HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Atheists & Agnostics (Group) » Religious Intolerance and...

Tue Jul 2, 2013, 10:59 AM

Religious Intolerance and Racism, Birds of a Feather

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:13 PM - Edit history (1)

As Viewed from the White National Perspective

Ever wondered why the Intolerance so easily observed today has always existed, why it's completely acceptable to so many among us, considered to be simply the "Social Norm"? Even among we "Non-Participants", right?

Targets of this aggression change across the decades, of course, but doesn't it seem peculiar that all of us DON'T understand that bigotry, racism, presumed white privilege of today, they're all interconnected?

And that those "Accepted Behaviors" are actually descended from a literal "lineage" of ambitious, repressive policies that brought about and perpetuated Slavery early in our national history, why haven't ALL OF US considered that?

Truth be told, effects of Centuries Old Colonialism are still being "Echoed" in the damaged results of our current society.

Is Religious Bigotry Different?

As mentioned above, damaging effects of Colonialism are still being "Echoed" in our current society.

Effects of what may be our CURRENT National Colonialist behavior (Middle East Empire Building) will likely prevail for centuries to follow. Certain elements of our society (IE Political Opportunists) rationalize those Economic Goals, support and encourage "Licensed Bigotry" as a Useful Tool in pursuit of them.

Take the "Fear Agenda" we've all become familiar with since 9-11, for instance. Essentially serving the purpose of another "Useful Tool" for Political Opportunists.

Blending right wing Politics and Religious Bigotry to suit their needs, to cover for policies that the public would never have otherwise allowed.

Preemptive Wars (Bush Doctrine), Invasion and seeming endless Occupation of Iraq, and absurd Prisoner Rendition tactics being obvious examples of Previously Unacceptable Standards under US Policy.

Right Wing leadership understands that those emotions (Fear, Aggression) can be twisted into Political Capital, insecurities of today's "White America" can be played upon for GOP profit. It's an old and proven method, a "Call to Arms" providing cover for other concealed Economic and Political goals.

AS POSTED PREVIOUSLY:

Even today increasing bigotry remains an "Abstraction", far removed from our daily lives. Right, Non-Minority?

Essentially, many of we unresponsive "Non-minorities" enable intolerant behavior by inaction, by failing to correct that abhorrent behavior, by neglecting to discourage Bigotry however blatant it's lately become.

That's what preceding generations have done, truth be told, engaged in collective disregard for the welfare of repressed, generationally impoverished minorities.

Non-participants are COMPLICIT by failure to take significant action AGAINST such aggression in support of long held privilege based on race.

And this particular form of Generational Ignorance continues, encouraged (nurtured) by those who profit from that Accepted Oppression.

Our "Willful Ignorance" has provided COVER for the actions of aggressive Conservative Aristocracy, whether the majority of us participated or not.

Even today increasing bigotry remains an "Abstraction", far removed from our daily lives. Right White America?

Self-Defeating "Willful Ignorance" isn't nearly as far removed from our current Dysfunctional Society as most of us would like to believe. History SHOULD provide needed context.

_______________________________________________
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller
-----------------------------------------

END

In Support of Those Who Speak Out

http://open.salon.com/blog/chauncey_devega/2012/03/19/trayvon_martin_and_life_lessons_for_young_black_boys#comment_2868050

Let's recognize those who call attention to "Intolerance", we need to thank them for their courage.

Many avoid THAT, won't confront reality at whatever cost to society, certainly won't say out loud what we all on some deeper level recognize to be forthright TRUTH, that even today Bigotry is thriving, the product of Intolerance nurtured by those who intend to profit from it.

As many of us have observed, that intentionally encouraged (Incited/Provoked) Intolerance can be quite useful as a Political tool.

Like "Shrub" George W. did when he pushed our troops into Iraq for his Imperial Petroleum ambitions.

