RicardoBlanco
The English
+177|7016|Oxford
rac·ism     

–noun

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that ones own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
*Hypothetical Question*

If a man has lived all his life amongst black people and still hates them can you logically call him a racist? Seeing as racism is based on prejudice, where would the prejudice lie in this mans opinion considering he'd have more exposure to black people than anyone else and would therefore base his judgement on experience.
jsnipy
...
+3,277|6970|...

I'd say no, since he is basing on his experience. Good to bring this up since it seems most people seem to think racism==hate.
RicardoBlanco
The English
+177|7016|Oxford

jsnipy wrote:

I'd say no, since he is basing on his experience. Good to bring this up since it seems most people seem to think racism==hate.
Thank you, a word of reason. And I'd agree with you.
theDude5B
Cool member
+805|7198
is the man black or white?

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
he does not have to be prejudice, he might just hate them. Or he is prejudice because of an interpersonal hostility that is directed against individuals based on their membership in a minority group. /reference wiki
RicardoBlanco
The English
+177|7016|Oxford

theDude5B wrote:

is the man black or white?

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
he does not have to be prejudice, he might just hate them. Or he is prejudice because of an interpersonal hostility that is directed against individuals based on their membership in a minority group. /reference wiki
He's white.
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7009
Yes, because you are highly qualified to declare when and where the finality of the racism argument is.
derstralle
Iron Egg Skill, bitches!
+29|6663

derstralle wrote:

Well everything and everyone is unique so judging something or someone before further examination is just prejudgement. It is not necessarily a bad thing, as it is just impossible to examine everything into detail and you have to make use of generalizations and experience.
If you base these generalizations on race than that's racism for me ("racialism is a form of discrimination based on race").
My opinion is that every distinction of humans based on belonging to a certain group is prejudgement and basing this distinction on racism on race can be called racism.
Prejudgement is justified from my point of view, but I don't hold race as being a good basis for it.
So therefore racism!=hatred despite the public usage in this way.

The man/woman in your hypothetical question has, given the fact that during his whole life he has not found any differences between black people, set black=group of people with same attributes, therefore race black=certain behaviour in my opinion. And this is just what racism is about.
However I do not blame him for being racist as it is the logical thing to do in such a situation.

Oh and btw, I'll go with #1 of your definition. "(...) a belief (...) that inherent differences among the various human races determine(...) individual achievement".
RicardoBlanco
The English
+177|7016|Oxford

Bubbalo wrote:

Yes, because you are highly qualified to declare when and where the finality of the racism argument is.
Kind of why I made it a debate point and not a statement. Constructive as ever Bubs, you can go if you like.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

derstralle wrote:

derstralle wrote:

Well everything and everyone is unique so judging something or someone before further examination is just prejudgement. It is not necessarily a bad thing, as it is just impossible to examine everything into detail and you have to make use of generalizations and experience.
If you base these generalizations on race than that's racism for me ("racialism is a form of discrimination based on race").
My opinion is that every distinction of humans based on belonging to a certain group is prejudgement and basing this distinction on racism on race can be called racism.
Prejudgement is justified from my point of view, but I don't hold race as being a good basis for it.
So therefore racism!=hatred despite the public usage in this way.

The man/woman in your hypothetical question has, given the fact that during his whole life he has not found any differences between black people, set black=group of people with same attributes, therefore race black=certain behaviour in my opinion. And this is just what racism is about.
However I do not blame him for being racist as it is the logical thing to do in such a situation.

Oh and btw, I'll go with #1 of your definition. "(...) a belief (...) that inherent differences among the various human races determine(...) individual achievement".
Damn straight.
RicardoBlanco
The English
+177|7016|Oxford

derstralle wrote:

However I do not blame him for being racist as it is the logical thing to do in such a situation.
Just to clarify, are you saying there is a place for racism? No ulterior motive, just curious.
aardfrith
Δ > x > ¥
+145|7240

RicardoBlanco wrote:

rac·ism     

–noun

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that ones own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
*Hypothetical Question*

If a man has lived all his life amongst black people and still hates them can you logically call him a racist? Seeing as racism is based on prejudice, where would the prejudice lie in this mans opinion considering he'd have more exposure to black people than anyone else and would therefore base his judgement on experience.
Yes.

The third definition "hatred or intolerance of another race or of other races" is simple.  To hate a race of people is racism.  The reasons behind the hatred are immaterial.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

Actual classification of the term racism is quite complex.

