• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Defining Racism

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
What has racism to do with feminism?

In my experience (personally quite extensive) a racist tends to be male (any age) or older female (over middle age)
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I used to think it was the economy until surveys demonstrated it was xenophobia.

Also see the thread...

A Measure of Xenophobia

...for how I calculated that 60% of Trump voters are behind xenophobic ideals or policies with a basis not in substance but xenophobia.

I think it's a chicken-egg question. Are people xenophobic just because they're xenophobic, or is there some underlying cause or factor which leads them to be xenophobic? Is xenophobia more a root cause or is it a symptom of some deeper problem?
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
That's the hypocrisy of today's modern "liberals" who have abandoned the working classes in favor of the elite. That's why they're losing hearts and minds by the millions lately.

what has class got to do with liberalism. liberalism transcends class.
It is socialists and conservatives who play the political class card.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
what has class got to do with liberalism. liberalism transcends class.
It is socialists and conservatives who play the political class card.

Class is a political issue. Liberalism is a political position. If liberals think they can ignore one of the most significant political issues facing humanity, then they're either operating in a political vacuum or living in la-la land.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
I think it's a chicken-egg question. Are people xenophobic just because they're xenophobic, or is there some underlying cause or factor which leads them to be xenophobic? Is xenophobia more a root cause or is it a symptom of some deeper problem?

Xenophobia starts in seeing differences rather than similarities. and in selfishness rather than generosity
It is often an extension of Narcissism..
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Class is a political issue. Liberalism is a political position. If liberals think they can ignore one of the most significant political issues facing humanity, then they're either operating in a political vacuum or living in la-la land.

Liberalism is primarily a philosophy.
Like other Philosophies it can be applied to Politics and advise policies.
As a philosophy it can also be directly incorporated into the agenda of parties.

Liberalism has never ignored the downsides of the class system and working toward mitigating them.
It would be totally wrong to assume class as being about the poor.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I think it's a chicken-egg question. Are people xenophobic just because they're xenophobic, or is there some underlying cause or factor which leads them to be xenophobic? Is xenophobia more a root cause or is it a symptom of some deeper problem?

Definitely...I recently looked up another phobic word for fear of change...

Metathesiophobia

Now if the manufacturing industry is not coming back the same way it was or certain industries are diminishing and new ones coming up, etc...this is all stressful on those who may have had hopes (based on a previous generation's experience) that one could stick to an industry for one's entire life and make a life from that. Those days are gone, perhaps. So there may be a lot of fear and concern as things are changing and some dimensions of American culture were hoping for something more static.

If people are seen to be involved in any way (whether they are a cause or not of the issue) with anything that is distressing then those people tend to become the target of those feelings of fear I think. People are the most powerful agent in most systems so they are seen as a single point of control over that system. Then people in fear can act out their loss of control by trying to assert control over the people that they think they can leverage or blame.

I've read in Ronald Takaki's A Different Mirror that racism evolved out of economic competition.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
I really can't stand that argument that "people of color" can't be racist. It just covers for the racism of non-white people. I know for a fact that they can because I've experienced it and see it a ton online. When you're on the receiving end of it, it looks and feels the same, regardless of skin color. I was in this "people of color" group on Facebook and many of the posts were racist "jokes" or generalizations against white people. I would call them out for it at times and they would hit me with that same lame argument. I even had a mod call me a "white sympathizer" (basically the same as an "Uncle Tom"). The hypocrisy and smugness are just out of control. I left that group. Both blacks and whites can be racist as hell and perpetuate the problem in America. They both are to blame.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Liberalism is primarily a philosophy.
Like other Philosophies it can be applied to Politics and advise policies.
As a philosophy it can also be directly incorporated into the agenda of parties.

Liberalism has never ignored the downsides of the class system and working toward mitigating them.
It would be totally wrong to assume class as being about the poor.

True, class is not just about the poor. It's also about the rich and the differences one can note when looking from top to bottom.

It's clear that 50-75 years ago, liberals were more focused on the class system and tried to work towards mitigating class differences. But in more recent decades, their priorities have shifted, and they don't really care about it as much as they used to. Other things are obviously more important to them than making life better for working people.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Definitely...I recently looked up another phobic word for fear of change...

Metathesiophobia

Now if the manufacturing industry is not coming back the same way it was or certain industries are diminishing and new ones coming up, etc...this is all stressful on those who may have had hopes (based on a previous generation's experience) that one could stick to an industry for one's entire life and make a life from that. Those days are gone, perhaps. So there may be a lot of fear and concern as things are changing and some dimensions of American culture were hoping for something more static.

If people are seen to be involved in any way (whether they are a cause or not of the issue) with anything that is distressing then those people tend to become the target of those feelings of fear I think. People are the most powerful agent in most systems so they are seen as a single point of control over that system. Then people in fear can act out their loss of control by trying to assert control over the people that they think they can leverage or blame.

