Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline Wade  
#1 Posted : Wednesday, July 24, 2013 7:39:50 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 644
Applause Received: 657

I thought about adding this to the "Prejudice" thread in the Back Alley, but I decided to start a new one here in Random Babble instead in hopes that people will save their vitriol, ad hominem and otherwise, for there and not put it here. So, Kevin, I'd ask that you keep the threads separate. (Obviously, if people cannot resist the temptation, feel free to combine/delete/whatever.)

Anyway, I have three observations.

First, that the concept of race itself is, arguably, itself intrinsically racist. What is the purpose of the classification? Seriously? It is to say these people are "different" in their humanity than these other people. Well, I'm sorry, but that isn't the case.

Oh, people may be culturally different by virtue of how they have been socialized to deal with others because of the particulars of their tribal/ethnic/national/religious background. But the notion that somehow human character is going to be correlated with skin pigmentation, lip shape, hair curliness, or any of the other indicia we might use to separate "race" from those other categories, well, that strikes me as silly if not ludicrous. It seems to me that if you distinguish Joe #1 from Joe #2 because #1 is "black" and #2 is "white", you are making a racist distinction. And that is true, whether you yourself happen to have dark skin or light.

Or to put it another way, we're all racists (since we've all made that sort of distinction). Which brings me to ...

Second, talking about race is useless and counterproductive unless one is simply counting the distribution of physical characteristics (e.g., figuring out how to deal with sickle cell anemia); its not helpful, at all, in getting anywhere on the questions of human character and human quality. Insofar as there are "group" characteristics we might be able to use to distinguish good people from bad people, ethically sound people from ethically suspect from moral from amoral from immoral from evil people, those group characteristics are already going to be accounted for by the other sub-categorizations of societies and cultures: ethnicity, religion, age, political affiliation, and the like.

And so ...

Third, the real question for discussion is when each of those traditional group divisions is legitimate to use as a way of separating people of one sort of character from people of another. When, if ever, is it legitimate to prejudge an individual who possesses the characteristics of the anthropological category called "Hispanic" or "Jew" or "American" or "Republican" and say they have a particular characteristic of moral character?

I think there are times when it is okay. I do not believe all cultures are equal. Some human constructs are badder than others. And if I see a middle-aged person who has spent all his/her life in a culture I consider "worse" or "more wrongheaded" or "more likely to commit bad acts", I'm going to pre-judge that person and require him/her to affirmatively demonstrate how, despite having spent his entire 50 years of life in that culture, his individual character fails to share its evils.

Call that a prejudice of mine, if you will. Personally, I prefer Habermas' slightly less argumentative term, "prejudging," because I don't believe it is possible to avoid some of those prejudices; we can't survive if we assume everyone in a culture is an exception to every bad cultural feature. To my mind the question isn't whether we are prejudiced against this group or that one. It isn't whether we are anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic or anti-Muslim or anti-Hispanic or anti-American or anti-African-American or anti-German or anti-whatever. It is when we prejudge in one of those ways.

And, that, I submit, is a really hard thing to determine. And, unfortunately, it is a thing where it is very easy to "go too far" in one's prejudgings.

I have no solution that I can guarantee works in all cases. I do have some rules of thumb I try to live by:

1. I tend to believe that I should treat people as individuals as the default, and let my knowledge of an individual's behavior, even if that knowledge is of a very small sample of their history, shape my prejudging of their character.

If a student acts like a whiner or manipulator or spoiled in the first week or so of class, I'm going to be more likely to prejudge him as a whiner/manipulator/spoiled until such time as he proves otherwise by a longer term pattern of conduct, regardless of whether I know anything about his life prior to or outside of my class. However, I'm not going to assume that all my students are whiners/manipulators/spoiled from day one even though I believe many of today's students are.

2. I tend to be more likely to prejudge people, and impose on them a greater burden of rebuttal, who have been in a culture I consider "bad" or "inferior" longer.

If I meet a Muslim who has been living in Iran since the Revolution of 1978, I'm much more likely to prejudge him as likely to be a Shi'a who buys into the teachings of the Ayatollah Khomeini, teachings which I consider reprehensible than I would one of my Muslim-American students who has lived all his life in Southern California. It is not that the person who lives in Iran all his life is necessarily going to be a terrorist or more likely to be violently anti-Christian; it is that the person who remains in a place run by such ideas for 35 years is more likely to be at least a silent collaborator (since otherwise it's a high probability he'd have been dead by now).

