The debate "If people are still talking about race than racism still exists" was started by
April 8, 2015, 9:57 am.
33 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 9 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
epoche posted 12 arguments, Getmurked posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 8 arguments to the disagreers part.
epoche, Jimmy_123, londonlightz, Untamed, Bodaciouslady16, LondonLeaders, Getmurked, Pankaj, frozen_emily, shinywhale, rionagh99, tr, teebee7, transfanboy, mancandyandy, hardikrawat, Liona and 16 visitors agree.
PsychDave, Mastermind, daddyfantastic, Tuv46 and 5 visitors disagree.
I tried to address all of your points in the order they were posted. If I have missed anything, please let me know and I will try to address them tomorrow.
You repeatedly talked about people no longer identifying with minority groups to reduce the categories for racism, and that people should not differentiate themselves based on heritage. It is impossible to have no history or tradition, so what we're you suggesting those who now identify with their heritage do? If I misunderstood I apologize, but it seemed like you were saying that they should discard their family history, heritage, traditions and culture and embrace culture of the majority. Rarely do people suggest a solution they are not willing to follow themselves, which means that for you to recommend this you should have either already discarded your own heritage, or have already identified with the majority. Based on that, either the tradition and culture you are saying they should embrace is your own, or you are a hypocrite.
I understand social conditioning, but racial genocide to remove the targets of racism seems like an extreme measure to propose instead of trying to recondition those who are racist.
I am aware that race, as it is currently used, is not a quantifiable thing. Genetics can retrace ancestry to geographic areas, but this is not race itself. To say that race does not exist on a genetic level is to argue semantics since the traits that are used to define race socially are genetically based. There is one race of humans, but there are different skin tones, eye colors, hair colors, eye shapes and other factors that are used to group people, and these are based on genetics. You seem to be fairly educated so I refuse to believe that you can honesty say that skin tone is purely social or psychological.
What you see as ethnic groups that indirectly keep racism alive is people staying on touch with their heritage. You still have not explained why you feel the best option is for people to be stripped of their family history rather than trying to deal with racism at its source.
Identifying with an ethnic group gives you a community. There are other people who share your history and culture. Places like Little Italy and Chinatown show the culture of the places these families originally came from and let them have some ties to their customers and culture even though it is half a world away. They let people stay connected with their roots. There are positive and negative aspects to that, but to demand that people abandon thousands of years of culture because some people are intolerant.
I want you to ask yourself something, and be honest with yourself. Assuming you self identify with a certain ethnic group, what does that do for you? What do you get out of that? As an individual, what does self identifying actually accomplish?
For what purpose does self identifying do for people? I like blue shoes you like white shoes, I'm better. That sounds less damaging that I like white people and dislike black people.
Personally I see human beings as human beings, but people who catagorize by different ethnic groups indirectly keep racism alive.
The definition of race is false, it's a social construct. It was shaped in the 18th century by America to catagorize different ethnic groups. There is only one race, that is my point, but now it is just accepted like a religion or economic status, it's a social normative definition, which is scientifically false.
You seem to have a tongue of an educated mind but lack the fundamental theories behind social and psychological conditioning.
Just for the sake of arguing here, in what message did I imply my ethnic background is superior, I said ambiguous as in doesn't matter.
I don't feel that race should make a difference on a job application, not should it be asked and I have never done an application that did. I don't doubt that they exist, but I would hope that they are getting fewer and farther between.
What your arguments seem to ignore is that you seem to be advocating ending racism by destroying all cultures that are different from your own. You feel that this kind of genocide is acceptable since afterwards there would be no minority cultures, therefore no one to be racist against. What I am hoping you just have not realized is that this argument is incredibly racist itself. You are saying that since your culture is the dominant one, all others should be destroyed. Look at how the Native American culture was destroyed by European settlers to see the outcome of the solution you are proposing. What gives your culture the right to exterminate all others in the name of tolerance? Why should people be forced to abandon their heritage for fear that bigots will hate them for being different? The better solution would be to protect people from this kind of intolerance by law, which is why that is what happens.
