Is it futile trying to convince racists to not be racists?

[RedStar]

I'm debating this guy (IRL, so I can't really quote him ) and he's a racist. Not the neo-nazi white supremacist militant type, but the subtler "soft" kind.

His assertion is that whites (and by that he means Europeans, and I tried to explain that there are non-European whites) are the "more intelligent" race and his "evidence" is comparing Europe to Africa and comparing their wealth and technological achievements.

I've been over it again and again. I've discussed colonialism and poverty, and he shrugs it off and gives me education statistics and test scores and I try to explain to him the effect of poverty.

Am I wasting my time? He seriously thinks race, whatever that is, has something to do with Europe's success and Africa's not-so-success.

 

[elte]

There is also the factor that the climate in temperate zones suits industry more.
Another factor is that the way religion evolved in Europe fostered industriousness.
The way the Roman Empire affected Europe also matters.
It boils down to a chain of circumstances.

 

[Tiassa]

Degrees of Subtlety, or Some Such

Some sort of visceral transformation is required for a hardcore racist, such as a neo-Nazi, to convert his view to something more civilized. In that sense, yes, it's futile. Were I religious, I would say it is something that only God can change.

Milder racism, such as we see in many of our friends and neighbors who would be horrified to find their outlook considered racist, is something that can be addressed between individuals, and within communities.

The problem arises when that address is too belligerent.

I recall an occasion a few years back when a friend was mortified by the proposition that he could be affected by background racism—the ideas and stereotypes we continue to acknowledge, sub- or un-consciously, despite our better intentions. We had quite a row over that one.

Recently, some accused him of racism in a matter pertaining to a specific group of ethnicities, and I simply didn't agree with the complaint. Could he have phrased his question better? Most likely. But having known him for that much longer, now, I have an even deeper comprehension of his context than I did when we tangled about background racism.

Even in terms of that proposition of background racism, his outlook today is clearly different than it was. And it wasn't people hammering him about being racist that did it. Rather, it is the fact that he's an intelligent fellow who has picked up, consciously or otherwise, more pieces of the grand puzzle than he had a few years ago. These elements affected his outlook. I've seen the change, witnessed some of the points on the curve. Could he have phrased his question better? Most likely, but he wasn't actually trying to put anyone down for their ethnicity.

Pressing the proposition that he was or is racist only stalls his human growth; he is not at all unusual in that regard.

I had a moment with the Samurai Jack television series recently. Watching it again after some years had passed, I was nearly rolling on the floor with the whole, "You can't do that!" notion.

[video=youtube;hGt6cybFkF4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGt6cybFkF4[/video]​

But by the time you get to Jack's encounter with the Scotsman—

[video=youtube;L-LyFMCIpok]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-LyFMCIpok[/video]​

—you've witnessed Tartakovsky and company taking it out on enough people that you realize it's not about being racist; rather, it's about exploiting the funny side of stereotypes. Like Eddie Murphy's "dick in the sink" bit. It's hilarious. And plenty of people have asked over the years, "Why can black people say this stuff when white people can't?" And while the answer is generally obvious, we're also in a cultural transitional period in which more and more groups are becoming equal by proxy of being fair game. If Samurai Jack simply ripped on one ethnic group throughout, that would be something. But immediately after the encounter between Jack and the Scotsman, they are both pursued by a stereotype of the incoherent, Southern, redneck sheriff. Everyone is fair game.

Bringing that point back to the question, when you do encounter more subtle racism, it is something one can address.

The hardcore types, though? Neo-Nazis? God only knows what it takes to help them see straight.

 

[Carcano]

Am I wasting my time? He seriously thinks race, whatever that is, has something to do with Europe's success and Africa's not-so-success.

Clearly genetics has much to do with intelligence, technological development, organization, co-operation, etc.

If it were not so...homo sapiens would not live much differently than homo erectus.

 

[Jeeves]

Clearly genetics has much to do with intelligence, technological development, organization, co-operation, etc.

If it were not so...homo sapiens would not live much differently than homo erectus.

Clearly... ? I wonder how one would go about tracing the clever, successful genotypes to foster, and H erectus ones to weed out.

