Jason's suggestion that racism is a belief in moral superiority of one race over another is a pretty reasonable one, I think.
I dunno I just kind of think its whatever. Its expressed so many ways and its such a pervasive part of most social structures that its really hard to nail it down to one kind of belief. Dont forget that historically racism was actually primarily founded on the biological belief that people w/ a different skin color were a different species all together. That allowed white people to treat them like animals while maintaining religious faith.
Dont forget that historically racism was actually primarily founded on the biological belief that people w/ a different skin color were a different species all together.
Sure, but ultimately this was simply a way to distance the two groups of people so that they could better justify their idea that one group was morally superior.
That allowed white people to treat them like animals while maintaining religious faith.
Considering that quite a lot of religious texts explicitly allow or even support the enslavement of humans, let alone other species, that was hardly needed.
Maybe I want cancer. Then black skin is not superior. Qualify your assumptions. "If black skin is more resistant to cancer than other colors of skin, then black skin is superior in terms of cancer resistance."
A thing may be superior in one field and inferior in others. For instance, black skin may have resistance to skin cancer, but be harder to see in the dark and thus more susceptible to being hit by cars at night. All other things are NOT equal. Not ever.
Although I think that not wanting cancer is a pretty safe assumption, it's definitely true that all else is not equal. For example, apparently darker skin also tends to result in lower production of vitamin D.
Oh and there was the whole indentured servitude thing, too, which let white ppl have white slaves in colonial times. <- thats in reference to justifying slavery w/ race (just so its clear)
And yah it may have also led them to assert moral superiority, but I mean it was heavily based on a belief in physical superiority and that sort of "de facto" Othering. Though there's also the old Hierarchy of Life concept, which essentially melded and ordered physical and moral being.
Equating slavery with racism is a historical fallacy. For the majority of slave owning cultures the race of a slave was immaterial.
Ancient Rome, stands as an example of a society that had slavery as an economic cornerstone, but at the same time had slaves, citizens, senators and even Emperors of all different races.
You think that many racists are republican? Fair point, I suppose. But if I'm mentioning it, I'll give you three guesses as to who is the candidate of choice for racists. Not just the mild racists you see with the republicans, but I'm talking the candidate of choice for Stormfront and other openly white supremacist organizations.
Plenty of racists are Democrats. It's just that they tend to be the poor, no-influence racists. (There are plenty of minority people who are racists. It's not an exclusively white thing.) The influential ones with money are mostly Republican; we hear them more because they can afford to be heard.
Sakkra are vastly superior to Gnolams in 99% of scenerios. That's just how it is. Subterranean and population growth are just more useful than improved trading rates and getting the benefit of more galactic events.
I have heard some Democratic strategists asked about any possible negative impact for Obama from black voters due to his position on gay marriage state that it will have no noticeable impact in the election because the fact he is black trumps everything else. Paraphrasing of course.
The reason it's not going to affect anything isn't because he's black, it's because he's going up against Romney. It's a demographic that is categorically impoverished and discriminated against. Romney couldn't get that vote if every rapper and hip-hop artist since the Sugar Hill Gang supported him.
Equating slavery with racism is a historical fallacy. For the majority of slave owning cultures the race of a slave was immaterial.
Ancient Rome, stands as an example of a society that had slavery as an economic cornerstone, but at the same time had slaves, citizens, senators and even Emperors of all different races.
Not really true, considering that "race" doesn't necessarily imply skin tone. The Greeks and Romans for the most part didn't keep each other as slaves: they kept foreigners as slaves.
Equating slavery with racism is a historical fallacy. For the majority of slave owning cultures the race of a slave was immaterial.
Ancient Rome, stands as an example of a society that had slavery as an economic cornerstone, but at the same time had slaves, citizens, senators and even Emperors of all different races.
Not really true, considering that "race" doesn't necessarily imply skin tone. The Greeks and Romans for the most part didn't keep each other as slaves: they kept foreigners as slaves.
One of the primary sourcew for slaves in the ancient world was war prisoners*. The fact that you fight more wars with foreigners than you do with your neighbors is beside the point. During the Roman civil wars, large numbers of captured Roman citizens were sold as slaves. Also, any citizen in debt could sell his children into slavery. His racially Roman children.
Additional the presence of multiple races in the higher rungs of the Roman's social ladder shows that slavery was far less about race than socioeconomic status.
I should note that in my particular argument i'm choosing to define race consisting of clearly visible biological differences like skin tone.
Cultural differences are more clearly defined as Ethnicity. Since our original discussion was about skin color that's where I was going with it. Those black and brown roman Emperors were, for the most part, culturally roman, though as my previous references go to show, so were many of the slaves.
But then that's kind of the point. People who are racist tend to conflate racial and ethnic differences.
I'm just saying that slavery can exist, and has existed without the use of race to divide slave from masters. Slavery is an economic practice first and foremost, and money is colorblind.
* I'm an amateur historian and hold no formal degree's, so take the historical argument with a grain of salt.
I'm not racist, but I am speciesist. Fuck dolphins, and fuck aliens too. When the first alien comes in peace, I'mma make sure he leaves in pieces. Ammuhrica.
I'm in the opposite camp. I'm actually hoping the first alien comes in war and intends to wipe out the human race like a pest infestation in need of extermination. Yeah... I have a very low opinion of my species these days.
I hope that the aliens come in peace and look like the Asari and we date them and have awesome blue sex and they teach us techmology.
Elerians? They're telepathic, so they'll just bring a cruiser in orbit and mind control us. It's a significantly better fate than being invaded by most of the others, at least. Klackons may possibly be the worst...
Equating slavery with racism is a historical fallacy. For the majority of slave owning cultures the race of a slave was immaterial.
Ancient Rome, stands as an example of a society that had slavery as an economic cornerstone, but at the same time had slaves, citizens, senators and even Emperors of all different races.
Not really true, considering that "race" doesn't necessarily imply skin tone. The Greeks and Romans for the most part didn't keep each other as slaves: they kept foreigners as slaves.
One of the primary sourcew for slaves in the ancient world was war prisoners*. The fact that you fight more wars with foreigners than you do with your neighbors is beside the point. During the Roman civil wars, large numbers of captured Roman citizens were sold as slaves. Also, any citizen in debt could sell his children into slavery. His racially Roman children.
* I'm an amateur historian and hold no formal degree's, so take the historical argument with a grain of salt.
You’re pretty spot on, once you became a Roman slave your race didn't matter as much. There were some exceptions, for example Gaul’s and Nubians made good gladiators and you defiantly wanted a Greek as your child’s tutor but beyond that a slave was a slave. The slight problem with the history is that it was predominately written by the upper classes so it becomes difficult to get an idea of the whole picture. The whole issue of historical slavery is a real pain and worth of multiple books, just remember that the Romans were not the only slave owning people and not did not hold the same customs as say the Egyptians, Greeks, Macedonians or others.
Well I, for one, welcome our new sexy blue alien overlords.
You say that until you have an encounter with an Ardat-Yakshi. Then... you say nothing.
And then there are the Gamilons, who are quite good at nuking the Earth to the point of nearly wiping out the human population (just don't bring up WW2 battleships with them -- it's a bit of a sore spot).
Also, for those that didn't know what elerians were... one of the master of orion II races. Their women are Klingons, their men are super-powerful telepaths, and they apparently all look like this:
Also I never noticed it before, but what the fuck is wrong with that hand?
Bloody hell, Rym too? Now the question is, which of the two made the other a heretic.
I've been waiting for sexy aliens for as long as the adjective "sexy" has meant anything to my human brain.
YOU made a HERETIC out of our little Gomily?! How dare you, you Chaos scum! Next you'll tell me you would want to have sex with her in the missionary position with the intent of PROCREATION. Filthy, filthy sexy-xeno-lover. Where is my promethium.
Comments
And yah it may have also led them to assert moral superiority, but I mean it was heavily based on a belief in physical superiority and that sort of "de facto" Othering. Though there's also the old Hierarchy of Life concept, which essentially melded and ordered physical and moral being.
Ancient Rome, stands as an example of a society that had slavery as an economic cornerstone, but at the same time had slaves, citizens, senators and even Emperors of all different races.
Additional the presence of multiple races in the higher rungs of the Roman's social ladder shows that slavery was far less about race than socioeconomic status.
I should note that in my particular argument i'm choosing to define race consisting of clearly visible biological differences like skin tone.
Cultural differences are more clearly defined as Ethnicity. Since our original discussion was about skin color that's where I was going with it. Those black and brown roman Emperors were, for the most part, culturally roman, though as my previous references go to show, so were many of the slaves.
But then that's kind of the point. People who are racist tend to conflate racial and ethnic differences.
I'm just saying that slavery can exist, and has existed without the use of race to divide slave from masters. Slavery is an economic practice first and foremost, and money is colorblind.
* I'm an amateur historian and hold no formal degree's, so take the historical argument with a grain of salt.
They're built specifically to be better than humans, yet we keep them as a slave race. That always works, right?
Also I never noticed it before, but what the fuck is wrong with that hand?