Prejudice and Descrimination-Past and Present

Remove all ads!

Since we have several threads that deal with various prejudices and discrimination I thought we might discuss what them in general rather than hi-jacking other threads.

Discrimination can be used in both a positive or a negative sense. We all discriminate in our daily lives. Who we are friends with or where we shop or what we buy, read, eat, wear etc.

Discrimination is negative when it places a person or persons in a second class category, making them less than we are. We all do this to some degree or other frequently with out even realizing that we are discriminating.

Prejudice, IMO, is a negative thing. I simply do not like a certain person or persons and if possible choose not to associate or deal with them. Rationals have been given for various prejudices usually based on religion in my experience.

Blacks were considered second class citizens because they were thought to be descended from Ham who got in trouble with God for looking on his father's nakedness.

Women have been treated as second class citizens because of statements made in the Bible or interpretations of statements made there.

Homosexuals are treated as second class citizens because of statements made in the Bible.

There are other forms of prejudices, Catholics and Protestants, Christian and Jews. Chistrian, Jews and Muslims. The whole litany of Us and Them.

My mother, a most unprejudiced person in most ways did not like Republicans. Oh, she might be friendly with some one who was a member of the Republican Party as long as the subject of politics didn't come up but I almost got thrown out of the house for saying something nice about some Republicans I worked with in an election.

However, to be fair, prejudice once established becomes part of society and even non-religious people may be prejudiced simply because they learned it at home and in their particular segment of society. Some prejudices may arise because of negative experiences.

It is quite possible to be prejudice without realizing it. In fact this is a common occurrence. Years ago I watched a show on PBS dealing with racial prejudice. A group of blacks and white sate down, literally in a circle, and discussed it. Most of the white northerners stated they were not prejudice and most of the white southerners stated that they were prejudice. The blacks point blank stated they would rather deal with the southerners who admitted to being prejudiced than deal with the northerners who stated they were not prejudiced.

In the course of the discussion who had become evident that the so-called non prejudiced northerners were prejudiced. Subtly and without even being aware of it. One woman, a professor, had stated she was not prejudiced and then went on to say, "but Blacks are not as intelligent as whites. They do not do as well in college

Moral of the above: Don't assume that because people say they aren't prejudice that prejudice has passed from our society. It is alive and well not only here in the United Staes of America but all over. .

If some one admits to being prejudiced it is possible to open a dialogue but if some one insists they are not prejudiced talking to them is as useful as talking to a brick wall."

Some one who smiles to your face and then attacks you behind you back is much harder to deal with than the person who attacks you directly.

 

Interesting topic.

This may seem outrageous, but I actually don't have a problem with either prejudice or discrimination.

If someone wants to be prejudiced or just not like someone for whatever reason, I believe they have the right to do so.

Discrimination is a tougher one. My problem with discrimination is that here in the U.S. only certain types of discrimination are illegal whereas others are perfectly fine. I have never been satisified with how the legislatures and courts have determined which is which. As an example, it is clearly illegal for a public restaurant to put up a sign saying "We do not serve men". However, it is perfectly fine to put up a sign saying "You must be 6' tall to eat here". Now even that isn't completly clear cut. For if you were a 5'10" black or white person it is probably legal, however if you were of Asian descent or a midget/dwarf it would be illegal as it would be discriminating based on ethnicity and/or a disability.

I have a problem when some discrimination is allowed and others are not. The ones that always seem to be up for discussion are based on height, weight, and beauty. That is why I am not a fan of discrimination laws. Of course, my opinion is very tainted based on where I live. In Massachusetts we seem to go out of our way to put someone into "protected" status and therefore we probably don't have as much of problem with discrimination as other states/countries. I would prefer it if the consumer was responsible for discrimination policies with their buying. If a restaurant wouldn't serve a black person, then they probably wouldn't get my business either on principle. Then again a principle based society isn't realistic so we are stuck with imperfect laws trying to force us into a principle based society.

 

I agree with BTA.

THS, I think you are using discrimination in the narrow strict legal definition of the word. To be called a discriminating person is a compliment. So the word has totally different meanings according to the use.

IMO, prejudice is irrational and leads to behavior that discriminates against others in a harmful fashion. IE: You may not like me and have a right to ignore me but you do not have a right to behave in a manner that would harm me/ Hokay, my feelings might be hurt but that's my problem.