You can't convince anyone to stop being racist, or to drop any long-held conviction. We all have beliefs and prejudices, because what we think and know is influenced by so much experience, education, social pressure... and a million subliminal messages and impressions we have little or no awareness of receiving. We change our attitude through new experience, education, social pressure and subliminal messages. No one thing will affect a change; many little things might. A debate over the internet can be as much of a factor as a book, a movie or a chance encounter on the street. So don't give up; keep plugging away - but don't expect to see the result of your effort.

 

[Carcano]

Clearly... ? I wonder how one would go about tracing the clever, successful genotypes to foster, and H erectus ones to weed out.

This will eventually happen with the introduction of 'designer' reproduction...and I suspect it will have much to do with optimizing the coding that determines 'brain volume to body weight' ratio.

 

[Buddha12]

In a good world the strong should help the weak. Educating those who are lacking it is a step in the right direction to helping those less fortunate than those who are more fortunate to receive a good education. I once encountered a very bigoted person who did not know where I stand about belittling others so that person started showing me their "true colors" and was joking about someones medical condition, which they knew little about.

After about one minute I said to him, "that's my uncle", and that put a halt to his bigotry for the time being. Once someone realizes that they are offending you that is when you can show them they are doing something wrong , in a very subtle and polite way, even though you might have to tell a white lie.

 

[Nasor]

Based on my experience trying to "fix" racist family members, usually the best you can hope for is to get them to stop acting openly racist. Or at least, get them to stop acting openly racist around *you*.

 

[arauca]

In a good world the strong should help the weak. Educating those who are lacking it is a step in the right direction to helping those less fortunate than those who are more fortunate to receive a good education. I once encountered a very bigoted person who did not know where I stand about belittling others so that person started showing me their "true colors" and was joking about someones medical condition, which they knew little about.

After about one minute I said to him, "that's my uncle", and that put a halt to his bigotry for the time being. Once someone realizes that they are offending you that is when you can show them they are doing something wrong , in a very subtle and polite way, even though you might have to tell a white lie.

So what is wrong to be racist or bigot ? It is my choice, Being a racist is that one discriminate certain group. Groups that you do not like to associate I am sure every one of you discriminate some group.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

He seriously thinks race, whatever that is, has something to do with Europe's success and Africa's not-so-success.

The root of this discrepancy goes back about twelve thousand years, to the Agricultural Revolution that brought our species out of the Paleolithic Era into the Neolithic Era.

The land mass of Eurasia has an east-west orientation. That means a relatively standard climate zone from one end to the other. So when someone in one part of the land mass discovers a great way to domesticate an animal or to cultivate a plant, or to hybridize two species, that discovery can be shared with the people east of him and the people west of him, and they can share it with the next people over. Eventually one of them will make a discovery and it will make its way back to him.

So you've got the entire population of the land mass more-or-less cooperating in the development of farming and animal husbandry technologies. As a result agriculture spread like wildfire. It started in Mesopotamia but before long Egypt, India and China invented it and it spread to other regions including Europe. Even the islands got it before too long: Japan, Taiwan, Britannia, Ireland, Oceania, the Mediterranean islands.

Once these people had thriving agricultural economies, with domesticated draft animals, they were able to build cities. With that concentration of population and the surplus wealth that agriculture generates, they went on to discover metallurgy, writing, and even industrial processes.

But both Africa and the Americas have a north-south axis. This means that the climate changes every time you move north or south. If somebody developed a new crop or a new animal for meat, milk or eggs, it could not be shared with the people to the north or the people to the south.

The people in what are now Mexico-Guatemala and the Andean Highlands did manage to discover agriculture, but because they were not able to share it across climate zone boundaries, they didn't get as far with it as the people in Eurasia. They were further inhibited by the lack of variety in animal life. The Eurasians had horses, goats, sheep, pigs, donkeys and a wide variety of herbivores to use for meat and traction. The people in South America had llamas, which are not very big and produce very little milk. The people in Mexico and Guatemala didn't even have that: The Olmecs get a prize for being the only people who managed to invent civilization without draft animals!

Olmec/Maya/Aztec civilization was not founded until about 3,000 years ago, and the Incas built their cities only about 1,000 years ago. When the Christian conquerors came, there were vast areas in the New World that were still in the Stone Age, and even its two civilizations were in the Bronze Age, not yet having invented iron metallurgy.

The problems of the Africans and the Native Americans had nothing to do with deficiencies in their intelligence or handicaps conferred by their "race." It was simply the bad luck of living on a land mass with a north-south orientation.