I've read in Ronald Takaki's A Different Mirror that racism evolved out of economic competition.

I think it's natural for people to fear change to some extent, but I think it largely depends on whether it's change for the better or change for the worse. But it also has to be put into context of what people actually see and have to deal with in their daily lives. Over the past several generations, one of the central ideas has been that, in America, each generation shows improvement over the previous generation, but that's what may be diminishing. Perhaps those days are gone.

Nowadays, people are fed a daily dose of escalating political rhetoric, talk about global warming and predictions of environmental catastrophe on the horizon, deficits and national debts which grow larger with each passing second, geopolitical instability and rumors of war, and a general decline overall. In their own lives, lots of people (tens of millions) struggle with rising costs in terms of food, housing, healthcare, education, energy, etc. - while they see their paychecks shrink and better opportunities becoming fewer and far between.

I think racism probably had earlier beginnings. One idea I've seen come up occasionally is that racism was largely invented to keep lower class whites and lower class blacks from banding together and forming a united front against the upper classes. By spreading that idea among lower class whites, they could feel as if they're not at the very bottom. Hence, the popularity of Andrew Jackson, whose policies of ethnic cleansing ("Trail of Tears") cleared huge tracts of land that landless whites could then claim - and then use African slaves to work for them. The same basic policy was continued for decades leading up to the Civil War, and it even continued after the slaves had been freed (on paper, at least).

Once that policy ran its course and diminishing returns were setting in, the policy shifted towards elevating blacks and other people of color during the Civil Rights era. That had the effect of scapegoating the lower class whites for all of America's sins, while portraying the upper class whites as "liberal saviors."

That, I think, is the root of the Big Lie behind identity politics.

By demonizing lower class whites, it directed minority anger at that group (or diffused it against all whites of all classes), while leaving the upper class whites alone and mostly off the hook.

Even to this day, the common narrative is that it's all about so-called "rednecks" and "hillbillies" from the South, with an inordinate focus on the short-lived Confederacy as being the symbolic whipping boy for the crimes of the upper class all throughout American history. The effect has been to manipulate people of color to focus on "whiteness" or "white privilege" as being their main bugaboo. Sometimes it's also addressed as "white male privilege" as a ploy to manipulate white women and to further divide lower/middle class white men and women against each other (as recent events demonstrate).

Ultimately, it's had the effect of keeping the lower classes divided against each other, making them poorer while the rich get richer. It's also had the effect of fanning the flames of fear and xenophobia among the lower class whites, who ostensibly feel that they're being targeted for "payback" by minorities and immigrants who are angry over centuries of oppression and want their pound of flesh.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I think it's natural for people to fear change to some extent, but I think it largely depends on whether it's change for the better or change for the worse. But it also has to be put into context of what people actually see and have to deal with in their daily lives. Over the past several generations, one of the central ideas has been that, in America, each generation shows improvement over the previous generation, but that's what may be diminishing. Perhaps those days are gone.

Nowadays, people are fed a daily dose of escalating political rhetoric, talk about global warming and predictions of environmental catastrophe on the horizon, deficits and national debts which grow larger with each passing second, geopolitical instability and rumors of war, and a general decline overall. In their own lives, lots of people (tens of millions) struggle with rising costs in terms of food, housing, healthcare, education, energy, etc. - while they see their paychecks shrink and better opportunities becoming fewer and far between.

I think racism probably had earlier beginnings. One idea I've seen come up occasionally is that racism was largely invented to keep lower class whites and lower class blacks from banding together and forming a united front against the upper classes. By spreading that idea among lower class whites, they could feel as if they're not at the very bottom. Hence, the popularity of Andrew Jackson, whose policies of ethnic cleansing ("Trail of Tears") cleared huge tracts of land that landless whites could then claim - and then use African slaves to work for them. The same basic policy was continued for decades leading up to the Civil War, and it even continued after the slaves had been freed (on paper, at least).

Once that policy ran its course and diminishing returns were setting in, the policy shifted towards elevating blacks and other people of color during the Civil Rights era. That had the effect of scapegoating the lower class whites for all of America's sins, while portraying the upper class whites as "liberal saviors."

That, I think, is the root of the Big Lie behind identity politics.

By demonizing lower class whites, it directed minority anger at that group (or diffused it against all whites of all classes), while leaving the upper class whites alone and mostly off the hook.

Even to this day, the common narrative is that it's all about so-called "rednecks" and "hillbillies" from the South, with an inordinate focus on the short-lived Confederacy as being the symbolic whipping boy for the crimes of the upper class all throughout American history. The effect has been to manipulate people of color to focus on "whiteness" or "white privilege" as being their main bugaboo. Sometimes it's also addressed as "white male privilege" as a ploy to manipulate white women and to further divide lower/middle class white men and women against each other (as recent events demonstrate).

