Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by Moriah, Jun 19, 2020.
I find that is true of many on both the right and the left. It isn't exclusive to either.
I think that racial bigotry comes from simple tribalism, the flip side of empathy, and that it isn't a special case. We have evolved to identify with and feel the pain of others who we feel are like us; we see ourselves in them and we literally have neurons (mirror neurons) that fire when we see them in pain. The more the victim is like us, the more we have natural empathy for them and the more we will care about them. Its why we often tend to care more about our family than our countrymen, more about our countrymen than foreigners, more about humans than mice, and more about cute mammals than scaly reptiles. Its why putting a cute face on a robot makes us less inclined to destroy it, even when we know it isn't sentient.
The ugly flip side of that is that the more somebody is unlike us, the more different they feel to us, the less empathy we will naturally have for them. Othering people, by race, sexual orientation, religion, or anything else, works to subdue empathy for the other, and allows us to far more easily hate or do injustice towards them. And we also tend to group entire sets of people, not just as us vs them, but also as various groupings of them, treating entire races as monoliths.
Sadly, racism and other forms of bigotry are natural. We evolved into having them. And we need to consciously guard ourselves against them so we can move beyond them. That means NOT purposefully placing further emphasis on "race identity", and instead pushing how similar we all are, and how "race" is just a social construct and one we should disregard.
Of course man is tribal and has an urge to categorize, but what separates the conservative mind is their tendency to focus on the negative of the other and be guided by fear of the other which leads to bigotry.
Your complaining about groups emphasizing "race identity" is missing the point, again. This racial identity has been pushed on them by the dominate society. They would love to not be put in a racial category and treated differently from the rest of society. That is the reason for the protest.
Many of us, yes. I would appreciate it if the right wing bigots and " woke" alike didnt prejudge me by my skin tone, but they do. Pretending it is only the right wing bigots who do it is a serious problem of today. Because you cant fight prejudice by engaging in it, and as more and more of the left does engage in it, the less progress can actually be made.
Far too often I see both the right and the left declaring things about my "race" as a group, without regarding us as individuals. The social justice warriors may think they are defending me or getting offended on my behalf, but its so often done without actually talking to me, presuming I agree and will vote for them, and presuming everyone with my skin tone are the same; weak, and in need of a hand out.
With the right wing white racists, at least they recognize that they have lower expectations of non-white people. They at least tell you upfront that they are prejudiced. The "woke" (and I distinguish them because many on the left are not so racist) think they are ooposing prejudice as they push it, and expect us all to like and appreciate them for it. As Biden put it recently, if you dont vote for him "you ain't black".
You have no evidence to support that statement.
I have more if you want to keep reading.
I did, maybe you should have read it first.
Although the human amygdala has been implicated in the response to threatening stimuli, no studies to date have investigated whether conservatism is associated with altered amygdala function toward threat. Furthermore, although an influential theory posits that connectivity between the amygdala and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST) is important in initiating the response to sustained or uncertain threat, whether individual differences in conservatism modulate this connectivity is unknown. To test whether conservatism is associated with increased reactivity in neural threat circuitry, we measured participants’ self-reported social and economic conservatism and asked them to complete high-resolution fMRI scans while under threat of an unpredictable shock and while safe. We found that economic conservatism predicted greater connectivity between the BNST and a cluster of voxels in the left amygdala during threat vs safety. These results suggest that increased amygdala–BNST connectivity during threat may be a key neural correlate of the enhanced negativity bias found in conservatism.
That's not evidence. I asked for evidence, please.
Knock yourself out....let me know if you need more
The first link is the opinions of two researchers, not peer reviewed nor factual.
The second just claims low intelligence and racism (among other poorly conceived ideas) are related. While possible, this is opinion again and not peer reviewed.
The third link ends with "In sum, we argue that multi-level analysis approach covering from genetic to psychological, physiological and cultural levels would be more appropriate in analyzing the influence of negativity bias on political judgment." Which lacks hard evidence of any kind, they're just publishing to publish.
The fourth link is a copy of another link.
The fifth is absolute horsesh** by an author and not scientific, peer reviewed, or free from conjecture.