3. I strive to be open to any evidence that would rebut my prejudging of a particular individual.

My standard for rebuttal vis-a-vis an individual member of a group is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," it is not "clear and convincing evidence". It is not even "preponderance of evidence". Those are standards for a courtroom, for those situations where our "unwritten codes of reasonable conduct toward our fellows" have already broken down or come into actual and specific conflict. If one is in court, choices have already been made by someone with respect to someone else that may be actionable at law. Legalistic standards are for actual disputes that the parties cannot resolve themselves; they are not for our everyday dealings with individuals.

No, my standard about "relaxing the prejudging" is not a legalistic one. It is merely, "believable positive evidence." Is there evidence, provided by the person's interaction with me or with those who I trust, that leads me to believe this person is an exception. If there is, then I strive to eliminate the role the prejudging would otherwise play.

Do I always succeed in applying these rules of thumb correctly? Of course not. But I believe I do better for admitting that I will sometimes prejudge than by idealistically claiming "we should never be prejudiced against people because they're in a group. I don't think that's possible. And expecting the impossible, of others OR of myself, simply leads me to more condescension, sanctimoniousness, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
thanks Post received 2 applause.
texaspackerbacker on 7/24/2013(UTC), Cheesey on 7/31/2013(UTC)
Sponsor
Offline dhpackr  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, July 24, 2013 7:55:37 AM(UTC)
dhpackr

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/12/2007(UTC)

Applause Given: 36
Applause Received: 36

you're writing with some form of common sense, which is fine. You're not racist, so the concept is unfamiliar to you.

There is a individual here that is completely opposite of your line of thinking.

I am as white a new snow storm. Blond hair, blue eyes...Basically Prussian, German, Irish. However, because I posted a few guys responses were extremely offensive, one guy instantly came to the conclusion I was of a certain ethnic background and proceeded to make one violent threat after another, hurl insults , call names, and I am not even from the ethnic background he was sure I was from.

This shows the ignorance of a true racist who spreads nothing but hate.
So if you meet me Have some courtesy, Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse, Or I'll lay your soul to waste
thanks Post received 1 applause.
4PackGirl on 7/24/2013(UTC)
Offline DoddPower  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, July 24, 2013 8:40:35 AM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 1,862
Applause Received: 430

Originally Posted by: dhpackr Go to Quoted Post
you're writing with some form of common sense, which is fine. You're not racist, so the concept is unfamiliar to you.

There is a individual here that is completely opposite of your line of thinking.

I am as white a new snow storm. Blond hair, blue eyes...Basically Prussian, German, Irish. However, because I posted a few guys responses were extremely offensive, one guy instantly came to the conclusion I was of a certain ethnic background and proceeded to make one violent threat after another, hurl insults , call names, and I am not even from the ethnic background he was sure I was from.

This shows the ignorance of a true racist who spreads nothing but hate.


LOL, the jumping to conclusions was hilarious, although in an unfortunate way.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
dhpackr on 7/24/2013(UTC)
Offline wpr  
#4 Posted : Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:01:17 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,844
Applause Received: 1,370

Wade I will have to read your novelette when I have an extra hour or two. It looks very interesting.

From a sports perspective I am always shocked (well surprised) when I learn of a persons ethnicity. I just don't think about it. They play for my team so they are "green" is they are a Packer. They are "red" if they play for St Louis.

I will say that I do enjoy speaking to people from different cultures. I ask a lot of questions. It is a lot cheaper than traveling to their different countries or the different parts of this country.

My dad was German and my mother Italian. I was brought up to be proud of my heritage so I naturally want to know what other people can tell me about theirs. I never would have thought it would get me into trouble but there are those who would think my asking people where they come from is based on racism. So I have to think about how I word my questions and who I ask.

"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Offline 4PackGirl  
#5 Posted : Wednesday, July 24, 2013 9:09:07 AM(UTC)
4PackGirl

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/17/2006(UTC)
Location: illinois

Applause Given2: 151
Applause Received: 123


I was born & raised in small town America with one black family in our entire town.
I absolutely detest prejudice - it literally makes me sick to my stomach.
I have no idea how this happened because it would've been easy for me to be a bigot but I inherently believe the good in my fellow man.
I don't see color - I see people - I see someone who came into this world exactly the same way I did.
I am adopted & maybe that's part of why I feel the way I do.
I guess I feel that I could have easily ended up the way a lot of other people have but for the grace of God, I was adopted by amazing people who love me.
I am thankful for the blessings I have but not for the things I have.
I feel sorry for people who don't feel the same way I do.
Sure I've had some really crappy things happen in my past but I have my health, my family, & in the end, they are all that really matter.
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 7/24/2013(UTC)
Offline texaspackerbacker  
#6 Posted : Wednesday, July 24, 2013 5:15:40 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 403
Applause Received: 233

