racism

Nomenclature

It isn't racism which is inherent. It's the "us and them" mentality. In the early days it was beneficial because you couldn't be sure if a new tribe would try to cook you in a stew. But it's a throwback to an old way of life. 

There's also the propensity for humans to use visible differences as a form of attack. If you're not exactly like everybody else then opportunists will attack that as a weakness. 

maxx

 one can see it in very young kids, toddlers even, if they have never been exposed to someone different than what they are used to. If someone very young have such ideas, then it must be inherent.  This is not about racial inequality or discrimination; but the type of racism that is with in us all, the fear, and distrust of strangers and those who are different. @Nomenclature

Nomenclature

@maxx

one can see it in very young kids, toddlers even, if they have never been exposed to someone different than what they are used to. If someone very young have such ideas, then it must be inherent.

They pick on fat kids, small kids, kids with ginger hair, quiet kids and just about every other kid who they sense is different than them. Your belief that children are inherently racist before they have even formed coherent ideas about what race is, is absolute poppycock. 

MayCaesar

I remember my early childhood well in this respect, and it was exactly the opposite of what you describe. Perhaps my organism is an anomaly, but, if anything, my problem as a child was that I was extremely naive and trusting of other people, never even thinking that someone could be anything but good. The earliest emotional pain I remember is when I was 4 years old, playing in a sandbox with another kid, and that kid conjured up a story according to which I have a mortal illness and the only way for me to not die soon is to eat a lot of chocolate every day. The kid was of another race (Asian), which is important in the context of this discussion. I believed him completely, and the thought that he could be deliberately making this stuff up did not even cross my mind. I came home crying, telling my parents about this horrible mortal condition. When my parents told me that the kid was pulling a prank on me, I refused to believe it; when the realization finally came, I was completely devastated, as it was the first time in my life of seeing human cruelty first-hand and being a victim of it, and it completely shattered my view of humanity. I believe that the emotional trauma I experienced then to this day haunts my subconscious mind and makes it harder for me to trust people than it could be otherwise.

In my case, I did not see other people as different from me by default; rather, seeing them as different from me was a result of first-hand experience. You can see that in other people as well: generally the younger the person is, the more open and welcoming they are. You see a lot of grumpy old people who do not trust anyone and do not like anyone, but you almost never see grumpy 10 year old kids, other than in warzones or other environments in which experiencing emotional trauma is an everyday thing.

Tribalism may be inherent in human societies, but I do not think that it is inherent in human biological organism. It is something people are conditioned into by the experience of living in a society full of tricksters and manipulators, not by their genes. It is also something that can be unlearned: year 2022 in my personal journey was the year of me opening up to people and learning to trust them again, even when they use my trust against me and cause me tremendous amount of pain - and as a consequence of me going out of my way to approach strangers and unlearn the excessive defensive mechanisms I have developed for interactions with other people, my entire perception of the world changed. When I see a stranger on the street, I see a friend, a colleague, a partner, not a competitor, an enemy, a, well, stranger. I think that this is how little children look at the world as well, and this is something that life beats out of most of them.

Dee

@Nomenclature

Spot on Nom. Poor Mad Maxx is Murican so his id-ocy is a social norm where he lives ......I just bet he will do his usual and screech at you "prove me wrong " 

Bogan

Human beings are tribal and territorial.      That is part of our DNA.    It is one of the things which makes us all human.     Human groups see other human groups as either allies or competitors.      This instinctive thinking among all humans evolved because of necessity.   Human beings at the primary stage of human existence (hunter/gatherer) live lives almost totally dedicated to the search for food.     It was absolutely imperative for primary stage human groups to declare and defend their chosen hunting and gathering grounds.   For members of one tribe to be caught on another's hunting grounds (unless they were dressed as emissaries) almost always resulted in the instant death of the trespassers.

 Therefore, intergroup hostility between groups competing for often scarce natural resources is natural and normal.    It can be moderated through social conditioning, but birds of a feather, just keep flocking together, no matter how much the social engineers of today think that they can eradicate it. 

 "Multicultural" societies are politically unstable societies.    Every single country on this planet has an officially recognized primary culture.     The degree of acceptance by the majority host population that a minority group can attain, is directly related to how much they are willing to suppress their own cultural values and accept the cultural values of the dominant group.

