What causes it? What are its roots? Is it a learned social behavior? And when does it cross the line? When does prejudice go from jokes and urban legends, to Hutu's slaughtering Tutsis? to Germans and Russians slaughtering jews? And why does it cross this line? Why do persons feel a certain ethnic or racial group must be eliminated?
Prejudice
- Thread starter speed
- Start date
Anvil
Brain Bubbled
- Jun 2, 2004
- 8,381
- 37
- 48
I'd like to say its because people are afraid of whats different. However can you say that the african americans were prejudice to the caucasians? We all know the history of slavery and the prejudice of the african americans by the caucasians, but was it the same the other way around?
If only we all knew the answer to this, the world would be a better place to live in.
If only we all knew the answer to this, the world would be a better place to live in.
OfManAndMetal
satan said i get a cookie
AnvilSnake said:
that is the exact reason... some poeple dont want things to change, because they fear change, and different views...
derek
Grey Eminence
I'd say its generally learned too. Those whom do hold such views are generally raised in such a way or heavily influenced.
its learned. either theyre raised that way, or something happens in their life, a negative thing, and then they open themselves up for brainwashing and start listening to people who say shit like "well, that wouldnt have happened if those black people didnt do ..." blah blah. its like religion in that sense. either youre born into a religious family or you make some huge mistake or go through some terrible tragedy and only THEN do people: A, become born agains because they need forgiveness or B, look to something like God for answers because they cant accept the truth and the facts on their own.
people never walk down the street and stop in their tracks and say "i just decided i believe in god." it doesnt happen on their own.
people never walk down the street and stop in their tracks and say "i just decided i believe in god." it doesnt happen on their own.
Does anyone think that propaganda also plays a major role in this? It seems once these prejudiced people become set in their ways of hating who are different, they only rely on their own propaganda, and consider facts from other sources as tainted.
speed said:
Is that prejudice, or ethnic preservation? No two ethnicities can exist in the same place without becoming a third, grayer ethnicity.
I like the diversity of your examples though.
Neith
Little Lady
judas69 said:
I actually agree with you Judas69, although I do wonder whether it many of this prejudice people are higher in terms or status or whether they just think they are?
Norsemaiden
barbarian
First, we should define "prejudice". It is often used in the same contexts as "discrimination", so perhaps we could include "discrimination" in the debate also.
"Prejudice" means pre judging - as in judging something before you know facts about it. The word is often used wrongly by people to imply not liking something (regardless of what a person knows about that something).
It should be assumed that the person with more experience knows more about something than the person with less experience.
For example: the people most strongly in favour of multiculturalism generally live away from ghetto areas and know few if any working class non-whites. Yet they accuse whites who live cheek-by-jowl in amongst immigrant areas of being prejudiced about immigrants (each side reflecting the opinion of the majority of his peers). Who is actually PRE judging the situation in this example - which is a classic?
It is just as possible to be prejudiced in favour of something/someone as it is to be prejudiced against.
"Discrimination" is supposed to be a bad thing. But the word is seldom put into a meaningful context. Discrimating against someone so as to exclude them unfairly from doing X would be a meaningful context. But to simply say "discrimination" is bad is nonsense. We have to make judgements and discriminate in all sorts of ways in order to survive.
When picking mushrooms you have to discriminate between the poisonous ones and the edible ones. In deciding what people to associate with or trust you have to discriminate between those who you feel are safe and those who you feel are not. It is impossible to know people well enough to be 100% accurate in your judgement, so pre-judging to some extent will happen. Everyone should be looking for clues to help them make a better judgement, but generalisations about groups of people are inevitable and sensible.
It seems to me that the people who use the term "prejudiced" as an insult and as a buzz word wish to disarm people from their natural instincts which often intuitively warn us about situations and also to suggest that any knowlege you could build up should be cast aside because it conficts with the orthodoxy imposed by the State.
"Prejudice" means pre judging - as in judging something before you know facts about it. The word is often used wrongly by people to imply not liking something (regardless of what a person knows about that something).