24 replies, 4390 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Religious Intolerance and Racism, Birds of a Feather (Original post)
M Kitt Jul 2013 OP
LineReply .
libodem Jul 2013 #1
M Kitt Jul 2013 #2
libodem Jul 2013 #3
M Kitt Jul 2013 #4
libodem Jul 2013 #5
M Kitt Jul 2013 #6
libodem Jul 2013 #7
intaglio Jul 2013 #8
M Kitt Jul 2013 #9
Igel Aug 2013 #14
M Kitt Aug 2013 #15
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #17
M Kitt Aug 2013 #18
DetlefK Jul 2013 #10
FiveGoodMen Jul 2013 #11
M Kitt Jul 2013 #12
DetlefK Jul 2013 #13
Major Nikon Sep 2013 #22
DetlefK Sep 2013 #23
Major Nikon Sep 2013 #24
muriel_volestrangler Aug 2013 #16
DetlefK Aug 2013 #19
libodem Sep 2013 #20
M Kitt Sep 2013 #21

Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Tue Jul 2, 2013, 01:57 PM

1. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 2, 2013, 07:34 PM

2. Thanks Libodem. Not sure I get the combined(?) "Meta-Message" but the thumbs-up is encouraging ;-)

The donkey is an obvious Dem reference, the butterfly must be a personal Icon? Regardless, thanks for the support regarding this post.

Regarding the Post:

Seems a lot of us have come to expect the presence of "Intolerant" people as tho it's just "Human Nature", however ignorant the resulting behavior.

We should understand that Bigotry is an environmental factor, it's "Learned Behavior" not ingrained in our Genetic makeup but encouraged (Nurtured) by those who benefit from the kind of destructive Social Conduct we've all been exposed to (See Above!)

Breaking the chain of that "Generationally Encouraged" behavior won't be easy, especially since it's a convenient Political Tool for certain elements of our Dysfunctional Society, as mentioned above, they're INVESTED in our current flawed social "Acceptance" of that behavior.

Right, Conservatives?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 09:31 AM

3. The donkey

Gives your post a kick. A kick is usually a comment or any symbol that your post was read. It sends it back to the top of the page. The thumbs up is just that!

And the butterfly is my avatar. I did have the guys from Aqua Teen Hunger Force but I got accused of being a man, too many time. Needed an image revision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 11:13 AM

4. OK, think I get it now. Generally supportive, what I supposed ;-)

Regarding the above post, any further questions or comments?

The background for this thread can be found on my other posts, particularly the Trayvon Martin comments which really just provide links for the actual "Conversation" I intended to convey.

I realize the post connected to those links is somewhat outdated, but material contained is legitimate. And the "Host" (Chauncey DV) is always informative, doesn't pull his figurative punches, writes what his perspective provides and does it well.

Again, thanks for the comments, recognition is always appreciated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 3, 2013, 11:26 AM

5. You are entirely welcome

Smart article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #1)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 12:24 AM

6. As Posted on the Race & Ethnicity sub-group

Last edited Sat Jul 13, 2013, 02:44 PM - Edit history (11)

My reply to #23:

Regarding Religious Intolerance and Racial Bigotry

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023241802

This post is revised, new links and further comments contained.

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Reply #6)

Sun Jul 7, 2013, 10:08 AM

7. Of course I did

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Sun Jul 28, 2013, 07:24 AM

8. M Kitt, beneath this title and intoduction I have posted a criticism

but the point of this post is to raise with you the fear I hold that the confused and at times irrational content show deep problems that you must address.

This part could be wrong, and I hope it is.

Essentially, I have made posts similar in style to this both on DU and on other boards; they always have provided me with warnings about my mental state and have usually preceded the urgent need for me to seek medical help.

Now the critique. Note; my spelling is largely UK English, not US.