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
I thought about adding this to the "Prejudice" thread in the Back Alley, but I decided to start a new one here in Random Babble instead in hopes that people will save their vitriol, ad hominem and otherwise, for there and not put it here. So, Kevin, I'd ask that you keep the threads separate. (Obviously, if people cannot resist the temptation, feel free to combine/delete/whatever.)

Anyway, I have three observations.

First, that the concept of race itself is, arguably, itself intrinsically racist. What is the purpose of the classification? Seriously? It is to say these people are "different" in their humanity than these other people. Well, I'm sorry, but that isn't the case.

Oh, people may be culturally different by virtue of how they have been socialized to deal with others because of the particulars of their tribal/ethnic/national/religious background. But the notion that somehow human character is going to be correlated with skin pigmentation, lip shape, hair curliness, or any of the other indicia we might use to separate "race" from those other categories, well, that strikes me as silly if not ludicrous. It seems to me that if you distinguish Joe #1 from Joe #2 because #1 is "black" and #2 is "white", you are making a racist distinction. And that is true, whether you yourself happen to have dark skin or light.

Or to put it another way, we're all racists (since we've all made that sort of distinction). Which brings me to ...

Second, talking about race is useless and counterproductive unless one is simply counting the distribution of physical characteristics (e.g., figuring out how to deal with sickle cell anemia); its not helpful, at all, in getting anywhere on the questions of human character and human quality. Insofar as there are "group" characteristics we might be able to use to distinguish good people from bad people, ethically sound people from ethically suspect from moral from amoral from immoral from evil people, those group characteristics are already going to be accounted for by the other sub-categorizations of societies and cultures: ethnicity, religion, age, political affiliation, and the like.

And so ...

Third, the real question for discussion is when each of those traditional group divisions is legitimate to use as a way of separating people of one sort of character from people of another. When, if ever, is it legitimate to prejudge an individual who possesses the characteristics of the anthropological category called "Hispanic" or "Jew" or "American" or "Republican" and say they have a particular characteristic of moral character?

I think there are times when it is okay. I do not believe all cultures are equal. Some human constructs are badder than others. And if I see a middle-aged person who has spent all his/her life in a culture I consider "worse" or "more wrongheaded" or "more likely to commit bad acts", I'm going to pre-judge that person and require him/her to affirmatively demonstrate how, despite having spent his entire 50 years of life in that culture, his individual character fails to share its evils.

Call that a prejudice of mine, if you will. Personally, I prefer Habermas' slightly less argumentative term, "prejudging," because I don't believe it is possible to avoid some of those prejudices; we can't survive if we assume everyone in a culture is an exception to every bad cultural feature. To my mind the question isn't whether we are prejudiced against this group or that one. It isn't whether we are anti-Semitic or anti-Catholic or anti-Muslim or anti-Hispanic or anti-American or anti-African-American or anti-German or anti-whatever. It is when we prejudge in one of those ways.

And, that, I submit, is a really hard thing to determine. And, unfortunately, it is a thing where it is very easy to "go too far" in one's prejudgings.

I have no solution that I can guarantee works in all cases. I do have some rules of thumb I try to live by:

1. I tend to believe that I should treat people as individuals as the default, and let my knowledge of an individual's behavior, even if that knowledge is of a very small sample of their history, shape my prejudging of their character.

If a student acts like a whiner or manipulator or spoiled in the first week or so of class, I'm going to be more likely to prejudge him as a whiner/manipulator/spoiled until such time as he proves otherwise by a longer term pattern of conduct, regardless of whether I know anything about his life prior to or outside of my class. However, I'm not going to assume that all my students are whiners/manipulators/spoiled from day one even though I believe many of today's students are.

2. I tend to be more likely to prejudge people, and impose on them a greater burden of rebuttal, who have been in a culture I consider "bad" or "inferior" longer.