The second fatal flaw in your argument is that you assume that silence will make the problem go away. I challenge you to find one social issue in history that has been made better by being ignored. Women didn't get the vote by sitting quietly and waiting for society to realize they were being treated unfairly. Apartheid didn't end until people spoke up about it. Talking about a societal problem doesn't make it worse, it just makes you notice it. You might find it easier to feel comfortable if no one talked about racism, but that wouldn't make the problem go away. Society fixes problems when people stand up and say that something isn't right. Racism is a lot less pronounced than it used to be because it is no longer socially acceptable. By continuing to push it into the light wherever it is found, we can continue to fix the problems and make society better and more fair. No may how much you might not like hearing it, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
What "race" do you put on employment applications? What are the implications in which the category you choose? good or bad. What does your category matter?
I'm of Italian, Cherokee, and Hispanic ethnic background, but what does that mean or matter? I say ambiguous because what do labels really mean?
You are absolutely correct in your statement that people will always find something to be biased about, but why not decrease the categories? The world is not color blind, and there are multiple forms of racism and bigotry; but do you have a better alternative to get there in the long run?
I would consider heritage and culture reasons to associate with an ethnic group. Should Native Americans discard their culture so that they won't have to face racism? Should people not learn any other language because that might group them with a minority? Should people from different cultures give up thousands of years of tradition so that bigots will tolerate them? You seem to consider all culture and traditions other than those you observe to be not just expendable, but a liability to society. You are advocating discarding people's history to make them more palatable to your group. By that token, shouldn't we discard all of your traditions (Easter, Christmas) to be more like the Asian nations? They outnumber North Americans, so globally we are the minority.
Furthermore, you still haven't addressed the glaring problem with your premise. The most blatant forms of racism are against those who are visibly different. Since self identification doesn't change physical appearance, it would do nothing to address this.
hes right, if we keep equating certain traits, skills and activities with a certain ethnic group then we will never get out of the period of rascism. rathee, groups should be based upon activities and the like
I meant ambiguous as doesn't matter, I see no requirement, necessity, need or reason to self identify with any ethnic group. Can you think of a reason? Sure, pride, culture, traditions, subjective concepts yes. But any positive reasons? Reasons to not give people to be "different" or "special "?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that when you say ambiguous you mean Caucasian, meaning in western countries you are the majority. Travel to Japan and tell me that there is nothing distinguishing you from the majority of those around you.
I am aware that the different "races" are not as distinct as people had originally assumed, but you seem to think that all aspects of race are social constructs. If that were true, skin color would be influenced by how one defined them self. Belief doesn't change skin color, so committing ethnic genocide on everyone different from yourself wouldn't cure racism. That is what you are suggesting when you say that minorities shouldn't self identify based on their heritage, that all culture other than yours should cease to exist so that people in your group no longer have a reason to be racist against them.
My ethnic background is ambiguous as I see it. If people continue to separate their selves apart from other people there will always be racism and bigotry. Give people a reason to be subjective and they will, take away their reason and they cannot. It's purely hypothetical of course, but it makes sense because people will be people, subjective by nature.
Based on the Human Genome Project, there is nothing in your DNA to distinguish your ethnic group. Human is the only race, scientifically speaking, stop referring to the social construct as "race's defintion.
Identifying with a group is not the cause of racism, prejudice against people who are different does. What you are suggesting is that racism would go away if we destroyed all cultures other than your own. Even on its own that is a horrible premise to start from. Add to this the fact that how you self identify is irrelevant to people who are visibly different. If your skin is a different color, or your eyes a different shape, or you speak with an accent, no matter how you identify yourself you are different. To expect that suddenly no one would notice if you did not identify with your heritage is ridiculous.
You also keep saying that race is not based on science, which is in itself false. There are not several species of humans, and we are all very closely related genetically, but race is based on genetics. If it were not, children would not look like their parents.
The term "Race" in the sense it is currently used is a social construct, it's a scientific fallacy. If people make it a point to self identify with a certain ethnic group, they indirectly segregate and create a subconscious atmosphere of racism. Do you disagree?
For this to be a valid argument, physical features related to race would have to have a non-genetic cause. Race, as it is used in culture, if based on a genetic difference which causes physical differences.
I am aware that there is really only one race of humans, but to claim that things like skin tone are not genetically based is to show how little you understand about genetics.
You still aren't making any kind of argument to support the idea that ignoring racism will make it go away.
Did you know there is nothing in your genetics to identify your "race" in the definition people use it as? Genetically, there is only one race, ethnic groups aren't catagorized as race. It's a catagorical notion used to segregate, differentiate, and is used very subjectively.
Not talking about race doesn't make racism disappear any more than not talking about cancer can cure you. By discussing the problems, we can address them. By hiding them, we only let them fester.