As Viewed from the White National Perspective

Ever wondered why the Intolerance so easily observed today has always existed, why it's completely acceptable to so many among us, considered to be simply the "Social Norm"? Even among we "Non-Participants", right?
This opening is so confused as to render it meaningless and, worse, insulting to members of DU. In this you are attempting to ask why easily observed intolerance (no need for capitalisation) has so long existed; why it seems to be a social norm (capitalisation and quotes not needed). You then insult DU members by saying that they regard such intolerance as normal - even though they do not indulge in that behaviour themselves.

Targets of this aggression change across the decades, of course, but doesn't it seem peculiar that all of us DON'T understand that bigotry, racism, presumed white privilege of today, they're all interconnected?
On DU we all know that some targets of prejudiced based aggression change but not all not all targets change. What happens next is that you assume that we do not understand that racial privilege is racism based on bigotry.

And that those "Accepted Behaviors" are actually descended from a literal "lineage" of ambitious, repressive policies that brought about and perpetuated Slavery early in our national history, why haven't ALL OF US considered that?
Why is this a separate paragraph when it continues from the previous paragraph?Why the quotes and unnecessary emphasis? Why are you restating the previous sentence? why are you assuming that none of those on DU have thought of this?

Truth be told, effects of Centuries Old Colonialism are still being "Echoed" in the damaged results of our current society.
As this continues from the previous paragraph, why is it separate? Why the unnecessary capitalisation and quotes? Why does do you attempt to separate centuries old Colonialism from racial privilege (which, in turn, is racism and bigotry).

Is Religious Bigotry Different?
My answer is "no" but in this section of your post you make no attempt to either answer the question or prove or disprove it as an assertion.

As mentioned above, damaging effects of Colonialism are still being "Echoed" in our current society.

Effects of what may be our CURRENT National Colonialist behavior (Middle East Empire Building) will likely prevail for centuries to follow. Certain elements of our society (IE Political Opportunists) rationalize those Economic Goals, support and encourage "Licensed Bigotry" as a Useful Tool in pursuit of them.

Take the "Fear Agenda" we've all become familiar with since 9-11, for instance. Essentially serving the purpose of another "Useful Tool" for Political Opportunists.

Blending right wing Politics and Religious Bigotry to suit their needs, to cover for policies that the public would never have otherwise allowed.

Preemptive Wars (Bush Doctrine), Invasion and seeming endless Occupation of Iraq, and absurd Prisoner Rendition tactics being obvious examples of Previously Unacceptable Standards under US Policy.

Right Wing leadership understands that those emotions (Fear, Aggression) can be twisted into Political Capital, insecurities of today's "White America" can be played upon for GOP profit. It's an old and proven method, a "Call to Arms" providing cover for other concealed Economic and Political goals.
This entire section with the continued use of unpredictable emphasis, unnecessary quotes and random capitalisation just borrows themes from the recent history to restate the colonialism/bigotry theme. From now on I will not mention your random use of bolding, initial capitalisation, whole word capitalisation and quotation marks.

AS POSTED PREVIOUSLY:

If it is posted previously just give the link, that unless you want to re-state the arguments as part of this current post in which case you do not need to mention the prior posting except as a footnote.

Even today increasing bigotry remains an "Abstraction", far removed from our daily lives. Right, Non-Minority?
This states a common concern on DU

Essentially, many of we unresponsive "Non-minorities" enable intolerant behavior by inaction, by failing to correct that abhorrent behavior, by neglecting to discourage Bigotry however blatant it's lately become.

The whole point about DU is that the members are constantly attempting to undermine bigotry; it is a liberal message board voicing liberal concerns.

That's what preceding generations have done, truth be told, engaged in collective disregard for the welfare of repressed, generationally impoverished minorities.

This is an untruth, as the ghosts of George Plimsoll, Nye Bevan, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson could inform you. All these came from white and, comparatively, privileged societies to champion the rights and welfare of those with less than themselves. All were flawed in some way, because they were human, but they did what you deny has been done and they did it with the support of many millions of the "little people" who often did no more than vote these men into office.