No matter how many laws Massachusetts or any state or country passes they will not do away with discrimination based on prejudice because prejudice can be very subtle. IE: I live in an Adult Community. It is against the law for the Association to discriminate based on color, ethnicity or gender but with over 900 homes in my section we have only a couple of black families. I found out that blacks are subtly discouraged from living here. Let us be honest, people are going to want to live where they are welcome. Personally I miss the hodge-podge of New York city. Lily-white places just don't appeal to me. I was in a bit of a rush when I came here and rather naive about thinking that the LAW made a difference.

Before assuming that prejudice/discrimination does not exist ask around. Ask blacks about having store doors locked in the faces. Talk to people with an open mind and listen to what they have to say.

 

This is a very interesting topic and one which I have pondered a lot. Not so much the discrimination side as the prejudice one. We are all shockfull of prejudice and at least I try to double check my opinions of people as to not be completely overrun by my own prejudice. What really gets to me though is when every prejudice you have about someone based on for example ethnicity gets fulfilled. My most shining example are Romani or Gypsies. The prejudice about them is that they are all stealing, drugdealing, clan controlled people who don't give a **** about the rest of society. They always get pulled in by customs, when they go into a store the clerk keep an extra watch. They are generally discriminated due to prejudice. The sad thing is, the really sad thing is that I have encountered quite a few Romani, I have met several people who have encountered a lot of Romani and for the love of god every single Romani I have met has fulfilled all the negative stereotypes and everyone I know have the same experience. I am fairly sure that there are plenty of nice non criminal Romani out there but I have yet to encounter any.

Another example and not as dire but almost humorous is my limited experience of Jewish people I do not know many, mostly two guys from a computer game who live in Israel but man. They fulfil every old stereotype about jews being obsessed with money, business and cheap as hell. Really nice chaps though.

 

In most cases stereotypes are based on some sort of reality. This falls into the category of "The truth hurts".

 

I have no problem with discrimination so long as it is based on real, observed information. "I don't like person X becuase he's stingy, greedy, and puts down women a lot." That's fine so long as you have seen X do so, or heard from reliable sources that he has done so in particular instances. "I don't like person X because he's a muslim and everyone knows muslims are violent and bigoted" is problematic because it is based on a vague generalization of an entire religious group that spans the entire world. Are all muslims like that? Are you sure? Have you met them all?

Prejudice is the problem. It litterally means to 'pre-judge' or judge before evidence is presented. I'd fit just about all statements that start with: 'Everyone knows...', 'It's obvious that...', or 'All X...'. Basically, almost all generalizations are prejudices, on any topic. Realistically, though, many of them have their basis on fact and carry a grain of truth. The reputation of Jews as stingy and cheap is based off of the very old fact that in ancient Europe, Jews had a lot of money because they were very careful about investments and counted their interest carefully. They didn't squander money on grand parties, but were always looking for a deal. Many of them are still like that today, because it's a strong part of their culture. Personally, I respect them for this, as I think these are attributes worthy of achieving. Mind you, we're not talking about swindeling people here, just penny-pinching.

It's ok to keep a 'prejudice' in mind when you encounter someone or something for the first time, such as 'Gypsies are thieves', and to take proper precautions in case it is true (be prepared and all that), but you should not make an absolute judgement about them until you have your own experience. Don't call the cops because a Gypsy walks into your store, just keep an eye on them.

 

When dealing with an individual we do and should discriminate in the positive sense. That old saw "Birds of a feather flock together." has a basic truth to it. I want people in my life who are honest, straight forward , reasonably law abiding individual. Ones who care about other people and are willing to help when possible. Coming from a family with several alcoholics in it I am very uncomfortable with alcoholics and prefer not to associate with on a close basis.

As NOG has stated prejudice is a prejudgment and usually based on that "Every one knows that X is...". In Brooklyn I ran across a group of people that I really did not care for but I also met individuals of that group that were very nice.

Moral here: Keep you hand on you purse/wallet, your eyes pealed for trouble but be willing to judge the individual by how he/she acts not by what "everyone knows....".

Prejudice becomes a problem when it targets a group and does not allow for exceptions. Also prejudice can create the very behavior that we expect.

I have no idea if this is a true study because it sounds a bit vicious to me but years ago I heard of this. A classroom experiment was done where blue eyed children were treated as inferior and less intelligent than children with eyes which were not blue. According to what I heard it went on for a period of time and the children with blue eyes came to feel that they were inferior and less intelligent.

Whether it really happened or not I do not know but I do know individuals who came to feel inferior or reprehensible in some way because of the way they were treated. I, also, know women who considered themselves beautiful because they were treated as beautiful. Actually they were normal pretty but they carried themselves with a grace and dignity that made them look beautiful.

