On the anecdote and formation of stereotypes, I think we're describing the same thing there.
I do think a problem is that we go out of our way to teach others what racism is, even if its to talk about how its bad, you still teach them what it is and they choose for themselves if your right about it being bad. That, to me, means that during your more uncertain transitional period, teenage years, you're my inclined to agree with those views you were told were bad.
Hitting the nail somewhat on the head but I don't think kids need to know what racism is to be racist any less one would need to know what theft is to steal.
Yes, we both agree that it can be innate, it can be self discovered. I'm only trying to point out that there is harm in teaching it. What is worse, racism that is learned through experiences that at least somewhat reflect the state of those experiences. I say somewhat reflect because I believe our pattern recognition to be flawed, I think you agree with that. Or is it worse to teach it, even accidentally, and use that as the basis for racist patterns that are seen? I would argue that the innate amount of racism that will always exist is less than that that exists currently, so the self discovered racism, while still wrong, is it least the lesser of the two. That's just a guess though.
My point was that there is truth to at least some stereotypes, and that stereotypes aren't necessarily harmful, its how they are applied. Lets just assume that 90% of all serial killers are white men. In this hypothetical world that's a truth. Believing that an uncaught serial killer is white isn't wrong, assuming someone is a serial killer because they are white, or that a suspect can't be the serial killer because they are not white is an improper use of the stereotype. In fact, maybe using and applying the stereotype is false. Walking down a dark ally with a white guy following you and being afraid wouldn't be wrong, acting preemptively like macing, tazing, or shooting him unprovoked is.
But then you run the risk of entering the grey grounds of racial profiling, where you look for an uncaught criminal on the basis that the true stereotype fits a specific race, and the odds are the criminal fits the stereotype too - but this is unfair on the race as a whole, because the stereotype will most likely apply outside of criminal associations. As for the latter about taking action on prejudice, is it not the scale or the response that is the issue and not the response itself? I recall earlier on in another discussion surrounding prejudice where someone remarked, would it be fair to cross the road as a woman seeing a man all alone at night, because most attackers in assaults are men? To which I posited, having had that done to me many a time (despite me being harmless - to fit the stereotype is enough), as it affects no one and reduces the risk of harm to the self, is perfectly fine. To mace a man in that situation would be unfair, yes, that is because the response was far out of proportion to the perceived threat, that had not been confirmed as one. Prejudices are useful in such specific circumstances where personal safety are concerned, to go to the extreme where you have rather silly persons refusing to cross the road because they'd much rather prove they are unprejudiced only to get mugged is jut that - silly. This is a complicated issue to say the least, but in such times usually the easiest way is just to point out that most things are good in moderation, and harmful in either extreme.
We might not be fully communicating our intentions. I'm saying there is nothing wrong with the stereotype, its applying it that is bad. Racial profiling is applying it. Looking for suspects you think fit the stereotype, and overlooking others who don't fit are both applying the stereotype. Understanding that it exists, maybe even believing it, isn't bad. Acting on it is.
Your example of crossing the road to the man, similar to my white-man-in-the-alley, is a good example of a properly applied stereotype. Indeed, people who ignore a stereotype because they don't want it to be true is silly. Hence why stereotypes aren't bad. Recognizing when the rare opportunity to listen to it is why I keep making a reference to guns. Stereotypes don't kill people, and neither do guns, misused ones do. And I believe this is a good argument for the good old, "tread softly, but carry a big stick."
TL;DR, people see patterns naturally, and its important. Instead, teach people how to be more human, and understand when not to assume based on a pattern they believe is true, and to challenge the patterns.
Trying to teach people how to think will fail outside of a dogmatic philosophy or religion, and the resurgence of fedora tipping should stand testament to how even the strongest dogmas are not immune to doubts. I see one of three ways to end racism. The first is to have no differences, via Bohanda bland bonanza where you eliminate race altogether, or just go the route of racial homogeneity like the Han or Nippons. The second is to have mutual respect between the races and cultures, the Europeans do this all right to historically close neighbours and the massive Indian ethno-cultural fabric is a testament to how this it can't be done, how it is done, and what happens when it is done. The third would be to try and eliminate racial boundaries altogether, playing more to similarities than differences, essentially redefining old races under one larger one. Similar to the first, but you haven't actually destroyed any racial groups, you've just convinced everyone else that their foreigners are family.
Indeed, you can't tell someone how to think. I'm not proposing that. I'm just proposing some basic education for a parent to give to their child. In my view of the world, that education won't always be used, there will be injustice, stereotypes will still hurt people, guns will still be used inappropriately. Its about reducing it. Specifically, for your own child. You have no hope of making anyone else a better person other than your child.
Man is an animal, and civilization is in many ways about the transcendence from animal behavior.
We are defined by our biology, but it is in human nature to defy it!
Hopefully in ways that aren't nature's abominations. Resurrecting severed dogs' heads is awesome, and fell.
Yes. We are in agreement.
I generally agree with you. I don't propose a giant campaign to bring world peace, love, and joy to all through a single definition of humanity. I propose parents do their job of making their children into decent human beings, and secretly hope people learn to think.
If everyone was a decent person racism wouldn't be an issue, as irregardless of people ascribing traits to races their only response would be to treat them decently as they act. Humankind is weighted equal parts arsehole as it is with heart.
Thats not necessarily true. Decent people can do terrible things if they think what they are doing is right or justified. And people generally make their kids into clones of themselves. But if that were always true there would be no decent people. The best we can do is teach our kids to be as decent as possible, and hope they influence less decent people to be slightly better. The hope is that over several generations, we could remove the indecencies of our forefathers and allow our kids to move onto our mistakes.
Teaching kids that they will experience racism in X form, or that they shouldn't practice racism in Y form is learned, and perpetuates them. If you can teach people those quirks in pattern recognition, and teach people the mortality of those patterns, you've done a great deal to make your children decent human beings. Stereotypes are inherently evil, to me, is the same argument as guns are inherently evil. Tell that to the French freedom fighters who fought Nazi occupation with the weapons allied support gave them.
>Implying the French aren't evil
Personally I'd go with teaching mutual respect, though the whole tricking people into thinking they're one race is also hilarious and beneficial.
I think the mutual respect thing fits in there. Also I never meant to imply that about the French. I blame WWII on them. That being said, they are a better people now than they were then, even if they are still French. The Germans have come a long way. Americans have come a long way. Over time we get better, then make new mistakes. Our improvements in the racial issues sure aren't because of legislature. They're because one generation grew up better than the last, with regards to racism anyway. Celebrity worship is, I think, the next evil we as a country have to vanquish.
I think we generally agree. I don't believe there is an answer, not one people want. There are no sweeping changes to be made, there is no campaign one can do to eradicate it, especially not without making other issues much more serious. Civilization can't be developed like technology, you can't engineer it. Its a naturally emergent property, and it will generally self correct.
I liken our morals to my experiments in neuroevolutionary programming. The artificial neurons pass down their traits, modified randomly of course, but the neurons have plasticity of their own and can still learn new tricks. Overtime the new neurons should get better at a task than the older neurons. They will develop new problems that new generations have to overcome. Its life. If you can follow the logic down the rabbit hole, you can see my view on the world in the evolution of the brain. Specifically how I view the evolution of the brain, and how it relates to the experiments above. The hole point is that there is no solution to any problem. Development of civilization is like the development of a consciousness, it takes generations of small improvements until it transcends biology. The difference between thought and calculation is just that, thought transcends calculation, just as human behavior tries to transcend our animal origins.
Author
Topic: Will humans homogenize? (Read 10554 times)