 

[arauca]

The root of this discrepancy goes back about twelve thousand years, to the Agricultural Revolution that brought our species out of the Paleolithic Era into the Neolithic Era.

The land mass of Eurasia has an east-west orientation. That means a relatively standard climate zone from one end to the other. So when someone in one part of the land mass discovers a great way to domesticate an animal or to cultivate a plant, or to hybridize two species, that discovery can be shared with the people east of him and the people west of him, and they can share it with the next people over. Eventually one of them will make a discovery and it will make its way back to him.

So you've got the entire population of the land mass more-or-less cooperating in the development of farming and animal husbandry technologies. As a result agriculture spread like wildfire. It started in Mesopotamia but before long Egypt, India and China invented it and it spread to other regions including Europe. Even the islands got it before too long: Japan, Taiwan, Britannia, Ireland, Oceania, the Mediterranean islands.

Once these people had thriving agricultural economies, with domesticated draft animals, they were able to build cities. With that concentration of population and the surplus wealth that agriculture generates, they went on to discover metallurgy, writing, and even industrial processes.

But both Africa and the Americas have a north-south axis. This means that the climate changes every time you move north or south. If somebody developed a new crop or a new animal for meat, milk or eggs, it could not be shared with the people to the north or the people to the south.

The people in what are now Mexico-Guatemala and the Andean Highlands did manage to discover agriculture, but because they were not able to share it across climate zone boundaries, they didn't get as far with it as the people in Eurasia. They were further inhibited by the lack of variety in animal life. The Eurasians had horses, goats, sheep, pigs, donkeys and a wide variety of herbivores to use for meat and traction. The people in South America had llamas, which are not very big and produce very little milk. The people in Mexico and Guatemala didn't even have that: The Olmecs get a prize for being the only people who managed to invent civilization without draft animals!

Olmec/Maya/Aztec civilization was not founded until about 3,000 years ago, and the Incas built their cities only about 1,000 years ago. When the Christian conquerors came, there were vast areas in the New World that were still in the Stone Age, and even its two civilizations were in the Bronze Age, not yet having invented iron metallurgy.

The problems of the Africans and the Native Americans had nothing to do with deficiencies in their intelligence or handicaps conferred by their "race." It was simply the bad luck of living on a land mass with a north-south orientation.

You just ramble a lot of unnecessary history which you repeat every time about Mexico and tho Olmec , Next time add to your story the Inca from south America

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

You just ramble a lot of unnecessary history which you repeat every time about Mexico and the Olmec.

There are new readers every time.

Next time add to your story the Inca from south America

I did include a reference to them and their llamas. There isn't as much to say about them. Their civilization was founded much more recently (although they managed to advance into the Bronze Age), it doesn't have the complicated history of two leadership turnovers like the Olmec-Maya-Aztec, and the Christian destroyers arrived before they developed written language.

However, a little more is known about their ancestral cultures' experimentation with agriculture, because it happened more recently than in Central America so the evidence is still available. Like the first farmers in Africa and Central America, they were not able to spread the technology very widely because of the continent's north-south axis. This greatly impeded progress. The first civilization in Mesopotamia was created barely one thousand years after the Dawn of Agriculture. In Mexico and Peru it took several thousand.

Another handicap both New World centers had was the absence of a high-nutritional-content grain. The Eurasians and Egyptians had wheat, rice, barley and several others. All the Westerners had was corn (maize), which is nutritionally almost worthless in comparison. It's very difficult to support an empire on corn protein--especially if you have no dairy animals whose milk provides the essential amino acids missing from the protein in grains and legumes.

 

[superstring01]

The root of this discrepancy goes back about twelve thousand years, to the Agricultural Revolution that brought our species out of the Paleolithic Era into the Neolithic Era.

The land mass of Eurasia has an east-west orientation. That means a relatively standard climate zone from one end to the other. So when someone in one part of the land mass discovers a great way to domesticate an animal or to cultivate a plant, or to hybridize two species, that discovery can be shared with the people east of him and the people west of him, and they can share it with the next people over. Eventually one of them will make a discovery and it will make its way back to him.

So you've got the entire population of the land mass more-or-less cooperating in the development of farming and animal husbandry technologies. As a result agriculture spread like wildfire. It started in Mesopotamia but before long Egypt, India and China invented it and it spread to other regions including Europe. Even the islands got it before too long: Japan, Taiwan, Britannia, Ireland, Oceania, the Mediterranean islands.

Once these people had thriving agricultural economies, with domesticated draft animals, they were able to build cities. With that concentration of population and the surplus wealth that agriculture generates, they went on to discover metallurgy, writing, and even industrial processes.

But both Africa and the Americas have a north-south axis. This means that the climate changes every time you move north or south. If somebody developed a new crop or a new animal for meat, milk or eggs, it could not be shared with the people to the north or the people to the south.

The people in what are now Mexico-Guatemala and the Andean Highlands did manage to discover agriculture, but because they were not able to share it across climate zone boundaries, they didn't get as far with it as the people in Eurasia. They were further inhibited by the lack of variety in animal life. The Eurasians had horses, goats, sheep, pigs, donkeys and a wide variety of herbivores to use for meat and traction. The people in South America had llamas, which are not very big and produce very little milk. The people in Mexico and Guatemala didn't even have that: The Olmecs get a prize for being the only people who managed to invent civilization without draft animals!

Olmec/Maya/Aztec civilization was not founded until about 3,000 years ago, and the Incas built their cities only about 1,000 years ago. When the Christian conquerors came, there were vast areas in the New World that were still in the Stone Age, and even its two civilizations were in the Bronze Age, not yet having invented iron metallurgy.

The problems of the Africans and the Native Americans had nothing to do with deficiencies in their intelligence or handicaps conferred by their "race." It was simply the bad luck of living on a land mass with a north-south orientation.

Someone's channeling Jared Diamond!!!

[Personally, I liked the history lesson.]

When questions of race come up, I always retort with the, "So, you really hate a skin cell, don't you?"

~String

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

When questions of race come up, I always retort with the, "So, you really hate a skin cell, don't you?"

But racists believe there's more to it than pigmentation.

Obviously, in the Paleolithic Era, with no transportation technology (except boats of course, which carried a few of our distant ancestors all the way to Australia), tribes maintained more separation from each other than our communities do today. So it's not unreasonable to hypothesize that there were significantly more differences between a clan of humans in Zambia and one in Mongolia and one in Norway--more than just appearance.

On the other hand, humans have a strong instinct to outbreed, unlike our cousins the gorillas and chimpanzees who happily mate with their own grandparents. This is called the Westermarck Effect; even step-siblings unrelated by blood rarely marry each other. The little information we have about the few remaining Stone Age tribes studied by the anthropologists of the colonial era indicates that even hostile tribes might call a truce and have a summer festival, in which they'd swap a few children to "chlorinate the gene pool."

Still, there may have been notable differences between people living far apart.

But the domestication of riding animals, followed eventually by the invention of the wheel, shortened those distances. All of the empires of the Classical Era had citizens (and slaves) from distant lands, all marrying each other.

Even going back before the Industrial Revolution with its motorized transportation, I'm sure that there were very few human beings with a "pure" lineage.

Today, by the standards we dog breeders use, we are all mongrels. Mongrel dogs come in different colors, and so do we.

 

[arauca]

Someone's channeling Jared Diamond!!!

[Personally, I liked the history lesson.]

When questions of race come up, I always retort with the, "So, you really hate a skin cell, don't you?"

~String

Is not the skin, but the particular behavior of a group of people who are of that color skin, (So you can be a white nigger )

 

[Buddha12]

So what is wrong to be racist or bigot ? It is my choice, Being a racist is that one discriminate certain group. Groups that you do not like to associate I am sure every one of you discriminate some group.

I think that just not understanding someone because they are a different color, religion or ethnic makeup, you cannot ever get to know anyone for who they are due to your own hate build up against them as a group. There are people who I don't care to be around, not because of what they are but because who they themselves are. Everyone in any group are different, there are asholes in every group but there are some good people as well. To condem all people would segregate me from those who I would enjoy the pleasure of getting to know.

 

[Jeeves]

Is not the skin, but the particular behavior of a group of people who are of that color skin, (So you can be a white nigger )

Which particular behaviours are restricted to race? If you mean culture, i understand that there are practices you dislike - abhor, even - but even cultural mores are not binding or uniform; there is a wide range of adherence, even within a close community, never mind across a continent. So, why not say: I don't associate with anyone who beats his wife, or mutilates his infant son, or eats pork, or mistreats dolphins, or whatever the practice is that you object to?
BTW There no niggers of any colour, anywhere.

 

[arauca]

I think that just not understanding someone because they are a different color, religion or ethnic makeup, you cannot ever get to know anyone for who they are due to your own hate build up against them as a group. There are people who I don't care to be around, not because of what they are but because who they themselves are. Everyone in any group are different, there are asholes in every group but there are some good people as well.


As you said "There are people who I don't care to be around, not because of what they are but because who they themselves are." Let me add they live in certain neighborhood in town . What would you call your attitude in discriminating . As you get to know people in that area , you would say not all have bad disposition . I don't know if you had an experience living in an safe neighborhood then in a few years you become one of the few of your class or ethnic group, and the neighborhood becomes unsafe Would you move out or you will pioneer in saying things are good among this group of people , even some might be very good law obi-dig citizen.. It is very easy to be open minded and pretend be a just citizen. We all group people by color or religion at firs site, until we learn on individual bases, then we might even invite them for dinner.

 

[arauca]

Which particular behaviours are restricted to race? If you mean culture, i understand that there are practices you dislike - abhor, even - but even cultural mores are not binding or uniform; there is a wide range of adherence, even within a close community, never mind across a continent. So, why not say: I don't associate with anyone who beats his wife, or mutilates his infant son, or eats pork, or mistreats dolphins, or whatever the practice is that you object to?
BTW There no niggers of any colour, anywhere.

The word nigger in my usage of in many blacks people usage is referred to a misbehaved individual with bad manners , within the community . Is the same as the word derives from a mispronunciation " negro"

 

[Aqueous Id]

even cultural mores are not binding or uniform; there is a wide range of adherence, even within a close community, never mind across a continent.

It brings to mind the commonality of racism and xenophobia. At the moment I'm thinking of the era of serious carnage that went on between the city-states of ancient Greece, as if an Athenian was as reviled by a Spartan (or vice versa) as, say, the blacks during the American "Jim Crow" era.

There are plenty of hostilities between people of the same color and even common ancestry to remind us that people hate people for all kinds of stupid and petty reasons, but the consequences often go as far as the worst of human rights violations ever known to happen. I think it was Elie Wiesel who said (of the Holocaust) that the Germans had pushed the limits of human cruelty so far than ever conceivable that the lexicon did not contain the words to describe it; that "they forced us to invent words" like the Holocaust to name the newly created crimes. (I'm sure I mangled his quote.)

Racists are sick puppies. (Here I'm just addressing the topic in general.) It takes a mean person to intentionally harm another person. But to do so for stupid and petty reasons and with a degree of hatred that can foment violence and the serious infringement of a person's rights is psychopathic.

This thread may be kind of off in the weeds anyway, but anyone who would seriously ask about how to cure a person of racism is asking the wrong question. It needs to begin with the observation that it's a serious behavioral and thinking disorder which may not be treatable, and is more often merely punishable. Fortunately there are an abundance of laws to refer to that impose penalties for violating other folks' civil rights.

It's kind of an anachronism anyway. More relevant might be to ask why people hate immigrants, or people who eat different kinds of food, or dress or look different, or speak unintelligibly in foreign tongues or with certain kinds of accents. I find this kind of thinking and behavior appalling. It comes to mind every time the immigration issue comes up in the American right wing political diatribes.

Recently Republican governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, in opposition to President Obama's executive order granting amnesty to immigrant children who were advancing their education (the "Dream Act")--the order circumvented Congress where Republican hate-mongering had it bogged down--Gov Brewer came up with her own order to deny state driver's licenses to young people who may apply for amnesty under the Dream Act.

Gov Brewer is a psychopath. Any person who would wield power to harm another person on account of mean and stupid urges arising out of something as petty as xenophobia ought to be committed to the state prison until a cure, if any, is reached. She is dangerous and should not be allowed in public, much, much less than to wield power over her victims. She compounds her crime by taking political gain from it, pandering to the xenophobes in her electorate.

At this point I would rhetorically ask the thread starter to go work magic on Gov Brewer. It can't be done. I would however, favor a period of incarceration--in a bull pen full of bull dyke Latino women--while undergoing intensive therapy. Shock therapy, if necessary, while on a diet of 100% Mexican food, with Mexican conjunto music blaring 24/7, and only Spanish spoken and written within her place of confinement.

That might serve as a cure.