 Widespread acceptance of a minority group usually occurs where there is little difference between the cultural values (what constitutes right and wrong behaviour) of the host group and the minority group.     The fun begins where the cultural values of two or more groups are diametrically opposed to each other.     In such a case, a minority group may only attain limited acceptance, according to it's behaviour towards the host group.    Where there is little difference in crime rates between the two groups, social acceptance can still occur.   But if crime rates are glaringly different, especially if the host group members are seen to be the primary victims of minority crime, or members of the minority group engage in acts of terrorism towards the host group, then hostility between the two groups will grow exponentially.

 Leaders of the minority group who still hope for social acceptance and peace with the host group, can dampen the flames of hostility by denouncing those among their own group who are the most hostile to the host group.    But if those same leaders see political profit in supporting their own against the majority, then once again, inter group hostility will increase.

 Inter group hostility is greatly exacerbated  where numbers of the minority group keep rising in proportion to the host population, either through legal or illegal immigration, or birth rate differentials.     The result has ALWAYS been serious civil strife, calls for ethnic separatism by both sides, and civil war.    I hold this truth to be self evident.    It was the reason for the civil wars or separatism in Lebanon, Fiji, India, Chechnya, Cyprus, Georgia, Afghanistan, Biafra, Rhodesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Liberia, Kashmir, Punjab, Sudan, Nigeria, Bougainville, East Timor, Yugoslavia, Kurdistan, New Zealand, Bhutan, Angola, Burma, Guadalcanal, Aden, Monrovia, Malaya, Oman, Congo, Northern Ireland, Armenia, Palestine/Israel, Czechoslovakia, The Solomon's, Yemen, Mexico, East Timor, Thailand and recently, Ukraine.    Add to this sundry race riots and acts of terrorism in Britain, the US, France, Europe and just about every other country on Earth.  And with the western world's failed social experiment with multiculturalism, the list keeps growing.

 I think this is where the USA is heading right now.

 The only answer to complete social disintegration is a civil war where the winners practice either ethnic cleansing through mass murder or the driving out of the hostile enemy group.     Or the political separation of one nation into two or more where there is once again, monocultural countries.    Which just goes to show that those countries which were never stu-pid enough to ruin their own society through multiculturalism will be the more stable and prosperous in the 21st century than those who did not.

 'Diversity" literally means "division", and as old Abe Lincoln once quipped "A divided house can not stand."

Nomenclature

Deleted.

MayCaesar

@Nomenclature

My argument was exactly that racism is not biologically inherent, but conditioned by one's experiences while living in a society. How you managed to read the opposite from it is everybody's guess.

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

My apologies May. I think I confused you with Maxx. I'll delete the post.

Bogan

The newest definition of "racism" is, "disagreeing with anything a left winger says."

Dee

***I consider that racism is inherent in not only humans; but in animal as well. Now first, let us not get hung up on the word racist; the word itself, simply evolved since ancient time to have the meaning it has today. Its base meaning ions fear, resentment and anger over those who are strangers or different. Since the earliest days of humans, individual tribes considered  strangers as a threat, who would steal resources, take women, territory, and kill and destroy. Even those of the same tribe who were born differently; an infliction, or a completely different look of  the rest of the tribe, were considered an outcast. even in the lower animals we see this. agree or not and explain why.***




But you're the one who is hung up on the term; all you're saying is humans learned to recognise others who weren't like them and they thus could be a threat to their particular group , on  this we are all agreed on it seems , so what is your contention about racism as you haven't even broached the subject?

BTW humans are top of the evolutionary pile because we learned how to co-operate in large groups fractures begin to appear in groups over 150 how we control larger groups is through  popular myths as in religions or ideologies

Bogan

What made humans the top of the food chain is, lacking large fangs, teeth, claws, beaks, talons, or armour, we banded together in self protecting groups where we could take on all of the predators which tried to prey on us, both of the four legged and two legged variety.     Human beings are tribal and territorial.    It is innate, part of our DNA.   

Dee

@maxx

 one can see it in very young kids, toddlers even, if they have never been exposed to someone different than what they are used to. 

How did you reach this conclusion? How would you even know this without observing several cases to base your conclusions on 

If someone very young have such ideas, then it must be inherent.  