The last is an article written by Bloom who "While Bloom (2016) admits that “there is some association between empathy and [liberal] politics, along the directions that you’d expect,” he claims that “the association is not as strong as people believe it is” (p. 114). He maintains that “Being against empathy won’t tell you what to think about gun control, taxation, health care, and the like; it won’t tell you who to vote for, or what your general political philosophy should be like” (Ibid.)" this is nothing but another opinion piece.
FFS, my degree is in psychology and all you've done is post op-ed links by people needing to publish. Which is a lot easier than creating opinions based on peer reviewed studies and CRIME STATISTICS. Pretending the numbers are not clear and eshewing actual data is the home of those making emotionally based assumptions.
You are saying there is no I in denial.
I am saying your refusal to understand statistics and constant need to make excuses makes you part of the problem. Stop making excuses for criminals, it's unbecoming.
There are many failed categorisations in above mentioned points and I will try to break down each and every one of them as best I can.
First of all, it is wrong that man is tribal. What separates us from aninals is our ability to conceptualise and our ability to ignore urges than
ks to our free will. In other words, "categorisation" is not as much of an urge as it is an ability - Something that we can do if we use our mind.
Furthermore, I disagree that what fundamentally separates Right from Left is the previous' tendency to focus on the negative and on "fear of the other". This is just as prominent in The Left where groups like Feminists, BLM and more "traditional marxists" are all centred around negativees and smearing "The Other" (be it Men, Whites or Capitalists).
The modern-day Left and Right are in full agreement on all premises - They are all collectivists and thus give up their ability to categorise to their tribal urges.
Both are equally bigotted.
No one is forced to accept "society's" demands. Race is largely an anti-concept and it is possible to fully ignore and reject it.
I do not think race is a valid category and regard it as an irrelevant and insignificant categorisation. Race has zero meaning in the real world and anyone who claims to be against racism.must reject it and stop talking about it as if it is the primary unit of existence.
It would be good if one of the sides could pick up colour-blindness and start advocating it again. That is the only way out of this mess and the only way forwards.
This line knocked me out, "....This racial identity has been pushed on them by the dominate society".
The late, great comedian Richard Pryor had his 'come to Jesus' moment when he visited the continent of Africa, and realized that among themselves they are just people of Africa....not "black" or "******s" or "kaffirs". From that point on, Pryor vowed never again to use the word ****** in his routines.
Someone did not get a passing grade in Anthropology 101. Humans are tribal social animals. All animals subconsciously categorize. It is a defense mechanism. We can rationally sort the categories later. That snake is harmless. He's not a gang banger. Ice cream is good. We all do it.
The left have different motivations than the right. Their chief concern is fairness and reduction of harm. They hold authority, ingroup, class and moral purity much less important than conservatives. That's not to say they can't be bigoted. There have been many studies showing conservatives have a negative bias. That causes mistrust and fear when it comes to outgroups, social changes and changing morality.
Your belief that race is irrelevant may be fine from where you are sitting but for some that is how they are defined by society and are treated differently because of it. You are dismissing their opinion out of hand and I think that comes from a lack of respect on your part.
Well. I have a degree in Anthropology, but that is not really relevant to the discussion.
Animals lack the capacity to properly conceptualise their sense-perceptions. Man has the mind and reason to conceptualise, but "race" is a perception that does not really need conceptualisation since it is irrelevant to reality.
Because Left and Right both fail to abstract and conceptualise the essentials of reality. To me, any form of focus on "race" is bigotted.
`Society" puts no chains on anyone. Human beings have free will which means they can give."society" the middle finger and do as they please.
Most people do not really care about race, but - unfortunately - most people do not really use their reason and are thus very prone to tribalism.
"Race" does not even exist as far as I am concerned.
Social anthropology is quite relevant. You must have missed that lecture.
Your dismissal of the opinion of a large sector of the population as irrelevant is demeaning to them. There are many sub-cultures in the US that are referred to as a "race", like the African American culture or Latino culture. If they feel that the dominant culture is not treating them fairly they have every right to air their grievances without the dominate culture being dismissive. They cannot give the US social order the middle finger because they need to live in it as well.
I have a BA in Social Anthropology and did not miss one single lecture or seminar. You trying to make an an argument from authority has little bearing here.
How is it demeaning to an individual to say that they are more than their superficial traits and capable of greatness no matter what society has to say about their group identity?
What made Michael Jordan a great basketball player was not his skin colour - It was his ability to optmise and maximise his athletic potential and even take it a step further and his unique ability to express elegance and project perfection in every single one of his movements. The fact that he was Black has nothing to do with anything.