In its most fundamental form, which is a perfectly valid definition for it, racism is:

Discrimination or prejudice based on race
Another definition of racism is :

The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others
Typically this will be the belief that Whites are superior and any legislation based on this belief is also racist, such as the apartheid system in South Africa and the automatic acceptance for immigration into Israel for Jews and 3rd generation descendants of Jews.

Prejudice is a very important factor when looking at what constitutes racist behaviour.

Prejudice can be defined as:
An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts
or

A preconceived preference or idea
or many other things. There are many definitions for prejudice because its usage can be wide and varied.
the most important thing about prejudice is that it deals with pre-judgements, that is, judgements without the specific facts about that which is being judged. In the case of a person (which is most relevant when discussing racism), it refers to the individual. Whilst this is quite evident, I shall explain further - from the definition of prejudice as: "An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts", it can be seen that to judge a thing without that judgement being prejudicial, one must be in possession of some facts about that thing (subject). Should the thing (subject) be a person, then there are degrees to which that person can be fairly prejudged without it being prejudicial based upon knowledge of universal characteristic traits (judgements based upon human physiology for example) any form of personality trait (since personalities are not universal and cannot be fairly and logically judged based on anything other than interaction with the indivdual or second hand information about that individual) judged upon a stereotype, whether or not it is justified, whether or not it is correct, whether or not it is based upon personal experience of similar things, is prejudicial.
Any judgements not based upon actual knowledge of that individual can be considered to be prejudicial. If those prejudices are based upon race, then they are racist - according to the definition of racism as "Discrimination or prejudice based on race".
RicardoBlanco
The English
+177|7016|Oxford

Bertster7 wrote:

Prejudice can be defined as:

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts
You're right, prejudice is fundamental to racism but can you still be a racist if you're not prejudging blacks, rather basing your opinion on vast experience?
Aapje
Internet Superhero
+221|6844
And I already see people being racist on their own and they are probably not even noticing it themself.. Anyway I'd think that racism is hate as already said. Thinking that a other race is above the other.

But hasn't his been discussed countless times before?
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Prejudice can be defined as:

An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts
You're right, prejudice is fundamental to racism but can you still be a racist if you're not prejudging blacks, rather basing your opinion on vast experience?
Yes you are. Because personality characteristics are not universal so accurate and fair judgements cannot be made about an individual based upon any amount of experience dealing with people of that race, as I outlined above.

By your definition a judge who had been sentencing exclusively black people for 20 years could base his verdict purely upon their race, that is clearly racist. From an objective viewpoint this is exactly the same as your hypothetical scenario.
aardfrith
Δ > x > ¥
+145|7240

kmt wrote:

And I already see people being racist on their own and they are probably not even noticing it themself.. Anyway I'd think that racism is hate as already said. Thinking that a other race is above the other.

But hasn't his been discussed countless times before?
Typical Dutch attitude.

(just kidding)
RicardoBlanco
The English
+177|7016|Oxford

Bertster7 wrote:

By your definition a judge who had been sentencing exclusively black people for 20 years could base his verdict purely upon their race, that is clearly racist. From an objective viewpoint this is exactly the same as your hypothetical scenario.
No, he's a judge, he has to look at case related evidence and justify his ruling. Bad example. My man has just an opinion.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

By your definition a judge who had been sentencing exclusively black people for 20 years could base his verdict purely upon their race, that is clearly racist. From an objective viewpoint this is exactly the same as your hypothetical scenario.
No, he's a judge, he has to look at case related evidence and justify his ruling. Bad example. My man has just an opinion.
It's not a bad example. I chose it very specifically because I anticipated you would respond like this.

It demonstrates that the man in your example is prejudiced, since his opinion is not based on evidence related to the subject (the equivalent of the case), which in this instance will be any particular black person he encounters.

Unless he has met and has at least a reasonable level of knowledge about every black person, then his opinion is prejudiced. If he has met all the black people that there are, then his opinion would not be prejudiced. But that isn't even close to being feasible.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-11 09:20:09)

derstralle
Iron Egg Skill, bitches!
+29|6663

RicardoBlanco wrote:

derstralle wrote:

However I do not blame him for being racist as it is the logical thing to do in such a situation.
Just to clarify, are you saying there is a place for racism? No ulterior motive, just curious.
Let me sum it up: I reject racism and am willing to stand up against it.
But I try to see the reasons behind other opinions.
And please take into account that my statement refers to this hypothetical situation, I do not think that in our nowadays society racism is justified.
RicardoBlanco
The English
+177|7016|Oxford

Bertster7 wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

By your definition a judge who had been sentencing exclusively black people for 20 years could base his verdict purely upon their race, that is clearly racist. From an objective viewpoint this is exactly the same as your hypothetical scenario.
No, he's a judge, he has to look at case related evidence and justify his ruling. Bad example. My man has just an opinion.
It's not a bad example. I chose it very specifically because I anticipated you would respond like this.