Nonsense , racism is not inherent at all it has to be learned , a child will happily play with people of any size shape or colour as they are totally unaware of differences the equate to negative stereotypes 

This is not about racial inequality or discrimination;

But that's what racism is .....discrimination 

but the type of racism that is with in us all, the fear, and distrust of strangers and those who are different

You just cannot help yourself you do it every-time you post an argument up contradict your own thesis then agree with your own thesis 

You said : "This is not about racial inequality or discrimination"; then said "but the type of racism that is with in us all, the fear, and distrust of strangers and those who are different"

So it's not about discrimination but it is about discrimination, do you ever even think before you type?

Swolliw

@maxx @Dee

not only humans; but in animal as well. 

Eeeeegads, here we go again, another piece of absurd, ill-gotten, illogical piece of (non) reasoning.

One can only wonder what kind of loopy, air-headed, meaningless, wool-over-the-eyes sites you are going to come up with to prove such a stu-pid assertion.

Since race is a social construct, one can only imagine what sort of things that say, lions lying in their dens get up to..........

"Hey Rory, what do you reckon? Those black panthers are getting real cocky lately...just because they can run fast it doesn't make them better because they have the brains of....er ,,....well... they have the brains of an animal that has not much brains, that's what. I'm not racist BUT.... the next thing you know is they are going to start moving in on our prey and raping our cubs, like that's their mentality, so we need to teach them a lesson. Oh, and by the way Rory, chuck me over some more of those garlic bulbs.....I'm in need of a bit of proven medication".

Swolliw

@Bogan

Human beings at the primary stage of human existence (hunter/gatherer) live lives......

You mean "lived"....?

Human beings who live in decent, civilized modern society have come a long way from how boof-headed Neanderthal bogans used to think and behave.

Modern, civilised, socially well adjusted man does not drag females around by their hair, he doesn't assert himself as being superior to any being that happens to differ from his genetic disposition, instead, he respects people for what they are and places nobody above or below him.

Bogan

@Swolliw ;   Since race is a social construct, 

Yawn, this  silly premise has been addressed numerous times in the past, which you would have known if you had bothered to read back on the "Are Races Equal" topic.   Why don't you read through already submitted arguments and come up to speed before you make a fo-ol of yourself again?      Acting like you are an intellectual and moral superior is not going to impress anyone.    

Dee

Maxx seriously believes animals are racist ........Seriously ???????

I consider that racism is inherent in not only humans; but in animal as well.......

You might be onto something Maxx here is Bogends cat called .........Kitler.........

Seig heil...............Heil Kitler .......

Nomenclature

@Swolliw

Human beings who live in decent, civilized modern society have come a long way from how boof-headed Neanderthal bogans used to think and behave.

Most of your posts evidence otherwise. You are every bit as petty, snide and drunk on your own self-importance as the most uncivilised cretins in history.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Request For Explanation

@Bogan

The concept of "race" is a social construct because it is based on a set of cultural, historical, and social factors that are used to categorize people into racial groups. These factors can vary significantly across different cultures and time periods, and there is often significant overlap between the physical characteristics that are used to define different racial groups.

For example, in the United States, people are often classified as being white, black, Hispanic, or Asian, based on a variety of physical characteristics such as skin color, facial features, and ancestry. However, these categories are not based on any scientific or biological criteria, and there is often significant overlap between these groups. For example, a person who is classified as Hispanic may have a range of skin colors and facial features and may be of mixed ancestry. 

How do you explain that?

Additionally, the way that people are classified into racial categories can be influenced by political, social, and economic factors. For example, in the past, people who were classified as white were often given privileges and benefits that were not extended to people who were classified as belonging to other racial groups. This is an example of how the concept of "race" has been used to justify social inequalities, even though these inequalities may have more to do with social, economic, and political factors than with any inherent biological differences between racial groups.

MayCaesar

To my limited knowledge, the concept of "race" is scientific, but outdated. It is based on significantly incomplete understanding of biology and history by the scientists who brought this term into the lexicon. For example, "African race" was introduced based on the assumption that, prior to colonization, Africa was a somewhat isolated continent, with the population barely intermixed with European and Asian populations. However, today we very well know that, first, it is completely false, and second, the gene variability between many African ethnic groups is higher than between the "African" and, say, "Caucasian race". It appears that "race" is a poor category to use; "ethnic group" is a much better category, and it captures the observed inter- and intra-group variabilities far more accurately.

