Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
12 years ago
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)
dhpackr
12 years ago
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
DoddPower
12 years ago

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.

Originally Posted by: dhpackr 



LOL, the jumping to conclusions was hilarious, although in an unfortunate way.
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago
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.


UserPostedImage
4PackGirl
12 years ago

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.
texaspackerbacker
12 years ago

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.

Originally Posted by: Wade 



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.
DakotaT
12 years ago
All I want to know is why is the back alley locked up? Did you Nimrods go to far again?
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
12 years ago

All I want to know is why is the back alley locked up? Did you Nimrods go to far again?

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



yes. Kevin put it away for at least a while.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
12 years ago

yes. Kevin put it away for at least a while.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



If he'd just run one jackelope off, lots of problems would end.
UserPostedImage
Cheesey
12 years ago
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
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (40m) : THE GREEN BAY PACKERS ARE PLAYING FOOTBALL TONIGHT!!!!!! THIS IS NOT A DRILL!!!!
Zero2Cool (1h) : Woo-hoo
TheKanataThrilla (1h) : NFL Network is broadcasting the game tonight, but not in Canada. Not sure why as no local television is showing the game.
beast (22h) : But the Return from IR designations had to be applied by the 53 man cutdown.
beast (22h) : It's a new rule, so it's not clear, but my understanding was that they could be IR'd at any time
Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : *had to be IRed at 53
Mucky Tundra (8-Aug) : beast, I thought the designate return from IR players had to be IR at cutdowns to 53, not before
beast (8-Aug) : It's a brand new rule, either last season or this season, prior, all pre-season IRs were done for the season
beast (8-Aug) : But the Packers would have to use one for their return from IR spots on him, when they cut down to 53.
beast (8-Aug) : I think the NFL recently changed the IR rules, so maybe the season might not be over for OL Glover.
Zero2Cool (8-Aug) : Packers star Howton, first NFLPA prez, dies at 95 😔
dfosterf (8-Aug) : Apparently it is too complicated for several to follow your simple instructions, but I digress
dfosterf (8-Aug) : Zero- Did you see what I posted about Voice of Reason and his wife? She posted over at fleaflicker that they are both "In"
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : Well, not crazy, it makes sense. Crazy I didn't notice/find it earlier
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : it's crazy how one stored procedure to get data bogged everything down for speed here
dfosterf (7-Aug) : to herd cats or goldfish without a bowl. They reminded me of the annual assembly of our fantasy league
dfosterf (7-Aug) : out on a field trip, outfitting them with little yellow smocks. Most of the little folk were well behaved, but several were like trying
dfosterf (7-Aug) : Yesterday my wife and I spent the afternoon on the waterfront here in Alexandria, Va. A daycare company took about 15 three/four year olds
wpr (7-Aug) : seems faster. yay
dfosterf (7-Aug) : Wife of reason posted on the in/out thread on fleaflicker that both she and vor are in
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : This page was generated in 0.135 seconds.
Mucky Tundra (7-Aug) : Tbh, I can never tell the difference in speed unless it's completely shitting the bed
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : Sure does feel like site is more snappy
Zero2Cool (6-Aug) : I thought that was the Lions OL
Mucky Tundra (6-Aug) : Travis Glover placed on IR; seasons over for him
Zero2Cool (6-Aug) : found bad sql in database, maybe site faster now?
dfosterf (5-Aug) : I'm going to call that a good move.
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Packers sign CB Corey Ballentine
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : I'm not sure how to kill the draft order just yet so it's not so confusing.
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : *to be able
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : and because it's not a dynasty league (which makes a lot more sense to be ability to trade picks)
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Oh I know; I was just exploring and it blew my mind that you could trade picks because of the whole reordering thing
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Zero, I think I preferred my offer: your 1st for my 15th rounder
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Keep in mind, we do a draft reorder once all members locked in
Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : You can have my 12th Rd for your 2nd round
Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Hey i didn't know we could trade picks in fantasy
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Update: Rock has tried a cheese curd, promises it's not his last
Zero2Cool (3-Aug) : watch it!! lol
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : you're right, we never did leave, the site just went down :P
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Rock claims to have never eaten a cheese curd
Zero2Cool (3-Aug) : We did not leave.
Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Family Night! WE ARE SO BACK!
Mucky Tundra (2-Aug) : To this day, I'm still miffed about his 4 TD game against Dallas on Thanksgiving going to waste
Martha Careful (2-Aug) : Congratulations Sterling Sharpe. He was terrific and I loved watching him play.
beast (2-Aug) : I believe it's technically against the CBA rules, but Jerry just calls it a simple unofficial chat... and somehow gets away with it.
beast (2-Aug) : Jerry Jones is infamous for ̶n̶e̶g̶o̶t̶i̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ chatting with players one on one... and going around the agent.
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Oo just saw a blurb saying that Dallas negotiated directly with Parsons and not through his agent
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : I assumed that both guys will get paid, just a matter of when or how we get there
Zero2Cool (1-Aug) : McLaurin nor Micah going anywhere. They will get money
Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : the Synder years or do they take care of one of their own?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
48m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

8-Aug / Around The NFL / Zero2Cool

8-Aug / Fantasy Sports Talk / packerfanoutwest

8-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

7-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

5-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

4-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

28-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.