>Let me explain my understanding of the
> definitions, and
> why they cannot be split apart.
> - Racism is a belief system that non-physical attributes
> derive from race.
This is getting close to my definition. "The belief that a race is
inherently superior or inferior based on genetics"
> - Prejudice is pre-judging an individual before evaluating
> their individual
I agree to this as applied to people, but I think we can leave out "before
evaluating their individual merits" as extra verbiage not required.
> - Racial Prejudice is prejudice based on an individual's
> membership in a
> racial group.
> - Discrimination is making choices between different options.
> - Racial Discrimination is making choices between different
> options based on
> I don't see how someone can racially pre-judge someone
> without having the
> belief system of racism. I don't see how someone can
> racially discriminate
> against someone without having the belief system of racism.
> These terms are
> inextricably intertwined thusly:
> Step 1: Racism - holding certain beliefs about races
> Step 2: Racial Prejudice - applying those beliefs to
> individuals based on
> step 1
Step 2 doesn't require step 1. Like we discussed before, Jesse may not
believe that blacks cause more crime based on race (I don't either), but
still believe that blacks cause more crime because of environmental factors,
and still make decisions based on race because of this.
> Step 3: Racial Discrimination - taking actions against those
Taking actions "against" sounds a bit negative, when it could also be
applied in a positive light. i.e. Giving a race special privileges over some
"Norm". I would just say taking action on some race because of their race. I
know, nitpicking again... but just trying to be clear.
> based on step 2
> As I understand these terms, I don't see how someone could
> without pre-judging first. I don't see how someone could
> pre-judge without
> having pre-existing beliefs first. I could see someone
> admitting that they
> were racist, but tried not to act on it. I don't see how
> someone can claim
> to be prejudiced or discriminatory while also claiming not to
> be racist.
> Harvey Newstrom <http://HarveyNewstrom.com> <http://Newstaff.com>
This goes back to black cops and Jesse again. I think they are grouping
blacks together into a group based on environmental causes (same living
conditions, culture, neighborhoods?), not genetic heritage, even though the
2 are very similar. The reason to nitpick this though is because without a
clear understanding of this, a white person can not in fact point to the
same issues that Jesse and black cops point to without being labeled racist.
Without this ability, whites cant even discuss "black issues" without being
defined as racist "by definition", even though we are intertwined with this
issues and the problems that are caused by all this friction.
I do thank you for the rational discussion on this though, I have to admit
that this has been one of the more reasonable discussions I think I've ever
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:05 MDT