Of course, "racism" is a similarly outdated term: there is not much functional difference between holding prejudice against nembers of a particular "race", and holding prejudice against members of a particular "nation", or "ethnic group". "Xenophobia", i.e. prejudice against those arbitrary groups different from your arbitrary group in some way that you view as significant, is a much better and more universal term.

Ultimately, it all comes down to groupthink (not in the sense in which Orwell used this term): people think of themselves and others not as independent individuals, but as members of some groups that on some level oppose each other. This could be a basic survival strategy primal humans used back when stakes were high and making a socialization error was very likely to lead to significant harm to the individual, but it is obsolete in the modern world where two strangers can strike up a conversation at a grocery store without a serious risk of being clubbed to death. As such, assuming it is not deeply ingrained in our biology (and there is little evidence to suggest that it is), it should disappear from our world eventually.

Bogan

@JulesKorngold

Jules quote    The concept of "race" is a social construct because it is based on a set of cultural, historical, and social factors that are used to categorize people into racial groups. These factors can vary significantly across different cultures and time periods, and there is often significant overlap between the physical characteristics that are used to define different racial groups.

 Not bad, Jules, not bad.    Full marks for doing a bit of research.

 Human beings categorise everything in order to make sense of the world and make accurate predictions.     Scientists are especially interested in creating categories of everything.     They categorise stars, plants, animals, humans, volcanoes, soil, rocks, trees, galaxies, microbes, and clouds.   All of these catagories could be called "social constructs" as they are the inventions of the human mind, but that hardly invalidates their importance in describing reality.

 The words "species" and "sub species" are so called "social constructs", but they are also used by science, every day.   Both words can be used to describe human beings.    The term "race" is a social construct which predates the coining of the word "sub species" by at least a couple of thousand years, but their meanings are identical.      Because of the way our language evolved, "sub species" is commonly used to describe categories of animals.     But humans use the identical word "race" in exactly the same way to describe categories of humans.    We do this because we have used the word "race" for a much longer period of time than "sub species".

 Anthropologists are scientists who are intensely interested in race.    They are interested in how the different human races spread around the world.    They advise police on the identity of skeletons of possible murder victims by determining from the remains the age, sex, and race of the victim.    They are so good at this that they can even tell from a person's skeleton whether that person is of mixed race, even what those races are.   When identifying a possible murder victims skeleton, forensic anthropologists do not say to the police investigators, "we can tell you the age and sex of the victim, but not the race, becasue as scientists we do not recognise the concept of race".    Of course scientists recognise race.    Claiming that scientists do not recognise race is part of The Big Lie.    And as Joseph Goebells once quipped, "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it."

 

Jules quote    For example, in the United States, people are often classified as being white, black, Hispanic, or Asian, based on a variety of physical characteristics such as skin color, facial features, and ancestry. However, these categories are not based on any scientific or biological criteria, and there is often significant overlap between these groups. For example, a person who is classified as Hispanic may have a range of skin colors and facial features and may be of mixed ancestry. 

How do you explain that?

 Too easy, Jules.  The words "birds", "fish", "lizards", "crabs", are non specific terms that can be used in a generalised way as a mental shorthand to describe a multitude of species within a genus, and the word "race" can be used in exactly the same way.  "Fish" and "race" can be specific or non specific.     They can be used in the English language in a generalised way, or in a more specific way.     Your "reasoning" when applied to "fish" would be that because "fish" is a non specific term, it is therefore invalid when describing a groper.     It is not invalid. 

We can even apply my reasoning to dogs.   Dogs (or "canines"} are a species.   Within that species are numerous "breeds" of dogs which are sub species.    The fact that these sub species were the result of human directed cross breeding does not alter the fact that dog breeds are sub species of the canine species.     Like human races (breeds?) , dog breeds can be very distinct in appearance, and dog breeds can differ wildly in physical abilities and temperaments.    The fact that cross breeds (or mongrels) of dog breeds exist, which can make it difficult to asses which breed an individual dog may be closest to in category,  does not invalidate the concept that dog breeds do exist with well known physical and mental characteristics.    Don't let a Japanese Akita play with your kids, Jules, get a Boxer or a Labrador.