It demonstrates that the man in your example is prejudiced, since his opinion is not based on evidence related to the subject (the equivalent of the case), which in this instance will be any particular black person he encounters.

Unless he has met and has at least a reasonable level of knowledge about every black person, then his opinion is prejudiced. If he has met all the black people that there are, then his opinion would not be prejudiced. But that isn't even close to being feasible.
His opinion would be based on evidence related to the subject. As my example states, he's lived with black people all his life, who are we to call him racist when he's basing his opinion on everything he's seen and experienced? I'd argue you'd be prejudging him by calling him a racist.
EVieira
Member
+105|6926|Lutenblaag, Molvania

RicardoBlanco wrote:

rac·ism     

–noun

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that ones own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
*Hypothetical Question*

If a man has lived all his life amongst black people and still hates them can you logically call him a racist? Seeing as racism is based on prejudice, where would the prejudice lie in this mans opinion considering he'd have more exposure to black people than anyone else and would therefore base his judgment on experience.
You must also define prejudice to fully understand this. Prejudice comes from Latin or Greek (can't remember now) and means to "pre-judge". In other words, you judge a person as bad without actually knowing him. In example, hating a black person without knowing him, based only on the fact that he is black.

Given this definition, yes it is prejudice if he hates people because they are simply black. He is judging other black people before knowing them, and thus pre-judging them. And that is racist.

Last edited by EVieira (2007-05-11 09:40:25)

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

RicardoBlanco wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

No, he's a judge, he has to look at case related evidence and justify his ruling. Bad example. My man has just an opinion.
It's not a bad example. I chose it very specifically because I anticipated you would respond like this.

It demonstrates that the man in your example is prejudiced, since his opinion is not based on evidence related to the subject (the equivalent of the case), which in this instance will be any particular black person he encounters.

Unless he has met and has at least a reasonable level of knowledge about every black person, then his opinion is prejudiced. If he has met all the black people that there are, then his opinion would not be prejudiced. But that isn't even close to being feasible.
His opinion would be based on evidence related to the subject. As my example states, he's lived with black people all his life, who are we to call him racist when he's basing his opinion on everything he's seen and experienced? I'd argue you'd be prejudging him by calling him a racist.
That isn't the subject. The subject, as I noted earlier, would be an individual - the subject of the prejudicial treatment.

You are making no distinctions between the individual and the entire race, which is where your argument collapses, since that is essentially what racism is.

I'm not prejudging him, because he is a hypothetical character, whom you have created. All of his charateristics are defined by you in your hypothetical scenario - therefore I know everything about him as an individual. That's a sufficient amount of information on the subject (him).

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-05-11 09:51:51)

Sanjaya
Banned
+40|6674

Bubbalo wrote:

Yes, because you are highly qualified to declare when and where the finality of the racism argument is.
GATOR591957
Member
+84|7075

RicardoBlanco wrote:

rac·ism     

–noun

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that ones own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
*Hypothetical Question*

If a man has lived all his life amongst black people and still hates them can you logically call him a racist? Seeing as racism is based on prejudice, where would the prejudice lie in this mans opinion considering he'd have more exposure to black people than anyone else and would therefore base his judgement on experience.
Your question is flawed.  No one can make a judgment on an entire race of people.  There are entirely too many White, Black, Yellow, Green and Orange races out there to make a judgment on everyone in that particular race. For your hypothetical to be true, he would have had to have met and formed his judgment on each and every person in that race, or else it belongs in the Racism category.
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7029|SE London

GATOR591957 wrote:

RicardoBlanco wrote:

rac·ism     

–noun

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that ones own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
*Hypothetical Question*

If a man has lived all his life amongst black people and still hates them can you logically call him a racist? Seeing as racism is based on prejudice, where would the prejudice lie in this mans opinion considering he'd have more exposure to black people than anyone else and would therefore base his judgement on experience.
Your question is flawed.  No one can make a judgment on an entire race of people.  There are entirely too many White, Black, Yellow, Green and Orange races out there to make a judgment on everyone in that particular race. For your hypothetical to be true, he would have had to have met and formed his judgment on each and every person in that race, or else it belongs in the Racism category.
Exactly!

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard