. I don't think it is natural to think just because someone is different they are inferior or superior, they are just different. Granted these natural instincts may be... exploited, so as to gain advantage, they in and of themselves are not racism.

I also do not doubt that people experience degrees of unpleasant/pleasant encounters with members of another given 'race'. It is natural for people to associate by appearance. It is just the way we are wired I guess. Institutions removed, this probably would be the logical primary source of racist behavior. Unfortunately, it seems that many people confuse situations they see in the media with their own experiences.

There may be parents who teach their kids racism, I doubt this is the primary source as elitists/progressives would have us believe. This would probably rank #3 of the learned behaviors if at all. Most parents want their children to be safe, happy, succesful people.

IMHO, institutions that saturate our input with racist drivel are the primary source of racism. What is sad is that these institutions often hide their motive behind the canard of "anti-racism" while simultaneously preaching racism - all for a profit of course.
To me institutions (with the noted exception of religious institutions) are those cultural control centers that are currently overruled or usurped by elitists - The educational systems, the mass media, and of course the government.
 
Last edited:
Which reasons are the most prevalent causes of racism?

rac·ism
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
Racism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


The very real physical characteristics that are used to define 'race' are clearly biological, the resulting behaviors to these characteristics are constructed by sociological mechanisms.

While all of these reasons are likely to be found in reality, the likely causes of racism are a blend of these reasons... So please choose as many as you would like.
I am asking which reasons you believe are the most prevalent causes of 'racism'.

Natural, or evolutionary
Racism is a natural reaction, a group survival trait that is the result of evolution. While simply wishing to retain biological evolutions within a group is not in and of itself "racism", it possibly triggers a construct of "us vs them" and the resulting notions of superiority and inferiority.
-- *EDIT* Racism may not be a sociological construct at all.

Experienced, or reactionary
Through personal interactions with others, racism is a reaction to either positive or negative eperiences that one has when interacting with members of a given race. These experiences are "telescoped" and applied to others who share the same racial/physical characteristics, whom have never have come into contact.
-- *EDIT* Racism is learned through personal experience.

Parental
Parents own racism is passed down to their offspring. Parents are racists for whatever reason, and pass it on to their children.
(A common argument amongst elitist/progressive ideologues is that parents teach 'racism' to their offspring. Of course, such elitists have an agenda of removing peasant or working class children from parental care as soon as possible to be thrust into their utopian slave system.)
-- *EDIT* Racism is learned by parental guidance.

Institutional
Institutions such as government, education, and mass media perpetuate stereotypes which condition their victims to harbor stereotypes that may or may not hold any real truth in reality. Elitists have a vested interest in playing 'races' off of each other in order to maintain power over all of them. The physical reality of 'race' is exploited by these institutions who feel the have the right to treat human beings as catttle.
-- *EDIT* Racism is learned by institutional conditioning.

Other
I will explain in my post.

Its a combination of experience, parental, institutional, and other (other meaning people are just plain stupid sometimes and you can't fix stupid).
 
Last edited:
Experienced and parental.

I don't think it is natural or evolutionary because there is no evolutionary advantage to advance ones race, since we are all the same species.

I don't think that it is institutional, as the amount of time we spend in institutions vs. with parents is far less.
 
Experienced and parental.

I don't think it is natural or evolutionary because there is no evolutionary advantage to advance ones race, since we are all the same species.

I don't think that it is institutional, as the amount of time we spend in institutions vs. with parents is far less.

I considered many of the stereotypes from television to be institutional. Also things like affirmative action are institutional laws based soley on race (yes they had good intentions but none the less they are race based initiatives)
 
Experienced and parental.

I don't think it is natural or evolutionary because there is no evolutionary advantage to advance ones race, since we are all the same species.

I don't think that it is institutional, as the amount of time we spend in institutions vs. with parents is far less.

I considered many of the stereotypes from television to be institutional. Also things like affirmative action are institutional laws based soley on race (yes they had good intentions but none the less they are race based initiatives)
You have a point there, plimmy...

But those institutional things that you mentioned, like TV, and laws...they don't usually portray races in a shockingly negative manner, or at least in as negative a manner as having parents who tell you day in and day out to "never trust *******" and "if you ever bring a colored girl home I'll beat you"...or in as negative manner as being assaulted and robbed by group of people from another race.
 
Racism, the belief that one race is intrinsically superior to another and therefore deserving of priveleges, is a learned behavior, IMO. At the same time, I think we internally know what's right and wrong, and even if we are exposed to racist attitudes by our parents, we can choose another way.
 
Last edited:
And when I think of 'institutional' I think more in the realm of education at all levels or certain cultural norms that have become the expectation.

And perhaps that includes the social and political factors that I think are the primary source of racism and those are born of and nurtured through pure opportunism . But I'm not sure that really does belong in any of the other categories.

As long as racism is profitable for the beneficiaries and those distributing or lobbbying for the benefits, there will continue to be racism.

Then we are in a sort of agreement.

While I do not doubt that "group think" certainly is evolutionary those sort of behaviors are not neccesarily racist in and of themselves. I don't think it is natural to think just because someone is different they are inferior or superior, they are just different. Granted these natural instincts may be... exploited, so as to gain advantage, they in and of themselves are not racism.

I also do not doubt that people experience degrees of unpleasant/pleasant encounters with members of another given 'race'. It is natural for people to associate by appearance. It is just the way we are wired I guess. Institutions removed, this probably would be the logical primary source of racist behavior. Unfortunately, it seems that many people confuse situations they see in the media with their own experiences.

There may be parents who teach their kids racism, I doubt this is the primary source as elitists/progressives would have us believe. This would probably rank #3 of the learned behaviors if at all. Most parents want their children to be safe, happy, succesful people.

IMHO, institutions that saturate our input with racist drivel are the primary source of racism. What is sad is that these institutions often hide their motive behind the canard of "anti-racism" while simultaneously preaching racism - all for a profit of course.
To me institutions (with the noted exception of religious institutions) are those cultural control centers that are currently overruled or usurped by elitists - The educational systems, the mass media, and of course the government.

Yes, we're probably pretty close to being on the same page on most or maybe all of that.

But my premise here is what I see as an additional factor of something more selfish maybe? Certainly more self serving.

Minorities make up a significant voting block of the Democratic Party and it is therefore to the Democrats' interest to keep those minorities 'needy', 'disadvantaged', and angry at everybody but the Democrats. That keeps the votes coming in and ensures the politico's power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

Similarly, minority leaders keep their power, authority, and influence, and increase their incomes by promoting a mindset of victimhood and oppression among their constituencies.

And finally those beneficiaries of all that attention want to keep the focus on themselves as a disadvantaged minority so as not to jeopardize whatever monies or benefits or special privileges they are receiving or hope to receive.

So again, as long as there is reward of any kind by keeping racism alive and well, it isn't going away anytime soon.
 
Another blanket statement about minorities that is stereotypical. Big surprise from someone who doesn't think racism is real. And more cynical spin and about Democrats. No partisanship there. Ho hum.
 
Last edited:
"The remarkable thing is that we really love our neighbors as ourselves: we do unto others as we do unto ourselves. We hate others when we hate ourselves. We are tolerant of others when we tolerate ourselves. We forgive others when we forgive ourselves." Eric Hoffer


Racism, homophobia, ethnocentrism, or xenophobia, while not equivalent they all have no genuine basis in reason, as we can always find exceptions and inclusions in all things. But still they form a reality or pattern of thought for many people. I think they are all representative of the fear many feel for something other than what they are used to. They also form a way for groups to provide security for their members and meaning.