 

Jules wrote    Additionally, the way that people are classified into racial categories can be influenced by political, social, and economic factors. For example, in the past, people who were classified as white were often given privileges and benefits that were not extended to people who were classified as belonging to other racial groups. This is an example of how the concept of "race" has been used to justify social inequalities, even though these inequalities may have more to do with social, economic, and political factors than with any inherent biological differences between racial groups.

 What we are discussing, Jules, is whether the concept of race exists.   Of course it exists.    What you are doing now is trying to justify why it should not exist.    That is like ignoring the elephant in the room because you do not want the elephant to exist, then writing an explanation as to how the elephant does not exist, because it should not exist. 

 And as for "racial benefits", you are talking about that as if "race" gives white people benefits over other races.     Guess what?    The times, they are, a changin', and now it is the other way around.      Australia is the only country in the world which has an entire government department dedicated to the benefit of two races.    That is the Department of Torres Strait and Aboriginal Affairs which costs the Australian taxpayer over $60 billion dollars a year in benefits to two races you claim do not exist.    Well, if these races do not exist, why is the Australian taxpayer forking out 50% more than our yearly defense budget supporting two non existent races?

 You see, Jules, left wing people like your good self claim that races do not exist, then by some application of Doublethink, you can see races as plain as day whenever it is convenient for you to do so.

 Lastly, could I award "just-sayin" for this piece of logic?     If "race" is meaningless because it is a "social construct", then does that mean that people can change their race?      That would be noice.    Everybody in Australia could call themselves "aboriginal" or "Toress Straight Islander" and reap the rewards heaped upon the people who themselves name each other as being of two separate and distinct races.  And who never stop whining about racism.

maxx

really?  so when young children pick on those who are different, then you are saying it is a learned behaviorism? Nope, picking on those who are different is an automatic behavior, so it is genetic .@Nomenclature

maxx

perhaps you should look up the definition of discrimination and prejudice. asa well, we humans are territorial by nature and early tribes would distrust all who are different and stranger.  did you not even read my post? The origins of racism began as early as humans existed and it was not about those of another culture, or country. I could post links, but will wonders never cease, just like many on here, you would refuse to accept them. @Dee

maxx

and again you are showing what little intelligence you have, all animals are territorial and will not accept those of another group, just like humans of thousands of years ago. The definition you are stuck on is what the word racist evolved into today.  learn something instead of flapping your gums. There are so many instances where an animal will kill its on offspring, simply because it is born looking differently than the rest. all animals including humans have a specific hierarchy and the higher one up one is the more they will be prejudiced against the lowers. Now instead of tossing out comic book ads, and laughing, why dont you actually try to debate logically. Or do you not know how? @Dee

Dee

@maxx

You never even read what I said you Id-ot , here you go fill your boots .....

***I consider that racism is inherent in not only humans; but in animal as well. Now first, let us not get hung up on the word racist; the word itself, simply evolved since ancient time to have the meaning it has today. Its base meaning ions fear, resentment and anger over those who are strangers or different. Since the earliest days of humans, individual tribes considered  strangers as a threat, who would steal resources, take women, territory, and kill and destroy. Even those of the same tribe who were born differently; an infliction, or a completely different look of  the rest of the tribe, were considered an outcast. even in the lower animals we see this. agree or not and explain why.***




But you're the one who is hung up on the term; all you're saying is humans learned to recognise others who weren't like them and they thus could be a threat to their particular group , on  this we are all agreed on it seems , so what is your contention about racism as you haven't even broached the subject?

BTW humans are top of the evolutionary pile because we learned how to co-operate in large groups fractures begin to appear in groups over 150 how we control larger groups is through  popular myths as in religions or ideologies

Dee

@maxx

Here you go st-pid , I as usual put your childish contentions to bed in my very first post , which you pretended you didn't see .....please try harder .....