It should be assumed that the person with more experience knows more about something than the person with less experience.
For example: the people most strongly in favour of multiculturalism generally live away from ghetto areas and know few if any working class non-whites. Yet they accuse whites who live cheek-by-jowl in amongst immigrant areas of being prejudiced about immigrants (each side reflecting the opinion of the majority of his peers). Who is actually PRE judging the situation in this example - which is a classic?
It is just as possible to be prejudiced in favour of something/someone as it is to be prejudiced against.
"Discrimination" is supposed to be a bad thing. But the word is seldom put into a meaningful context. Discrimating against someone so as to exclude them unfairly from doing X would be a meaningful context. But to simply say "discrimination" is bad is nonsense. We have to make judgements and discriminate in all sorts of ways in order to survive.
When picking mushrooms you have to discriminate between the poisonous ones and the edible ones. In deciding what people to associate with or trust you have to discriminate between those who you feel are safe and those who you feel are not. It is impossible to know people well enough to be 100% accurate in your judgement, so pre-judging to some extent will happen. Everyone should be looking for clues to help them make a better judgement, but generalisations about groups of people are inevitable and sensible.
It seems to me that the people who use the term "prejudiced" as an insult and as a buzz word wish to disarm people from their natural instincts which often intuitively warn us about situations and also to suggest that any knowlege you could build up should be cast aside because it conficts with the orthodoxy imposed by the State.
petehis kahn
A Twist in the Myth
speed said:
This brings up an interesting point.
I was listening to a radio report with author/journalist George Packer about this civil unrest in Iraq involving the secratarian violance between the Shi'a and the Sunni and the interviewer asked George Packer if he believed it was always going to happen and he said "no, that is a cop out"
He went on to say that he doesn't believe that any group has so much bad blood that they MUST fight each other.
I tend to agree.
I think it is a combination of a lot of things, our histories do not help, a lack of eduacation etc.
Lord SteveO
Hero in a world of demons
Discrimination is an action based upon a predujice.
It's possible to hold a predujice against something and nobody will ever know. But it is the actions you take based on the predujice you hold which is described as the discrimination.
Mushrooms is an interesting way of putting it. But i prefer to look at it as a family deciding to put their kids into one school over another because they have a predujice against the other.
The reason for it is simply fear of something that is different, or the fear of change.
In Iraq i would guess that the vast majority of peopel don't want to fight, in spite of any "feelings" they have against their opposite half. Fighting will only harm both sides and turn the whole place into a big mess for them both.
I think the only reason the unrest continue is because it is being fueled by propaganda and spin from leaders, mosques, and generally anyone who is in a position to influence the people involved.
In Africa with the Tutsis' and Hutu's, would there have been the same bloodshed if their had not been people fueling the hatred? Did these tribes hate each other so much that outright genocide seemed like a good thing?
In Russia and Germany we again see the power of propagnda in all this.
In short i agree that predujice does not exist from birth. You have t by "introduced" to it, and then brought up with suh a frame of mind. I also believe that in many areas, such a belief will not come to much unless there is something to fuel the fire, to give the people reason enough to fight and kill.
It's possible to hold a predujice against something and nobody will ever know. But it is the actions you take based on the predujice you hold which is described as the discrimination.
Mushrooms is an interesting way of putting it. But i prefer to look at it as a family deciding to put their kids into one school over another because they have a predujice against the other.
The reason for it is simply fear of something that is different, or the fear of change.
In Iraq i would guess that the vast majority of peopel don't want to fight, in spite of any "feelings" they have against their opposite half. Fighting will only harm both sides and turn the whole place into a big mess for them both.
I think the only reason the unrest continue is because it is being fueled by propaganda and spin from leaders, mosques, and generally anyone who is in a position to influence the people involved.
In Africa with the Tutsis' and Hutu's, would there have been the same bloodshed if their had not been people fueling the hatred? Did these tribes hate each other so much that outright genocide seemed like a good thing?
In Russia and Germany we again see the power of propagnda in all this.
In short i agree that predujice does not exist from birth. You have t by "introduced" to it, and then brought up with suh a frame of mind. I also believe that in many areas, such a belief will not come to much unless there is something to fuel the fire, to give the people reason enough to fight and kill.
petehis kahn
A Twist in the Myth
Obviously people must be introduced to it
Take the example of Ireland and the secratarian violence that has dogged that country for years (which isnt nearly as bad now)
Take the example of Ireland and the secratarian violence that has dogged that country for years (which isnt nearly as bad now)
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Before the Rwanda massacre, Tutsis were 10% and Hutus 90%. The Tutsis mostly lived in the North and Hutus south. Tutsis have, along with Somalis and Etheopeans been classified Caucasian due to nose/skull shape. Hutus are Bantu negroes.
Tutsis = ruling class and control business, banks,military. Hutus resented them - a class and racial divide. Simmering resentmentof the lower orders eventually boiled over and the Hutus organised themselves to kill Tutsis.
The criteria = skinny, tall, thin nosed, rich or long fingers (chop with machete) even Hutus who looked like that got killed.
A great many Tutsis were massacred but organised to fight back and regained control of Rwanda despite being well outnumbered, and drove the Hutu militia out into Congo.
They forgave the Hutus and all returned to previous situation of Tutsis ruling Rwanda.
This suggest cognitive differences between Tutsis and Hutus which seem not to be racially identical. Tutsis were able to do strategy and military planning and had the noble spirit to forgive. They regard the Hutus as being lethargic, dangerous and violent and resentful. Hutus see Tutsis as clever and scheming.
Over a million people died in the race war. Tutsis targetted the armed gangs, but Hutus targetted anyone resembling a Tutsi. All "prejudice" if that is really the appropriate term, was from the Hutus towards the Tutsis, who were only reacting in defence.
Tutsis = ruling class and control business, banks,military. Hutus resented them - a class and racial divide. Simmering resentmentof the lower orders eventually boiled over and the Hutus organised themselves to kill Tutsis.
The criteria = skinny, tall, thin nosed, rich or long fingers (chop with machete) even Hutus who looked like that got killed.
A great many Tutsis were massacred but organised to fight back and regained control of Rwanda despite being well outnumbered, and drove the Hutu militia out into Congo.
They forgave the Hutus and all returned to previous situation of Tutsis ruling Rwanda.
This suggest cognitive differences between Tutsis and Hutus which seem not to be racially identical. Tutsis were able to do strategy and military planning and had the noble spirit to forgive. They regard the Hutus as being lethargic, dangerous and violent and resentful. Hutus see Tutsis as clever and scheming.
Over a million people died in the race war. Tutsis targetted the armed gangs, but Hutus targetted anyone resembling a Tutsi. All "prejudice" if that is really the appropriate term, was from the Hutus towards the Tutsis, who were only reacting in defence.
petehis kahn
A Twist in the Myth
infoterror said:
From you of all people, the great point avoider
If ancient prejudices last FOREVER then explain why there is a decrease in secratarian violence in Ireland, whilst it still exists the very fact that it can decrease shows that it is not built into us.
I am a protestant and I hate no catholic.. my last girlfriend was catholic and her family accepted me, nor am I prejudiced against anyone.
but proof, would you like me to source academic records, I will get round to searching online journals for sources and proof when you offer some kind of evidence to the opposite of what I am saying.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
I don't think ancient prejudices last forever. Jumping to a conclusion before you know the facts is prejudice and that is just an accident of being in a situation where you form that conclusion. On the other hand all creatures have instinctive aversions to some things like we have an instinct to distrust food that is coloured blue for example. The cut out silhouette of a hawk will scare new born chicks (instinctive prejudice).
Then there is the culturally imposed prejudice of hatred that says that the child will inherit the sins of the father (which is why the Germanic people will never be forgiven by those who have this in their religion.)
Then there is the culturally imposed prejudice of hatred that says that the child will inherit the sins of the father (which is why the Germanic people will never be forgiven by those who have this in their religion.)