"We first kill people with our minds, before we kill them with weapons. Whatever the conflict, the enemy is always the destroyer. We're on God's side; they're barbaric. We're good, they're evil. War gives us a feeling of moral clarity that we lack at other times." Sam Keen

Philip Zimbardo shows how people become monsters ... or heroes | Video on TED.com


Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy: Inside a school for suicide bombers | Video on TED.com


[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Evil-Ordinary-Genocide-Killing/dp/0195189493/ref=pd_cp_b_2]Amazon.com: Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and…[/ame]



"Start with an empty canvas
Sketch in broad outline the forms of
men, women, and children.

Dip into the unconsciousness well of your own
disowned darkness
with a wide brush and
stain the strangers with the sinister hue
of the shadow.

Trace onto the face of the enemy the greed,
hatred, carelessness you dare not claim as
your own.

Obscure the sweet individuality of each face.

Erase all hints of the myriad loves, hopes,
fears that play through the kaleidoscope of
every infinite heart.

Twist the smile until it forms the downward
arc of cruelty.

Strip flesh from bone until only the
abstract skeleton of death remains.

Exaggerate each feature until man is
metamorphasized into beast, vermin, insect.

Fill in the background with malignant
figures from ancient nightmares – devils,
demons, myrmidons of evil.

When your icon of the enemy is complete
you will be able to kill without guilt,
slaughter without shame.

The thing you destroy will have become
merely an enemy of God, an impediment
to the sacred dialectic of history."

Sam Keen
 
Barb, socio-economic status doesn't affect IQ. Poverty does not
generate low IQ, but low IQ generates poverty and ill health.
Psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa has compared IQ scores with indicators
of ill health in 126 countries and claims that nations at the top of
the ill health league also have the lowest intelligence ratings:
guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/05/highereducation.research

This argument that Blacks are poor is always brought up. But there are
twice as many poor white people in the U.S. than poor Blacks.
Economical status can't explain the extent of the racial imbalance in
crime rates. From a poverty perspective, one would expect the per
capita crime rate for Blacks to be higher than that of Whites, but the
total number of crimes committed ought to be much lower than the White
number. But Blacks are hugely over-represented in robbery and rape.

Don't call me a racist. Racism is bigotry. I would never treat a black
person badly because of his race. What I am presenting are facts. It
it is necessary to relate to reality and not to one's youthful dreams
of a perfect world.
/Mats
 
Last edited:
Barb, perhaps your parents kept a heartfelt feeling towards their own
genetic kinship, including the cultural values of their country. So
they listened to their heart. What is occurring right now in the
Western world is that the standard of culture is scaled down, which
leads to a more naive expression. Today, the youth listens to rap
music. They don't listen to classical music anymore.

Facts are that Blacks don't generally have the same zest for hard work
as Whites do, and they have statistically a lower IQ (around 85 in the
U.S.). In the 2005 statistics, a black man is almost 9 times more
likely to commit a rape than a white man. This figure is chockingly
over the top.

Why should such facts be hidden to people? If a white person marries a
black person, he/she should know that the children are likely to be
less intelligent than if he/she marries a white person. It is only
fair that they should know this. Why should we withhold such
information? I know that Americans care much for the success of their
children. In all other circumstances it would be regarded a scandal if
authorities withheld the information that children will become less
intelligent. It makes no difference if the Black person is
intelligent. Due to the law of regression the children will tend
towards average IQ.

Your parents might have understood all this, but in an indirect way,
because they listened to their heart, whereas you only relate to your
intellectually constructed ethical framework. Much of today's concern
for others is not rooted in instinct or in heartfelt motives. Instead
it builds on a moralistic ideology, which makes people feel that they
are involved in something meaningful and larger than themselves, much
like how the Communist pioneer felt, in the heydays of USSR.

C.G. Jung once said that goodness which is beyond instinctiveness is
no longer good, and wickedness which is anti-instinctual cannot
succeed either. If I try to be better than my instincts permit, I
cease to do good.
/Mats
 
Last edited:
Barb, socio-economic status doesn't affect IQ. Poverty does not
generate low IQ, but low IQ generates poverty and ill health.
Psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa has compared IQ scores with indicators
of ill health in 126 countries and claims that nations at the top of
the ill health league also have the lowest intelligence ratings:
guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/05/highereducation.research

This argument that Blacks are poor is always brought up. But there are
twice as many poor white people in the U.S. than poor Blacks.
Economical status can't explain the extent of the racial imbalance in
crime rates. From a poverty perspective, one would expect the per
capita crime rate for Blacks to be higher than that of Whites, but the
total number of crimes committed ought to be much lower than the White
number. But Blacks are hugely over-represented in robbery and rape.

Don't call me a racist. Racism is bigotry. I would never treat a black
person badly because of his race. What I am presenting are facts. It
it is necessary to relate to reality and not to one's youthful dreams
of a perfect world.
/Mats

I would never call you racist, haven't seen you in action. Meanwhile, it isn't "youthful dreams of a perfect world," :rolleyes: that populates my posts; I study this stuff.
Economic security definitely effects IQ, as it effects stress levels, nutrition, the pollutants a child is likely to encounter growing up and a host of other variables not considered by the sources you cite.

Consider the Osage Indians, the link should take you to page 370:

Psychology and race - Google Books

The IQ of the entire tribe went up when the stressors that come with poverty were eased.
 
Ravi. You aren't "racist against" someone. That makes no sense. You are racist. period. In this case I don't men you, personally. I mean that's the way you say it. So you cannot say "are you racist against elitists?" It isn't English, I don't think it's any language.

And no, hating elitists isn't racism. Because by defining people as elitist instead of by their race, you are definitively not referring to race and so how the hell can it be racist????

It's not racism to hate elitists. It's not racism to hate short people. It's not racism to hate women. It's not racism to hate Americans. It's not racism to hate Christians.

RACISM is assuming a group is inferior based upon RACE.

People who are racist but don't understand it are the greatest problem this country has right now.
 
Barb, no, the Osage indians had a potential intellectual capacity that
came to expression with better circumstances. The Osage indians
peaked at their natural IQ.The same phenomenon can be seen in
the Western world:

The "Flynn effect" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect )
implies that IQ has increased somewhat over the generations from the
1950s onwards. But this development peaks at a certain figure. It has
peaked in UK and in Denmark. I suppose that all nations have a certain
top IQ potential that can be reached with better nutrition and
schooling, etc. Epigenetics could play a role. Anyway, IQ peaks at a
certain figure. The IQ differential between the races remains largely
the same, I guess.

According to the link you posted American Blacks have already peaked,
so their IQ is not improved by improved circumstances.
/Mats
 
Last edited:
Barb, no, the Osage indians had a potential intellectual capacity that
came to expression with better circumstances. The Osage indians
peaked at their natural IQ.The same phenomenon can be seen in
the Western world:

The "Flynn effect" ( Flynn effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
implies that IQ has increased somewhat over the generations from the
1950s onwards. But this development peaks at a certain figure. It has
peaked in UK and in Denmark. I suppose that all nations have a certain
top IQ potential that can be reached with better nutrition and
schooling, etc. Epigenetics could play a role. Anyway, IQ peaks at a
certain figure. The IQ differential between the races remains largely
the same, I guess.

According to the link you posted American Blacks have already peaked,
so their IQ is not improved by improved circumstances.
/Mats


Patent bullshit, as the book i cited says no such thing. Further reading clearly references the chronic stressors of poverty and minority social status.
 