But, maybe you are racist and think that his skin tone actually does matter and if that is the case I would like to know why you think that.
There is no such thing as "Latino Culture" as that is too broad of a generalisation that includes way too many groups and confuses continent with ethnicity.
It does make sense to talk about culture and sometimes even race in very narrow and specific contexts. Sometimes, it is relevant to make broad generalisations to say something about a wider issue. However, when all comes around and at the end of tje day, the most important aspect of your life is You and your race, gender, face shape, favourite coloyr and whatnot are completely irrelevant to what makes You "You". I refuse to reduce an individual to their group identity as that is what is demeaning.
Of course they can! Frederick Douglas did it and so did MlK. The Founding Fathets did too. Most great men become great by being who they are and becoming what they want to be.
How is Beyonce's, deGrasse Tyson's and Sowell's skin colour relevant to their respective achievements?
Someone needs to dust off their old anthropology text books. "Latino Culture" is a thing. It is well documented and there are many subgroups; Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, etc. but they all fall under Latino culture.
So, are you saying that African Americans do not have a legitimate complaint that they are treated differently than whites in the US of A?
You display an age old bias by the majority population when dealing with "minorities"....pointing to a minute portion of the population that has achieved notoriety and success to justify a premise/thesis. The people you point out do NOT erase the congenital racism of America that had an official and legal status right up to the late 1960's, and how it detrimentally affects that vast majority. Remember, Frederick Douglas fought such entrenched policies his whole adult life, as did MLK, because the VAST MAJORITY OF BLACK PEOPLE WERE STILL VICTIMS OF A BIGOTED SOCIETY.
Beyonce achieved in the one MAJOR area that black folk WERE ALLOWED TO PROSPER to a great degree. Throughout history, folk like Tyson and Sowell achieve through "cracks" in the system....being born at a time period and in an area that allowed upward mobility for the gifted black person.
See, we live in a society that is based upon competition for limited resources and opportunities. The winners reluctantly give support to the losers. Add onto this the stigma of racism, then there is no question that you'll have problems for the minority and excuses from the majority.
Trust me, they are fresh.
Only if you wish to draw very broad generalisations about various different US immigrants from South- and Central America and the Caribbean.
"Latimo Culture" is not really a thing outside of America as far as socio-cultural anthropology since reasearch does not typically use such very broad generalisations.
If anything it is "Latino Culture" that is outdated and needs to be dusted off.
Before I can answer that I would want your definition; "treated differently" by whom and compared to what?
There have indeed been historical injustices faced by Afro-Americans in the form of slavery and, more recently, segregation. But, both systems are since long gone and today there is very little that stops anyone from doing whatever it is they want.
The problem is that the dominant narrative of today is tribalism and that makes it more difficult for everyone. The Right wants to fight racism with Nationalism and The Left suggests "Diversity" - Both "solutions" share the same premise, namely tribalism and one does not fight racism with racism.
Those Blacks who understand that their skin tone is a non-essential part of who they are, are the Blacks who succeed. Many members of their "ingroup" may try to shame them with phrases like "Coon" or "Acting White", but the strong will not bend down to such idiocy.
Degrasse Tyson once talked about how other Blacks shamed him for not choosing an academic field that "benefits the Black community", he did not surrender his dreams to the primitive and today he is a highly regarded intellectual and probably the most famous in his field.
Everyone is a minority since there is only one person like them in the entire universe.
But, if you want to play the racist game, I can tell you that I am actually part of a mimority group myself and not at all "part of majority population", so I do not see how I could hold their bias.
The most important thing, however, is to note that groups do not have opinions. Only individuals do. Race is not even the 100th most essential unit of existence.
Who said anything about erasing history?
Two great men who used their mind and reason for the good and who refused to bend down and surrender to the primitive attitudes of their racist society. Big respect.
Her success has nothing to do with her skin.
Sowell is one of my all-time favourite intellectuals.
What a load of bs.
Anyone, no matter their gender or race, has the ability to pursue and fulfill their dreams.
The Police kill twice as many whites as blacks. For every black Mother grieving the loss of her child there are two white Mothers grieving the loss of their children.
Why is race relevant to this context?
Seriously, did you read the OP?
Separate names with a comma.