Non-participants are COMPLICIT by failure to take significant action AGAINST such aggression in support of long held privilege based on race.
The point about DU is that the members are participants in a campaign against such bigotry. It may seem that some of these contributions are insignificant but they are contributing.

And this particular form of Generational Ignorance continues, encouraged (nurtured) by those who profit from that Accepted Oppression.
As shown previously, this is a falsehood.

Our "Willful Ignorance" has provided COVER for the actions of aggressive Conservative Aristocracy, whether the majority of us participated or not.
Nobody on DU is providing a cover for anybody of this ilk, never mind what conspiracy theorists believe.

Even today increasing bigotry remains an "Abstraction", far removed from our daily lives. Right White America?
As demonstrated above the answer to this question is "No!"



Self-Defeating "Willful Ignorance" isn't nearly as far removed from our current Dysfunctional Society as most of us would like to believe. History SHOULD provide needed context.
As shown above, this is false.

_______________________________________________
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

-----------------------------------------
This Niemoller quote has nothing to do with religion; Martin Niemoller was a Lutheran and evangelical pastor but his insight is applies to all humans.

END

In Support of Those Who Speak Out

http://open.salon.com/blog/chauncey_devega/2012/03/19/trayvon_martin_and_life_lessons_for_young_black_boys#comment_2868050

Let's recognize those who call attention to "Intolerance", we need to thank them for their courage.
Agreed, but you do not do it by calling out DU members for passively accepting intolerance.

Many avoid THAT, won't confront reality at whatever cost to society, certainly won't say out loud what we all on some deeper level recognize to be forthright TRUTH, that even today Bigotry is thriving, the product of Intolerance nurtured by those who intend to profit from it.

As many of us have observed, that intentionally encouraged (Incited/Provoked) Intolerance can be quite useful as a Political tool.
These 2 paragraph despite being confused and over-long single sentences contain the only message of substance in your post. It could have been the entire OP.

Like "Shrub" George W. did when he pushed our troops into Iraq for his Imperial Petroleum ambitions.
only loosely connected to the main text and unrelated to your postscript.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Sun Jul 28, 2013, 02:46 PM

9. Religious Intolerance and Racism, Not a Concern for you?

Last edited Thu Jan 9, 2014, 10:46 PM - Edit history (4)

Confusion, Points of

Itaglio, I'll address only a few of the comments you've posted, not inclined to inform you beyond that, sorry. But here are a few Misunderstandings on your part related to those summary replies.

A) In your opening remarks you've stated that according to MY comments, You've got deep emotional problems, and that state of "irrationality" represents the majority of DU members.

Umm, OK, when did I say that? Don't know you beyond this conversation, think you're focusing this issue on your own perspective, no?

White Society was in fact the "Majority" being addressed in the context of this essay, they being (historically speaking) the beneficiaries of said "Bigotry" I've addressed across my post.

Thought that was made clear in the opening paragraph, "As Viewed from the White National Perspective". Apparently not, since you've repeated that mistake Several Times across this thread.

B) Further comments from you regarding my post:

I've stated that:

"That's what preceding generations have done, truth be told, engaged in collective disregard for the welfare of repressed, generationally impoverished minorities."

To which you've replied:

"This is an untruth, as the ghosts of George Plimsoll, Nye Bevan, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson could inform you."

Umm, again CONTEXT is important. The opening paragraph of my post specifically cited Colonial Behavior and resulting Bigotry (More accurately Licensed Racism), the "Founding Fathers" of our nation were in fact Slave Owners. In what way have you contested that?

Yet you're dismissing this Institutional Bigotry as Non-Existant? Why? Because you're convinced that most of today's DU members are Liberal?

Or maybe it's because you can cite several White "Apologist" exceptions across our otherwise oppressive National History? That's a REALLY narrow, contrived historical perspective you've chosen to support, don't you think?

You remind me of current GOP talking head Punditry. They're firmly convinced (they SAY) that Bigotry is non-existent, no longer an issue since we've elected a Black President, right?