Barb, your link (Watson: Psychology and Race) says that data cannot confirm that black people's IQ have been improved by improved circumstances. Anyway, this book is from 1973 and is slightly outdated. Sub-Saharan Blacks, from which American Blacks derive, average IQs of 71-75. American Blacks average IQs of 85. This is considerably higher and probably comes from the 30% admixture of White genes. American Blacks have likely peaked.
/Mats
 
I would definitely say that experienced, parental, and institutional reasons definitely reinforce each other, and are all definitely underlined by a 'them against us' mentality (though I don't know if I agree whether that's an evolutionary trait, and if it was, I'd argue that it would not necessarily tied to race, considering that it likewise occurs with all sorts of group dynamics, whether racial, ethnic, religious, or even institutional or geographic, etc).

If I had to pick one most prevalent though, I'd probably say Institutional, for the following reasons:

- I'm almost positive it far outweighs reactionary racism: I don't have the figures, but I would damn well bet that Portuguese sailors who took African slaves at the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade did not become racist because they suffered at the hands of blacks, and likewise goes for South African whites against South African blacks, and likewise with white American slave-owners against African-American slaves, and likewise white Spaniards against the indigenous Americans. No doubt that some and perhaps many did, but I'd contend it would be impossibly to justify Spain's 300-year-long imposed-caste system was due to most arriving Spaniards being treated badly by the natives. Nevertheless, some bad experiences most likely did well to reinforce the institutionalized racism throughout those 300 years. The story for parental reasons for racism would follow a similar fate: the parental racism would no doubt be fueled by experience, but not most racist parents in these contexts would have still not become racist due to past experience, and were most likely racist, like most people, due to institutionalized racism. There's also the fact that with parenting nothing is direct. Children don't just repeat and absorb everything their parents do; children can accept or reject parental teaching/behaviour.

But then, what fuels the establishment of institutional racism? Well, I mean, there's probably many factors one could point out. I mean, at least in the cases I pointed to above the obvious thing is power: The Spaniards got to America, found the natives to not have the advanced iron weapons, shields, or horses, totally decimated by disease, and obviously felt superior and compelled to establish racial theories to justify their oppression of the natives (because it eventually always becomes preferred to have some theory rather than accepting that 'might makes right'), and of course these patterns of relationships reinforce and repeat themselves through generations as the inequality itself becomes institutional and self-perpetuating (100 years later, instead of having the guns and the steel, it would've just been "Us white european-descended Spanish-Americans are richer, more educated, and have more money than the brown native-descended, therefore we must be superior." The same could go for Dutch-descendants in South Africa and white Americans in the US.
 
Last edited:
If I had to pick one most prevalent though, I'd probably say Institutional, for the following reasons:

- I'm almost positive it far outweighs reactionary racism: I don't have the figures, but I would damn well bet that Portuguese sailors who took African slaves at the beginning of the Atlantic slave trade did not become racist because they suffered at the hands of blacks, and likewise goes for South African whites against South African blacks, and likewise with white American slave-owners against African-American slaves, and likewise white Spaniards against the indigenous Americans. No doubt that some and perhaps many did, but I'd contend it would be impossibly to justify Spain's 300-year-long imposed-caste system was due to most arriving Spaniards being treated badly by the natives. Nevertheless, some bad experiences most likely did well to reinforce the institutionalized racism throughout those 300 years. The story for parental reasons for racism would follow a similar fate: the parental racism would no doubt be fueled by experience, but not most racist parents in these contexts would have still not become racist due to past experience, and were most likely racist, like most people, due to institutionalized racism. There's also the fact that with parenting nothing is direct. Children don't just repeat and absorb everything their parents do; children can accept or reject parental teaching/behaviour.

But then, what fuels the establishment of institutional racism? Well, I mean, there's probably many factors one could point out. I mean, at least in the cases I pointed to above the obvious thing is power: The Spaniards got to America, found the natives to not have the advanced iron weapons, shields, or horses, totally decimated by disease, and obviously felt superior and compelled to establish racial theories to justify their oppression of the natives (because it eventually always becomes preferred to have some theory rather than accepting that 'might makes right'), and of course these patterns of relationships reinforce and repeat themselves through generations as the inequality itself becomes institutional and self-perpetuating (100 years later, instead of having the guns and the steel, it would've just been "Us white european-descended Spanish-Americans are richer, more educated, and have more money than the brown native-descended, therefore we must be superior." The same could go for Dutch-descendants in South Africa and white Americans in the US.

It seems we too are in a sort of agreement, for the most part.

I would like to point something out upon an objective observation of your post:
(Please understand that I do appreciate your response, I am just observing a pattern in your post.)

Your own statements pointing out only "white european" examples of historical evil is a perfect example of what could be considered modern institutional racism. Of course, you have not stated directly that you "blame YT for slavery", but your racially exclusive examples do indicate that you have a prejudiced veiw of 'whites' in the context of history. Please keep in mind that the historical record has been usurped and re-written many times over by the very elitists who wish to continue subjugating all people. History books are just as useful a weapon to the elitist as a gun... maybe even moreso because they are cheaper to manufacture. You could have pointed out that 'whites' endured historically being victimized by evils such as slavery as well. But you didn't.

Though you are correct in principle about first encounters, you could have also pointed out that the Portuguese no doubt encountered the barbaric practice of cannibalism upon the coasts of Africa. The Zulus in South Africa are well documented in their vicious attacks upon 'white' Boer settlers, including wholesale slaughter of women and children. The first Spanish encounters with the Aztecs is another well documented example of primitive brutality, on the part of the Aztec ritual "sacrifices" and all. All things that do not lead to great "first impressions".

I also agree that such bad first impressions are certainly exploited by the elitists, no doubt exaggerated. Just as the accounts of barbaric 'white' Celts were likely exagerrated upon by the roman slavers, as 'white' Europeans were portrayed as infidels by invading muslim slavers, and as 'white' Bourgeoisie were (and still are) dehumanized by marxist slavers.

You could point out such things... then again we all know history is bullshit.
;)

Or better yet simply you could have left the specific racial terms out of it and conveyed this same message:
Elitists who wish to enslave people come in all 'races'.

Your main "point"( What I hope is your main point anyway) I do agree with. Despite however violently or unpleasant first encounters turn out, such things do not justify slavery. They do justify a desire for seperation, but not subjugation.

It is the media publishers, the so-called educators, and the government who have a vested interest in perpetuating racism. As you correctly stated, "for power". They are masters of doublespeak, preaching "anti-racism" while practicing and encouraging it.

The elitist force different 'races' of people to mix while they themselves are living in their gated mansions... Exploiting and exaggerating the realistic fears of the different groups of peoples... Treating their human subjects of all 'races' as cattle for profit.
:(
 
Barb and mlw,

Is there anyway I could convince you two to work things out in another thread? Ya both don't seem to understand the subject of this thread.

Thankx!
:)
 
Yes, we're probably pretty close to being on the same page on most or maybe all of that.

But my premise here is what I see as an additional factor of something more selfish maybe? Certainly more self serving.

Minorities make up a significant voting block of the Democratic Party and it is therefore to the Democrats' interest to keep those minorities 'needy', 'disadvantaged', and angry at everybody but the Democrats. That keeps the votes coming in and ensures the politico's power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

Similarly, minority leaders keep their power, authority, and influence, and increase their incomes by promoting a mindset of victimhood and oppression among their constituencies.

And finally those beneficiaries of all that attention want to keep the focus on themselves as a disadvantaged minority so as not to jeopardize whatever monies or benefits or special privileges they are receiving or hope to receive.

So again, as long as there is reward of any kind by keeping racism alive and well, it isn't going away anytime soon.


I agree, except that the Repubs are just as guilty of exploitation as the Dems. Hell, I have a hard time telling the two apart.

Bottom line to me is that 99.9% of government officials are more than happy to exploit 'race' as a tool for subjugating people.
 

Forum List

Back
Top