***I consider that racism is inherent in not only humans; but in animal as well. Now first, let us not get hung up on the word racist; the word itself, simply evolved since ancient time to have the meaning it has today. Its base meaning ions fear, resentment and anger over those who are strangers or different. Since the earliest days of humans, individual tribes considered  strangers as a threat, who would steal resources, take women, territory, and kill and destroy. Even those of the same tribe who were born differently; an infliction, or a completely different look of  the rest of the tribe, were considered an outcast. even in the lower animals we see this. agree or not and explain why.***




But you're the one who is hung up on the term; all you're saying is humans learned to recognise others who weren't like them and they thus could be a threat to their particular group , on  this we are all agreed on it seems , so what is your contention about racism as you haven't even broached the subject?

BTW humans are top of the evolutionary pile because we learned how to co-operate in large groups fractures begin to appear in groups over 150 how we control larger groups is through  popular myths as in religions or ideologies

Nomenclature

@maxx

really?  so when young children pick on those who are different, then you are saying it is a learned behaviorism?

Clearly, I am not saying that. I am saying that this facet of human behaviour has nothing to do with the social construct of race and everything to do with visible differences to the group norms, such as skin colour, hair colour, body size and height. You might want to take a reading comprehension course Maxx.

Bogan

@maxx

I don't mind people submitting links to support their argument.    But I object to people submitting links AS their argument.    

maxx

i have done explained very carefully as to how racism began, and it is about distrust of those who were different, and strangers who would rob, maim, murder, take women and food and other resources. That is what this post is about, how it is built into us, not what the word evolved into today. Now since you disagree, the proper way to debate is to explain why it is not genetic. @Dee

Nomenclature

@Bogan

But I object to people submitting links AS their argument

I object to people making false claims and then refusing to acknowledge the evidence that their claims are false. That's just daft.

maxx

correct, however, and as usual, i have explained very carefully as to how racism began, and how early tribes, distrusted strangers and those who were different. This fear, and distrust of others were passed along genetically to each new generation, just like many other things that are hardwired into us, such as the unknown, which is clearly observable in infants.  unfortunately, those who disagree just state my premises is incorrect, rather than attempt to explain why racism is not hardwired into us .@Bogan ; @Dee ; @Nomenclature ;

Nomenclature

@maxx

i have explained very carefully as to how racism began, and how early tribes, distrusted strangers and those who were different. 

So if I distrust a stranger it makes me a racist? 

Bogan

Okay, Maxx.   let's look at your exchanges with Nommie.    You submit a reasoned argument fully explaining your position, Nommie responds with a sneery one liner.   I think we can categorize Nommie as just another troll.  It is a waste of time dealing with trolls.  They do not want to debate, their aim is to stifle debate.

maxx

you are missing the entire argument. The reason you distrust strangers and those who may be different, go way back to the origins as to why we do. This is not about skin color. The word racist evolved since ancient times to what it means today. However, and if you return to my earlier explanation, we distrust strangers for the reason i previously outlined. It is instinctive. It has been genetically passed down to us from generation to generation.  Now my explanation has merit, and again, if you do not agree with it, then the proper way to debate, is to explain why.  @Nomenclature

Nomenclature

@maxx

The reason you distrust strangers and those who may be different, go way back to the origins

I'm still missing what these factors have to do with race. A stranger is a stranger, regardless of race. Furthermore, if we go way back to the origins, as you insist, everyone was from Africa. If we don't go quite that far back, then there are still various examples of indigenous peoples thinking the new visitors to their shores were gods. Your theory would appear to contain more holes than a proverbial piece of Swiss cheese.

maxx

I agree. This is a debate site. If they disagree, they should explain as to why; instead of simply sneering, and ridicule. @Bogan

maxx

I told you in my earlier explanations. It is not about other races. That is just what the word racism evolved into today.  The base line of what racism is; iss fear and distrust of those who are different. It began in ancient times as the earliest humans began migrating. racism began because of what dangers strangers would bring, and what possible diseases they had. Over hundreds of thousands of years, this trait was passed along to each generation. This is why it is hardwired into us. @Nomenclature

Dee

@maxx

i have done explained very carefully as to how racism began, and it is about distrust of those who were different, and strangers who would rob, maim, murder, take women and food and other resources.

You stated ......

Now first, let us not get hung up on the word racist; the word itself, simply evolved since ancient time to have the meaning it has today. Its base meaning ions fear, resentment and anger over those who are strangers or different......