What about you, agree with them?

Is that what you think will turn the balance of Bigotry in our Country in favor of Generationally Impoverished Minorities? Think having a "Black man in the White House" is compensation for Centuries of Oppression?

If so, you're just another variant of the Conservative Perspective, another (perhaps unintended) APOLOGIST for the Racism that remains in our Nation, now, today.

Religious Bigotry?

And you're either "blissfully" ignorant regarding the obvious comparison being made or have chosen to ignore it for purposes of contention, so I'll spell it out (more plainly, if possible).

Current Religious Intolerance is "Licensed Bigotry", introduced and "Nurtured" by those who benefit from it. As was the Racial Bigotry in Colonial America in order to support the Socially Accepted tenants of Slavery and Racial Subjugation you've chosen to ignore.

Originators of that oppression are well aware of this similarity (duality) and reflections on our current society, you SHOULD be too, since both of these behaviors are encouraged by the same "Instigators" I credited in my essay, those who benefit Economically and Politically from such practiced subjugation.

Do I need to further simplify this concept for you? How about my closing statement, regarding George W. Think there's a connection?

C) Many of your comments are redundant, recycle the opening statement you made that I'm "Grouping you and all other DU members". In reply to those comments, see item A).

Seems more Perspective is Necessary for those Blissfully Unaware:

Martin Luther King Jr. died about a half century ago, gave up his life while trying to remove what remains of that "Colonial Behavior" in our current society, but recent events (Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman) have shown that Institutional Bigotry not only remains, it's increasing.

"Stand your Ground" legislative errors are the precursor of planned future laws that favor White America, if only because they're better armed (generally speaking) and are better able to afford the "Judicial Treatment" and legal protections George Zimmerman benefited from during this abortion of the "Judicial Process".

Better understanding of "Racial Inequity" on the part of White America?

You're correct to the extent that some range of empathy has surfaced in the USA of late regarding National Racial Equality, hard won Civil Rights legislation has assured THAT within a legal framework.

But those gains are without a doubt eroding given that our Supreme Court has recently removed minority voter protections.

Again CONTEXT is important, since these legislative gains have only broadly affected our Social Balance within the past few decades.

Balanced against CENTURIES of oppression. Think that's Justice?

Want further evidence of Injustice?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023241802

(See specifically the last section regarding recent SCOTUS decisions)


Regarding my Written Prose:

Touch of facetiousness here, since I actually do appreciate all contributors on the DU site, even if I'm ENTIRELY in disagreement with their posted opinions. My reasoning is that exposure of ideas benefits all of us, even if those "ideas" prove to be fundamentally flawed.

BUT, to specifically address the commentary you've replied with, If you dislike my Style or Prose, that's a matter of preference, no? If even the FORMAT of my commentary is as distasteful as you've stated, why not then find someone you're more "In Sync" with, lots of writers on this site, right? "Random" capitalization, "Quote Marks" without what you consider to be apparent necessity, these apparently bother you, then?

Suppose it MAY bother you that I'm not inclined to explain subtleties of "Sarcasm" or Capitalized Emphasis to you either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Reply #9)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 12:53 PM

14. You're confusing terms in a way that makes them undefinable.

That's the issue I have with a book that I'm reading, in part. The writer carefully defines her terms and says, explicitly, "I will use 'racism' to mean __________ and 'prejudice' to mean _________." She makes one structural and the other personal.

Then, 5 pages later, she's using 'racism' to mean personal bigotry.

She defines 'racism' in current structural terms--and then, a few pages later, uses the structure's origin in things associated with prejudice to imply that it is currently an expression of prejudice. Careful use of metonymy sets the reader up to infer things that she hasn't shown. Untangling her mess as I read is impossible--it so changes what she'd have to say that there's no way to know what, exactly, she'd be saying in 20 pages. I just know where her fallacies got her. (However it's advocacy research, so if you challenge her it's only because you're a racist and you should STFU while those who support her advocacy have said how wonderful it is. Academic rot.)