If I meet a Muslim who has been living in Iran since the Revolution of 1978, I'm much more likely to prejudge him as likely to be a Shi'a who buys into the teachings of the Ayatollah Khomeini, teachings which I consider reprehensible than I would one of my Muslim-American students who has lived all his life in Southern California. It is not that the person who lives in Iran all his life is necessarily going to be a terrorist or more likely to be violently anti-Christian; it is that the person who remains in a place run by such ideas for 35 years is more likely to be at least a silent collaborator (since otherwise it's a high probability he'd have been dead by now).

3. I strive to be open to any evidence that would rebut my prejudging of a particular individual.

My standard for rebuttal vis-a-vis an individual member of a group is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," it is not "clear and convincing evidence". It is not even "preponderance of evidence". Those are standards for a courtroom, for those situations where our "unwritten codes of reasonable conduct toward our fellows" have already broken down or come into actual and specific conflict. If one is in court, choices have already been made by someone with respect to someone else that may be actionable at law. Legalistic standards are for actual disputes that the parties cannot resolve themselves; they are not for our everyday dealings with individuals.

No, my standard about "relaxing the prejudging" is not a legalistic one. It is merely, "believable positive evidence." Is there evidence, provided by the person's interaction with me or with those who I trust, that leads me to believe this person is an exception. If there is, then I strive to eliminate the role the prejudging would otherwise play.

Do I always succeed in applying these rules of thumb correctly? Of course not. But I believe I do better for admitting that I will sometimes prejudge than by idealistically claiming "we should never be prejudiced against people because they're in a group. I don't think that's possible. And expecting the impossible, of others OR of myself, simply leads me to more condescension, sanctimoniousness, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy.


Excellent Post. Some of that - especially your 1, 2, and 3 - were similar to what I posted in the Back Alley thread with similar name.

Nowadays, a lot of people take for granted prejudice against the good things - the close to home things. They see others spitting on the Bible and Christian teachings or bad-mouthing America, and ho-hum, they think nothing of it. Yet somebody say anything even a little bit bad about the bad things or anything basically that ISN'T us, and oh, so terrible, shame on the person who said it. And so many shout RACISM without even knowing what RACE means.

THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR RACISM - prejudice on the basis of race - one of the three races - Black, White, and Asian (I would call it "Mongoloid", except that term alone has negative implications. None of these actual RACES have anything in their overall history or background to merit need for "rebuttal" as you state it above. Various ETHNIC GROUPS, RELIGIONS, Groups practicing whatever behavior, etc., yes, then that rebuttal thing comes into play, but as you say, the standard shouldn't be all that tough to rebut.

Talking about race WOULD BE counter-productive if it wasn't for the need to counter the huge amount of false information/propaganda/whatever put out by those pushing political correctness and/or trying to CHANGE things in this country i.e trying to drag us down.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline DakotaT  
#7 Posted : Wednesday, July 24, 2013 6:58:12 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 638
Applause Received: 1,316

All I want to know is why is the back alley locked up? Did you Nimrods go to far again?
UserPostedImage
Offline wpr  
#8 Posted : Wednesday, July 24, 2013 7:28:47 PM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,844
Applause Received: 1,370

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
All I want to know is why is the back alley locked up? Did you Nimrods go to far again?


yes. Kevin put it away for at least a while.
"You don't hurt 'em if you don't hit 'em." Chesty Puller



UserPostedImage

Offline DakotaT  
#9 Posted : Wednesday, July 24, 2013 7:52:57 PM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 638
Applause Received: 1,316

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
yes. Kevin put it away for at least a while.


If he'd just run one jackelope off, lots of problems would end.
UserPostedImage
Offline Cheesey  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, July 31, 2013 5:08:07 PM(UTC)
Cheesey

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 7/28/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 162
Applause Received: 354

We actually are all ONE race, "mankind". It's the idiots that insist on labeling us by skin color.
The funny part is, all it amounts to is skin pigmentation. Some have more, some have less.
I honestly believe that Adam and Eve were more of an "inbetween" skin color. Not real "white", not real "black".
That's why we can have so many various levels of skin colors.
If they had been white, we only would have white people today. Same as if they were black,alll we would have is black.
There are "racists" in all colors, white, black, you name it.
Usually, it is used to try to get some kind of advantage.
UserPostedImage
thanks Post received 1 applause.
SINCITYCHEEZE on 7/31/2013(UTC)
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Recent Topics
3m / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

6m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

2h / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / OlHoss1884

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

17h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Dexter_Sinister

29-Aug / Around The NFL / OlHoss1884

29-Aug / Around The NFL / Cheesey

29-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

29-Aug / Random Babble / Cheesey


Tweeter

Copyright © 2006-2014 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.