My response was .......

 All you're saying is humans learned to recognise others who weren't like them and they thus could be a threat to their particular group , on  this we are all agreed on , it seems ,so what are you arguing about you id-ot?






 That is what this post is about, how it is built into us, not what the word evolved into today. 

I never once mentioned the Evolution of racism you clot 

Now since you disagree, the proper way to debate is to explain why it is not genetic

You stated .....I consider that racism is inherent in not only humans but animals .....

Prove it

Nomenclature

@maxx

I told you in my earlier explanations. It is not about other races.

So people are racist against their own race? Now I'm really confused.

That is what the word racism evolved into today.  The base line of what racism is; iss fear and distrust of those who are different.

But that isn't racism. You've literally paraphrased my own argument and then labelled it as racism, when in reality it's just a natural tendency in some people to isolate and pick on factors which are different from the group norms. If a Muslim were to join a convent of nuns exactly the same thing would happen. You're essentially identifying and describing the methodology of bullying, but mislabelling it as racism.

Nomenclature

@Dee

All you're saying is humans learned to recognise others who weren't like them and they thus could be a threat to their particular group , on  this we are all agreed on it seems ,so what are you arguing about you id-ot?

Exactly! 

Dee

@maxx

I told you in my earlier explanations. It is not about other races.

Right got that racism is not about other races 

That is just what the word racism evolved into today.  

So it wasn't originally but it is today .....are you on drugs?

The base line of what racism is; iss fear and distrust of those who are different.

Thats not racism do you intend on buying a dictionary sometime?

 It began in ancient times as the earliest humans began migrating. racism began because of what dangers strangers would bring, and what possible diseases they had. 

But you said it wasn't about races ?

Over hundreds of thousands of years, this trait was passed along to each generation

So this trait that was never about races and was passed along and became all about races ...???

. This is why it is hardwired into us.

I wish a working brain was hardwired into you 

maxx

why do you not learned to read?  Racism is at its base roots, distrust and fear of strangers and those who are different, and it began in ancient times with the earliest humans. Just like most fears, it was genetically passed on through generation after generation. Yes today, racism means other so called races, but again, it began in the earliest times and that is why it is hardwired into us. If you do not agree with the points, then i suggest you explain as to why. @Nomenclature I figured as much. @Nomeclature ;

Dee

@Nomenclature

I said it before Mad Maxx is the only person I know who takes two opposing views in an argument and successfully beats his own arguments 

maxx

oh and learn to debate. if you disagree, then explain why. You do not agree that racism began in the earliest humans, because of distrust of strangers from other tribes?? If so explain as to why. Or is that all you can do, is ridicule??  Another question i ask in which you refuse to answer; is what do you consider racism is?  Let me answer for you. Discrimination against other so-called-races. Ever wonder why? Because we distrust those who are different
. Why? I have already explained as to why. Just like bogan said. nothing but a troll. Instead of answering the points, you simply ridicule and toss out comic book ads. @Dee

Nomenclature

@maxx

why do you not learned to read?

Well, I'm a bit too old to learn a new language.

Racism is at its base roots, distrust and fear of strangers

That isn't racism. That's fear and distrust of strangers. Racism is when you generalise negatively the actions, attitude and/or behaviour of an entire group of people based on some sort of external characteristic (i.e. skin color, nose shape etc...).

Just like most fears, it was genetically passed on through generation after generation.

Oh, racism is genetic? That's nice. Fears in general are genetic? Babies simply leave the womb hating blacks and knowing they shouldn't stick their hand into a fire? 

You are a strange one, Maxx.

Dee

@maxx

Mad Maxx is still running ..........

Here is what you said and my responses , you finish up by stating .........I consider that racism is inherent in not only humans but animals .....

Prove it 

i have done explained very carefully as to how racism began, and it is about distrust of those who were different, and strangers who would rob, maim, murder, take women and food and other resources.

You stated ......

Now first, let us not get hung up on the word racist; the word itself, simply evolved since ancient time to have the meaning it has today. Its base meaning ions fear, resentment and anger over those who are strangers or different......

My response was .......

 All you're saying is humans learned to recognise others who weren't like them and they thus could be a threat to their particular group , on  this we are all agreed on , it seems ,so what are you arguing about you id-ot?






 That is what this post is about, how it is built into us, not what the word evolved into today. 

I never once mentioned the Evolution of racism you clot 

Now since you disagree, the proper way to debate is to explain why it is not genetic

You stated .....I consider that racism is inherent in not only humans but animals .....

Prove it

MayCaesar

@maxx

Your entire argument consists of a few assertions that you repeat over and over again. This is not how you argue your position, and saying something multiple times does not make that something more logical.

Your general philosophy seems to be some sort of naturalism, where you believe that the way humans lived in pre-civilization times is the way they are biologically wired to live and that deviating from that way is either impossible or undesirable. This, of course, is completely false, and even in the animal kingdom one can see incredible adaptations taking place over the scope of one generation when the animal is taken out of its natural habitat.

Even if it was true that racism was biologically conditioned in primal humans, it has to be demonstrated that living in the modern world has not caused readaptations to take place erasing that alleged instinct. Many people nowadays do not exhibit any racism and do not even take the concept of "race" seriously; it would be impossible if racism was instinctual.

Luigi7255

@maxx

Racism as of now isn't inherent. Like May, I used to trust people's words when I was young, but after I started to come to many conclusions contradicting the words of those older than me, I'm more skeptical (hence why I came onto this site a couple of years ago). Although my argument is mostly semantics (inherent means to be permanent in a person, and racism absolutely isn't permanently in one's mind), your argument seems unfounded in general. You say that since tribes were fearful of others due to a possible threat, that idea founds the idea of racism is inherent, but tribes often worked together and quite a large group of tribes have, that's how civilizations came to be. Ever since civilizations came to spread up to today, that idea of fear has been toned down to essentially nitpicks and flat-out hatred, so the excuse that yesterday's fear turned into today's unfounded hatred doesn't make sense.

Bogan

@Luigi7255

No Luigi.    What Maxx is saying, and I agree with him, is that human beings are tribal and territorial,    That we have never evolved past that primal wiring is evidenced by the fact that every country has a border, and every country has an armed forces which is supposedly to protect it's border.      it is hard wired into our DNA.   Can cultural conditioning moderate that?    Possibly.   But almost all the wars on planet earth in the last 60 years were in effect race wars.    They were civil wars between two tribes competing for space and resources on the same territory.    Thus we have had civil wars, race riots, terrorism,  or calls for ethnic and religious separatism in Lebanon, Fiji, India, Chechnya, Cyprus, Georgia, Afghanistan, Biafra, Rhodesia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Liberia, Kashmir, Punjab, Sudan, Nigeria, Bougainville, East Timor, Yugoslavia, Kurdistan, New Zealand, Bhutan, Angola, Burma, Chechnya, Guadalcanal, Aden, Malaya, Oman, Congo, Northern Ireland, Palestine/Israel, Czechoslovakia, The Solomon's, Yemen, Mexico, East Timor, Thailand and recently, Ukraine.    Add to this sundry race riots and acts of terrorism in Britain, the US, France, Europe and just about every other country on Earth.  And with the western world's failed social experiment with multiculturalism, the list keeps growing.

You seem to be getting into the humanitarian ideal trap of thinking that human beings are rational, and all you need do to solve all the world's problems is to appeal to their reason.    Human beings can be rational, when all other means are exhausted.   But thinking that you can solve world over population simply by telling teenagers that they must be rational and not screw each other is not going to work.    If human beings were rational, there would be no obesity, no diabetes, no religion, no crime, no dangerous thrill seeking behaviour, and no unwed mothers. 

Nomenclature

@Bogan

What Maxx is saying, and I agree with him, is that human beings are tribal and territorial

Human beings are a product of whichever environment you put them in. Just because humans acted a certain way in the past does not make it an immutable reality that they must act that way in the future. Tribalism was a reaction to the environment of the times, when we needed to band together to protect ourselves against external predators. These days, the most dangerous predators faced by humans are other humans.  

That we have never evolved past that primal wiring is evidenced by the fact that every country has a border

No, that's a direct refutation of your belief that racism is logical or somehow natural, since contained within those borders are countless different "races". Were your hypothesis about tribalism true, then we would expect nationalism, but not racism.