Do you want institutions and structure or do you want to focus on the personal? Is it important to show how much personal prejudice supports "structural racism"? Can things attributed to structural racism also be better justified in completely non-racist terms, so that what bears the mark of racism isn't current racism but is both historically produced and causally incidental? To what extent is history needed to reach your interpretation in the absence of supporting current information, at the risk of separating out perceived intent from actual intent?

I ask some of these questions and point to an incident from my first year at a new job. I had to assign seats. I had a list of names that I got at 7 am. I used standard software to randomly produce a seating chart for 6 groups, the first seating chart needed at 7:25 am on the same day. Some of the students accused me of racism in their seat assignments. Using software was just an "excuse" and they knew what was really going on. For those kids, history was more often a hobble than a help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #14)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 02:21 PM

15. @Igel, did a google search for the "Raven" quote at the end of your post.

Is there some personal "Insider" reason for that quote? Nothing against Edgar Allan Poe supporters, just curious.

If you've particular issues regarding my use of "Racism" vice "Racist", could you be more specific please. You seem to be pondering out loud in the reply you've posted rather than asking for detailed information. And I'm not inclined to ask anyone to STFU, although some replies strike me as facetious per this linked topic as I've already addressed.

Regarding the comments you've made:

From my perspective "institutional racism" defines "personal racism" for many, they've essentially been INSTRUCTED by what's socially accepted. The majority of people take their "Cues" of what's acceptable by observation of Peer Behavior, one reflects the other, members of the "Social Order" modify their behavior to meet what they perceive to be the "Expectations" of Larger Society.

So if I'm a White person raised in a Southern Red State, for instance, what's "intolerant" behavior isn't likely to be the same Regionally as I'd expect from White residents of, let's say, California.

Contemporary/Historical influences are also prevalent, since broad application of Civil Rights hasn't evolved all that much over the last few decades but those influences were much more controversial (and Resented) in the 1960s by comparison. So "Institutional Bigotry" can also be influenced by intentional Legislative Reform, obviously, and these factors change over time.

And Bigotry isn't necessarily Race-Centric, as I've reviewed, behavior of Society is reliably influenced by the Economic Goals of the Status Quo and "Institutional Bigotry" reflects those Economic Priorities, as I've posted in my first Essay and following comments.

Feel free to post further inquiries. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Reply #15)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 03:33 PM

17. What you see at the end of Igel's posts, and many other posters', is a 'signature'

It's a short bit of text or a picture that we can have appended to every one of our posts (if we change the signature later, all our previous posts will show the new text we choose). Mine a quote from a Pink Floyd song. You can set yours here, if you want: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=302946

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #17)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 06:16 PM

18. @MV, OK, thanks. By the way, interesting icon you're sporting ;-)

Don't recognize the Pink Floyd ref. but the "Raven" quote was in French, I could decipher maybe half and had to wikki the rest

Again, thanks for the comments, appreciate the feedback.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Mon Jul 29, 2013, 09:16 AM

10. Disagree. Racism is genetically inherited. Religion is socially inherited.

If come upon the idea that racism is an evolutionary leftover, like the appendix:
If a stranger enters your territory, you better get rid of him, because he's automatically a rival for the natural resources around.

This idea is for example supported by the extinction-wars chimpanzee-tribes fight if they meet each other in the jungle.

So, physical appearance is used as an exclusion-factor when judging others.



On the other hand, religion isn't depending on physical appearance. Religion isn't something humans are born with and animals don't exhibit signs of religion (e.g. an unhealthy obsession with the abstract).

Religious judgement depends on social/mental appearance.