We often see in other people what we want or expect to see. I am a strong believer in individuality and try to asses each individual and not use stereotypes. Even so I have made mistakes in my judgements.

 

As Nakia pointed out, all subcultures will have a certain comfort level among their own subculture. It's often attributed to the familiarity with the basic mores and folkways that come with that group. For example, with in a church community, there's the same basic theological belief, or within a certain ethnicity a certain phrase is really offensive. Even we, as gamers, have our own jargon based on the games we talk about. But an "outsider" might not share that understanding. As a result, there is a greater risk of an innocent wisecrack leading to negative consequences...

As for the changes that Nakia has mentioned in the original post, much of that is the fact that society as a whole is slow to embrace change, but are more deliberate in accepting that change. It seems as if the various segments of society debate the issue before the decision is reached. Where I disagree is that homosexuals become second class citizens not because of who they are, but because of what they do. As a result, I don't think they will get the full equality they seek.

AS for the point about blacks and intelligence, I don't think the statement made takes all factors into account. For example, if there are differences between the culture that the blacks grow up in, the culture that white or oriental students grow up in and the culture of the intellectuals, that could reflect in test scores. Further, post secondary results are a factor of effort, and if blacks face more of a distraction, would that not impact theirtest results? Looking at one correlation is not enough to determine causation...

When it comes to judging groups, how many do we actually interact with before making such a conclusion? The lower number, the more questionable that conclusion becomes...

 

Discrimination is a very broad term, and besides its heavy implication in language, it is just a tool with which we learn. When people say discrimination, they generally mean 'prejudice', 'bias' or 'mistreatment'. Now that it's linked to racism and other stuff, the word just gets a really bad name. People can go too far with intolerance to discrimination: When objections are made to, for example, a group of homeless not being allowed into a shop all at once, by people rallying in support of the homeless ppl's vocal objections (I used to do mall security - we write about what we know), then I cet confused: I get accused of discriminating against the homeless, by denying them entrance. Discrimination in any form should not be allowed, according to some. But they are missing the fact, that this discrimination isn't about the rights of individuals. When a group of homeless enters, they are likely coming to steal. Homeless weren't going to shop, because they don't have any money. When denied access, they're annoyed and vocal because I prevented them from getting an opportunity to steal, not because they feel mistreated. So are these people trying to stop us from discriminating behaviour, or discriminating thoughts (think: discrimination in the broad sense, as a learning tool)? Because I know I have a right to think for myself.
So in conclusion: I'm opposed to discrimination, when the word correctly refers to mistreatment, as a result of bias or prejudice. But it's easy to go too far in this, and it turns into an oppression in itself, by denying people the right to use discrimination in their though processes.

 

I've found in the past that discrimination can be useful. When Rob and I got together my car needed some work before it would pass its MOT (a legal requirement for an on road car in the UK, makes sure it's road worthy). Rob is a car buff but he couldn't do all the work, he was worried that it was going to cost me quite a bit of money and offered to come to the garage with me.
Now, I'm a big-chested blonde...
The mechanic was telling Rob what my car needed and then turned to me and said 'I'm sorry sweetheart, the thing that makes your car go is an engine and there's some parts of that that need to be fixed. It's not too expensive but it'll take a while' I knew that it was a 15 minute job as Rob had already told me so I put my bimbo image out there, twisted my hair around my fingers, pouted, stuck out my chest and squeaked 'Aww, but I really really need my car'
Amazingly, I had my car back within the hour and now Rob sends me to negotioate whenever he's up against a man!

 

Nice one, Silver. I'm rather torn into two groups with that story, on one side I think it's disgusting when people automatically talk down to others on assumption, on the other hand I'm a strong believer in playing to natural gifts

As the main family computer user, I'm usually thrown onto the phone when we need tech support. My mother *always* gives prior warning to the techie on the other end:
"I'm going to put my daughter onto the phone now because she understands computers better than I do. However I have to warn you that she's autistic and may need you to rephrase things sometimes"
Fairly understandable... if irritating when the next thing I hear is:
"Hello there, little lady, do you see that big window in front of you? It has a button on the front and in the glass should be pictures"
"I'm autistic, not retarded, sir. If you struggle to use terms such as 'monitor' then I'm afraid you may be in the wrong field of work."

On the flip side, I am both mentally and physically disabled, female and hoping to enter a computing oriented career: I tick about four boxes for equal rights quotas for any potential employer. Hell I might even write that on my CV straight after my qualifications.