Ultimately, it's had the effect of keeping the lower classes divided against each other, making them poorer while the rich get richer. It's also had the effect of fanning the flames of fear and xenophobia among the lower class whites, who ostensibly feel that they're being targeted for "payback" by minorities and immigrants who are angry over centuries of oppression and want their pound of flesh.

My question on this is "is economics a significant factor that explains the appeal of Trump?" Whether it is a sincere concern or a unconscious cover concern, it is unlikely that economics is more of a concern for the Trump voter than for someone who voted for Clinton...again at least according to surveys. There is also some level of correlation with education which probably also has to do with exposure to a wider culture than one's tribe of origin...and thereby one's susceptibility to buying into directly racist or indirectly but historically racist policies as solutions.

In conservative circles it is difficult to criticize the rich for the conservative political policy is to unencumber the rich by reducing taxes and regulations. So if the rich get richer and the rest of us feel as if there is no progress who is there to direct blame towards? Perhaps this has helped to fuel the focus on xenophobia in that quarter.
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
True, class is not just about the poor. It's also about the rich and the differences one can note when looking from top to bottom.

It's clear that 50-75 years ago, liberals were more focused on the class system and tried to work towards mitigating class differences. But in more recent decades, their priorities have shifted, and they don't really care about it as much as they used to. Other things are obviously more important to them than making life better for working people.

Different nations and different times have looked at class rather differently.

A lord could be poor but he was still upper class. A store owner could be a millionaire but he was still a tradesman. A poor widow might be from any class. Class was not about money. It was to do with the status of your family.

The Labour party (socialists) was the political wing of the trade unions. It was they not liberals who fought for workers rights, but even they were not interested in the poor.

In the Uk it was the Liberal party who fought for fair play between the classes. And for the rights of the poor and other outcasts, including the rights of homosexuals.

This attitude of fair play and equality before the law that has always been, and still is, the principal political goal of liberal politics. And is what informs their policies
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
My question on this is "is economics a significant factor that explains the appeal of Trump?" Whether it is a sincere concern or a unconscious cover concern, it is unlikely that economics is more of a concern for the Trump voter than for someone who voted for Clinton...again at least according to surveys. There is also some level of correlation with education which probably also has to do with exposure to a wider culture than one's tribe of origin...and thereby one's susceptibility to buying into directly racist or indirectly but historically racist policies as solutions.

In conservative circles it is difficult to criticize the rich for the conservative political policy is to unencumber the rich by reducing taxes and regulations. So if the rich get richer and the rest of us feel as if there is no progress who is there to direct blame towards? Perhaps this has helped to fuel the focus on xenophobia in that quarter.

I would consider that economics is the most significant factor, however you might slice it. Think of how it would be if there were no ghettos or nobody living in sub-standard conditions. If everyone was living a materially comfortable life, in nice homes, and no one was deprived or left out in the cold, then racism would only be a matter of name-calling and hurt feelings (which is much easier to overcome when your stomach is full and you have a warm bed to sleep in). Just like different ethnic groups might razz each other, but at the end of the day, they might still cooperate with each other and have a more amicable relationship.

But if people are forced to live in deprivation and squalor, then it's not unlike a group of caged hungry dogs when someone throws in a small piece of meat. Of course, they're going to fight and be violent with each other.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Different nations and different times have looked at class rather differently.

A lord could be poor but he was still upper class. A store owner could be a millionaire but he was still a tradesman. A poor widow might be from any class. Class was not about money. It was to do with the status of your family.

The Labour party (socialists) was the political wing of the trade unions. It was they not liberals who fought for workers rights, but even they were not interested in the poor.

In the Uk it was the Liberal party who fought for fair play between the classes. And for the rights of the poor and other outcasts, including the rights of homosexuals.

This attitude of fair play and equality before the law that has always been, and still is, the principal political goal of liberal politics. And is what informs their policies

All I can say is the system and attitudes in the U.S. are different. We're obviously speaking from two different frames of reference.
 

sealchan

Well-Known Member
I would consider that economics is the most significant factor, however you might slice it. Think of how it would be if there were no ghettos or nobody living in sub-standard conditions. If everyone was living a materially comfortable life, in nice homes, and no one was deprived or left out in the cold, then racism would only be a matter of name-calling and hurt feelings (which is much easier to overcome when your stomach is full and you have a warm bed to sleep in). Just like different ethnic groups might razz each other, but at the end of the day, they might still cooperate with each other and have a more amicable relationship.

But if people are forced to live in deprivation and squalor, then it's not unlike a group of caged hungry dogs when someone throws in a small piece of meat. Of course, they're going to fight and be violent with each other.

And they might look for enemies to scapegoat...unless they are guided by higher moral and/or spiritual principles.
 
Top