I agree with your notion that both are used for political manipulation of the masses, but they are unrelated phenomena.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 29, 2013, 12:13 PM

11. "Religion is socially inherited"

But the tendency to seek out ultimate authority may be genetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #10)

Mon Jul 29, 2013, 03:56 PM

12. Human/Chimpanzee Comparisons?

Last edited Mon Sep 23, 2013, 10:30 AM - Edit history (4)

I'll overlook what some may consider to be an offensive reference here, don't think it was intentional. "Chimpanzee Tribes", really?

Racism Genetically Inherited? Don't think so, unless you consider the "Fight or Flight" response hard-wired into mammals to be a "Genetic" trait.

Setting aside the comparative "Chimpanzee" reference you've used, As Humans our Limbic systems are geared toward Fear/Aggression, so "Outsiders" (those not within our social circles) can be threatening to those of us so inclined, triggering a possible Fight/Flight response under the right conditions. But (again) that's mammalian, not Genetically predisposed.

That's nothing to with Race, of course. The same kind of "Threat" would be posed by a broad range of conditions that threaten ALL OF US including Fires, Earthquakes, bad weather, or perhaps loss of personal security. We're all "Tense" and "Threatened" by conditions that interfere with our "Comfort", Race being no part of it.

You may also want to review the "Origins of Species", our so-called "Racial" differences aren't significant, supposing that I accept the premise that we humans belong to separate "Races", that is, which I don't Especially given that we're all descendants of those elder Humans emerging "Out of Africa"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/k.html

But contrary to what you've posted, there may even have been some "Cross-Genetic" (Inter-Species) DNA mixing going on. Hasn't yet been proven (or disproved).

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/n.html


Current Social Conditions

I can find several obvious exceptions to the circumstances you've described, but foremost it's easily countered with the understanding that we're all (humans) descended from a lineage originating from the plains of Africa, as proven by fossil/paleontology evidence (supported by DNA research, see above).

Supposing that we ignore current Genetic evidence AGAINST your claim, let's take a moment to observe current Society, let's look for a few simple behaviors we're all familiar with that are entirely CONTRARY to what you've proposed.

Learned Behaviors and Humans

If the condition you've described were provably the case, that we're all inclined to "Aggression" against each other based on distinctions as minor as color, why do you suppose humans would so readily have offspring (Children, of Course) with persons they're "racially" different from? Do you suppose that ALL current humans aren't ALREADY actually a broad mix of the DNA prevalent across this planet?

From Africa to Asia, to South/North America, we're all today an amalgam of what you're calling "Races" distributed across this planet, and there's no such thing as "True Genetic Lineage" unless you consider possible Neanderthal/Human interbreeding to have been "True Lineage" at the time of occurrence

Suppose one of my parents were white, the other black. Think "Genetics" would run contrary to that, cause literal REJECTION of either of my parents because of the Genetic Predisposition you've described? Doesn't seem to be a "Survival Trait", now does it?

Given that we as Humans are 99.9% plus identical on the DNA scale, REGARDLESS of "race" or ethnicity, you're promoting a pretty narrow view of human behavior, supposing that we "REJECT each other based on RACE", due to Genetic Traits.

Prevailing evidence certainly doesn't support that, thankfully



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Reply #12)

Tue Jul 30, 2013, 06:08 AM

13. Racism can be defeated the same way Veganism was created.

The vegan diet doesn't make sense from a biological point of view. So how did it show up?
A moral framework was created and a decision was made.
Intelligence.
That's why we don't see dogs going vegan. (The ability to behave illogical is actually one of the definitions of intelligence.)

That's how we got racial inter-mixing: People DECIDED that it doesn't matter.
(For animals: The desperation to procreate was simply stronger than the urge to preserve resources for genetic kin.)

And your definition of race is very narrow. "Race" as in "Racism" can be any population that shares enough genes for a somewhat similar phenotype.
A mortal conflict between two families fits the definition of racism.
A mortal conflict between two nations fits the definition of racism.
A mortal conflict between two continents fits the definition of racism.
A mortal conflict between humankind and an extraterrestrial species would fit the definition of racism.