There was an instance around where I lived that had the hampshire firefighters were fined for not having enough racial diversity on the force... the irony of being punished for not making minorities run into fires was astounding.

 

It's not Silvery's fault if she gets a charisma bonus to conversations. It sounds like a good idea to put more points into Bluff and Diplomacy skills for her.

8people, if you hadn't said that you were autistic, I would have had no idea. What I understand of autism, is that you fail to make certain connections, which are obvious to other people. If you're treated like an idiot by others, then they just don't know how to behave around disabled people.
Positive discrimination in the workplace sounds like a good idea in principle, but can lead to bad effects, like the wrong people getting the job. In Holland, the police force strives to get 1/3 female and 1/3 ethnic personnel - but is still a long way off. It's very hard to get hired as a white male, and those who do are only a handul of the most talented. What happens when coppers on the streets are suddenly ethnic and female, is that they avoid conflict (or overreact), and give ethnic lawbreakers preferential treatment. I'm aware that some of what I just said can come across as discriminating.
There should be more public and legal acceptance that some jobs are just more suited for men, not 'male-dominated'.

 

Well, we have the same thing in our police force here Coin and a lot of people are peeved about it. Not I, the police is an organisation that needs to mirror society. If it only consisted of white males it would be a bad thing from all points of view. A homogenous organisation more easily create a "we vs them" feeling and of course it is quite useful to have officers who can relate to other people than white males. Screwing over a few people is a small price to pay in my opinion to get a more flexible and outright good police force.

 

Even the stereotype about jews that was strongly marketed in Germany during and shortly before WWII?

 

8people: So if an all whit fire department can't find a black person willing to run into a burning building, they're screwed? I'm not saying they're selfish, but to run into a burning building requires courage and confidence in one's physical abilities to get our with the person you went in to save. Those are rare traits in anyone...

 

joacquin, don't get me wrong, I think that the police force should be a mirror of society too (the 1/3 rule applies to the cities, where this does mirror society), but it's important to add if possible* to that statement.
Let me elaborate on my previous statement, before people start to think I disrespected women and ethnic police officers:
The police force is an attractive job mainly for men (men seek out danger - it's a testosterone thing), and more for white men than ethnic, because there is a mistrust towards police from certain groups. This results in more job applications from white men than other groups. If the police force could select the best candidates from the total group of applicants indiscriminately, they would get the best policemen, a lot of which would inevitably be white men, because of the large number of applicants from this group.
Now with the 1/3 women, 1/3 ethnic rule, the police force must make their choice from a far more limited pool of applicants, meaning many of the people hired will be sub-par, and perform worse than if the best white male applicants were included too. Nowadays some ethnic officers have been reported to give people from their culture preferential treatment. And some women officers require many more police reports to be filled out, due to troubles on the streets, where they either were a victim, or violently overreacted. Eventually these people are kicked out of the force, since they should never have been given a uniform.
Men are typically larger and stronger than women physically, and this adds to the confidence men have and instill in the community. I applaud strong and confident women joining the police force, because it's whether you can do the job properly that matters. But as a result of physiological differences, I must discriminate, and say that men are generally better suited for police work. Now this is where the if possible* remark from earlier comes in: It is my opinion that the work police do for the community is too important for it to be handled like some sort of parade or showcase of society. If it's possible to hire a minority, that's great, but we should hire the most competent people for such important jobs.

 

Everyone needs to pass the same tests but yes the on paper best applicant to the police is most likely a white male but to even start to get the the mix even a little even I personally think it is a price worth paying to value ethnicity or gender at least as much as a few extra muscles or a couple of extra points on a test. I know personally two guys who has been rejected from the police academy partly due to the fact that they are too stereotypical white and male ie if they hadn't been they most likely would have gotten in. I think a few bumps on the road is a price worth paying to have a police force not made up of clones. If all the jerks in uniform are too similar their prejudices will be too similar as well, better if the prejudice differ from uniformed jerk to uniformed jerk.

 

While not being a scholar of the period I'm going to guess yes. If I recall (and our German board members would know more) Germany was in a terrible depression. Therefore the Jews sterotype for being wealthy and cheap would make them an easy target to villify in hard economic times.

I think we are seeing a little of that now, with times being tougher the "class envy" of the super wealthy is increasing.

 

The stereotype was not all about wealth you know. Also a lot of talk about them being dishonest, immoral, treacherous, communist, unpatriotic etc. I suppose there was also some truth behind those?