FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Can someone be Racialist and not be Racist?





monkeystravels
Can someone be Racialist and not be Racist?

What do you think? Theoretically, and realistically.


And here’s an explanation of the terms for those who are unfamiliar.
-----
Racialism:

Believing that the human races are different, and subsequently that they are superior to one another in various aspects. Racialist theory can range from speculation that different races possess different traits (eg: Black people can run the fastest, Asians are very clever etc.). To theories of racial hierarchy, such as H.S. Chamberlain’s ‘inequality of the human races’ that ranked races in a league of superiority.

Racism:

Acting upon prejudices regarding race. Racism comes in many forms most notably, physical violence, social discrimination and verbal abuse.
SunburnedCactus
No, because racialism relies on generalisation and stereotyping, which are the fundamentals of racism. Profiling intrinsically creates prejudice.
monkeystravels
Quote:
No, because racialism relies on generalisation and stereotyping, which are the fundamentals of racism. Profiling intrinsically creates prejudice.


Yes… but what if someone who is racialist (holds prejudices) does not act upon them. For example, if someone worked at a fast food counter, and they did a good job and gave everyone exactly the same service. Yet this person holds racial prejudices that they never disclose or act upon.

Or alternatively, someone might think themselves racially superior to others, yet take a benevolent (albeit pompous) mindset to their less fortunate friends. Similar to how dog owners often look after their pets to a same standard they would treat a child.

Another question to consider is that if some could live their life in a completely non-racist way despite holding cloaked racial prejudices… can you tell someone what they should think? Perhaps racialism is seen as completely unacceptable as it is the basis of racism, and it can be difficult to envisage one without the other. However, if someone were racialist without being racist, then you would never know that they were racialist in the first place.
AftershockVibe
I would only be racist if for example you decided that because of those great sweeping generalisations that therefore only black people should be in the olympic teams and that only asians could get a university place.

Bearing in mind that you can produce statistics to prove anything, this is a very dangerous thing to do even a less extreme level. You can't judge people accurately by anything other than their own merit.
Vrythramax
I don't think so, because once you start seperating groups of people into differant classes (for lack of a better term) sooner or later the thought is bound to creep up that one is also better, or possibly more superior, than another.
monkeystravels
Quote:
I don't think so, because once you start seperating groups of people into differant classes (for lack of a better term) sooner or later the thought is bound to creep up that one is also better, or possibly more superior, than another.


... that's what racialism is, but what about being racialist and not being racist?[/quote]
UlrikeSE
Strip away the layers of terms, morals, and years. Racism is a very primalistic survivalism. It's a deep and unremovable quality in every person that can only be supressed, shamed, or embraced.

To somehow strip a person of this, is to strip a biological safeguard.

Who doesn't, even with a greater intelligence, suspect even in the remotest and smallest niche of their brain that the turbon'd man on the plane is a potential terrorist? Would you think about him a second longer then the little girl with the hello kitty backpack? If you did, your obviously a racist.

No you shouldn't though, it's just the safeguard. It's the people who always have it up, even after talking and learning about the turbon'd man (upon learning is a upstanding citizen), that should be shamed.
monkeystravels
Quote:
Who doesn't, even with a greater intelligence, suspect even in the remotest and smallest niche of their brain that the turbon'd man on the plane is a potential terrorist? Would you think about him a second longer then the little girl with the hello kitty backpack? If you did, your obviously a racist.


Don't you mean racialist?
The Philosopher Princess
I’m not familiar with that term racialism, but with the definition you’ve offered -- i.e., with its inclusion of superior and superiority, which imply at least some subjective judging, as opposed to strictly objective judging -- then I think the answer to your question.....

monkeystravels wrote:
Can someone be Racialist and not be Racist?

.....is clearly No.

Contrast what you’ve offered to this: Take someone who has studied strictly scientific studies comparing various races to each other, and then concluded scientifically that one race were, say, typically taller than another race. The characteristic of taller (or shorter) is just a factual thing.

Being taller or shorter is not necessarily better and it’s not necessarily superior. So, as soon as someone starts thinking in terms of better and superior, then they are not being scientific any longer.
~~~~~~~~~~
If you’re seriously interested in the subject you raise, I recommend looking at the possibility of reading The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and someone else I forget off hand. It’s a big book and I haven’t read it yet myself, but the hoopla surrounding it is basically this same subject. There’s controversy over whether the authors were sticking to science or whether they were being racist, themselves. I haven’t looked at it enough to know the answer, myself.
~~~~~~~~~~
I hope this helps, monkeystravels, because you look like you are being sincere with your quest. For example, I think it would be possible for you to rewrite your question and definitions, and then get the answer of Yes. Smile
UlrikeSE
monkeystravels wrote:
Don't you mean racialist?


It's always been humanism to me, so I have no clue.

The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Being taller or shorter is not necessarily better and it’s not necessarily superior. So, as soon as someone starts thinking in terms of better and superior, then they are not being scientific any longer.


If those two types were put into an enviroment of tall trees that bore fruit, and neither had the intelligence beyond reach up and grasping a fruit, neither are superior?

I don't think i'd be wrong to state that the surviving race was superior in that situation. Scientific evidense would show that the small race was physically and mentally unable to get fruit and survive. It would also show that the taller wer physically superior enough to provide food, and thus survive.
The Philosopher Princess
This is an example of exactly what I’m talking about:

UlrikeSE wrote:
If those two types were put into an enviroment of tall trees that bore fruit, and neither had the intelligence beyond reach up and grasping a fruit, neither are superior?

I’m hoping that monkeystravels understands, and can and will explain why, without my having to. Smile
nbwbhst
Yes you can be a racialist and not be racist. Those that think not simply don't understand the difference of the two fully enough to see it.
Related topics
Can someone make me a php script?
Can someone help me ? Com domain setup?
REAL music
If someone uploads the "Artemis" Mod to my site 30
Can someone explain how google works exacly?
Someone knows E Nomine?
George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People - Kanye West
can someone help me?
Mexifornia - The Destruction of America
Someone using GIMP
A racist in everyone
Christians, Jesus, and Africans born in America from slavery
BNP being taken to court for racist membership policy
My "Faith" is in myself
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.