Any conflict where the opponents define themselves and each other along genetic lines can be described as racism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #13)

Tue Sep 24, 2013, 02:32 PM

22. I think you have it backwards

Racism is a social construct that isn't biological. It's an idea developed by bigots. Others rejected that notion. Without social constructs there is no racism or any other -ism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #22)

Wed Sep 25, 2013, 11:01 AM

23. Depends on what "biological" means.

Humans instinctively know not to touch tiny animals with many legs.
Humans instinctively recognize hissing as a warning.
Humans instinctively recognize the smells of smoke and rotting flesh.
Toddlers that had never seen or heard a dog were able to connect barking to the picture of a dog.
Toddlers reacted bored to a moving toy that turned out to be filled and interested to a moving toy that turned out to be hollow.

Humans have genetically inherited guidelines that they use without question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 25, 2013, 11:39 AM

24. I think some have floated this idea, but I'm pretty sure it's been rejected by most experts

No racism gene has ever been isolated and the evidence for such a thing seems to be well debunked.

http://childpsych.columbia.edu/brainimaging/PDF/Maia_2009_CS.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #10)

Sat Aug 3, 2013, 03:15 PM

16. People aren't defined as strangers by their skin colour or other classes of appearance

They are defined by whether you recognise them. If you're saying that mistrust of strangers is an adaptation for survival, remember that over the vast majority of human existence, the humans we met would be as good as identical, genetically - from basically the same area, therefore adapted to the same environment. While there may have been obvious differences between Nordic and sub-Saharan people, they didn't meet often enough for it to cause genetic pressure - and the period of history when we have done so is too recent for it.

Attitude to strangers is social - how well you know them. So it's in the same category as religion. It is mainly to do with whether you recognise them, but after that, things like whether you use the same language will be a far more likely difference between you than anything genetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #16)

Tue Aug 6, 2013, 04:48 AM

19. Early humans weren't naked the whole time.

Each group had its own culture and with culture comes fashion: Some wore feathers for decoration, others wore bones or pearls or coloured snail-shells/clam-shells. Some went "au naturel", some painted their skin with paints made from mineral-rich substances. Add in different styles of hair and clothing.

A stranger, or worse, a group of strangers, showing up was a sign of danger: What if they settle here? What if they want to go to war?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to M Kitt (Original post)

Sun Sep 22, 2013, 12:22 PM

20. I popped on here from a link

Glad to see I already recommended this piece of great substance.
Couple of years ago I plugged through Mitchener's 'The Covenent' about the English and Dutch colonization of Africa. It was so much like how we handled the Native Americans.
I had to get used to reading the term 'colored'.
I never quite understood until then that it meant 'mixed' to whatever degree that made one more or less brown. And it used to be the "polite" way to discriminate, And the color of your skin absolutely dictated where you would live, work, and worship. This horrible history has deep roots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #20)

Sun Sep 22, 2013, 02:32 PM

21. OK, fitting since you commented first on it ;-)

Thanks again. You're right, Colonialist/Empire building interests tried to justify that behavior with whatever convenience presented itself, Religious Intolerance was as good a means as any toward that end, as was Racial Oppression.

Native Americans were certainly subjected to that, so were African Slaves imported for economic purposes of subjugation. "Color" being a convenient way to identify the "Inferior" class of society.

We're today left with remnants of those particular behaviors, and some new implementations of them, by the same Economic/Conservative/Corporate interests who Colonized over past centuries.

Our long National involvement in the Middle Eastern affairs is a symptom of that remaining Colonialist behavior, with several undeclared Wars having been the unfortunate eventual outcome (IE: How did our Petroleum get under the sands of the Middle East? We MUST remedy that.)

Also symptomatic of "Empire Building" behavior, current Muslim/Islamic discrimination prevalent across at least the last decade of USA combined Religious/Political influence, essentially to Enable (rationalize) our involvement in those Middle Eastern countries.

Appreciate the supportive comments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread