It is often claimed that racism in all but dead in America.

In the forty years or so since the end of the modern Civil Rights Movement, discrimination has become socially and economically untenable, as the claim goes.

Hardly anyone believes other races or ethnicities are down-right inferior anymore and everyone just needs to move on.

This trend of thought was noted in the early 1980's, when researchers and social scientists tried to account for the continuing reality of practical discrimination with the apparent decline in ideological racism.


The following quote deals with the UK, there are a number of such articles around the world.


In another thread I made the following comment, which I will back here with more information.


Always eager to prove I'm not just blowing smoke...

The Theory of Cultural Racism
This is a nation built on ideas, and they don't tend to become popular accidentally.


I'm sure there will be more time to elaborate, but I suspect this will be a sufficient primer.

Has racism changed its primary justification over the past fifty years?

Is "cultural racism" a phenomenon worthy of concern?

Does the theory apply to the current tensions in the United States? In Europe?

Has racism changed its primary justification over the past fifty years?

I think that racism has changed over the past fifty years as generation after generation of American has become more tolerant towards eachother. White culture, black culture, hispanic culture and so on have all influenced mainstream American culture and you cannot go a day without noticing it. Some regions of the country are slower than others to adapt (nudge, nudge) but there is still significant progress being made and it will only go foward. People are certainly looking past skin color and finding ways to coexist peacefully. However, even though people are increasingly able to look past skin color, people are still judged based on their customs which brings me to the next question...

Is "cultural racism" a phenomenon worthy of concern?

I do not believe that it is worthy of concern, well government concern anyway. The difference between biological racism and cultural racism is that culture, while it is usually ingrained in a person at an early age, is still a choice while race is not. People brought up in a religious household may carry on those customs to when they have a family, but in no way is it a forgone conclusion. People choose what customs they will adhere to and which ones they think are not for them. This is why there are so many sub-cultures and counter-cultures. Out of one mainstream culture we have many diversions and different paths. This is only possible because people are choosing these different ways.

"Cultural racism" is not a very good term in my eyes. Because culture, while related to race, is not the same as race. There are minorities who do not adhere to their own sub-culture. Does this make them cultural racists as well? I am a firm believer in cultural evolution and spontaneous order. This means that I find that certain cultures will come and go based on what society deems necessary. I wouldn't interpret it so much as there are good cultures and bad cultures but rather that some cultures are more beneficial than others. Cultures are adopted and dropped all the time based on its usefulness to larger society. This is a good thing because means that culture is ever changing and that there are not set guidelines for what constitutes a specific culture, there are always outliars.

Does the theory apply to the current tensions in the United States? In Europe?

Europe has a much bigger problem than the US because of its history of homogeneity. It is not used to alternative cultures coinciding with the mainstream. The US has had a long history of different cultures colliding and it has worked out fairly well. There will always be certain tension between varying cultures because it is one way in which a person identifies themselves to others. But eventually, customs and practices that are strong will remain while weak ones will be lost into history.

James M. Blaut wrote, in 1992:

I think he'd have to start by demonstrating that there was "a lot of racism" that was "just as pervasive, and just as dangerous as it was a generation ago." He doesn't even attempt to do this, though. I was an undergrad in 1992, and while there was the occasional racist or racially insensitive incident, I did not see "a lot of racism" at either of the universities I attended.

But Blaut just assumes that racism has persisted ("just as pervasive" and dangerous, mind you), despite the lack of recognizable racists. Then he constructs a theory to explain this "paradox," which involves academic posts being created for the purpose of "formulating a theoretical structure which would rationalize continued dominance of communities of color in the Third World and at home."

In the end, Blaut has framed criticism of any part of a "non-white" culture as "cultural racism." Could a shortage of fathers in African American families be a cause of underperformance of black children? "Cultural racism!" cries Blaut, and by the way, just by asking the question you're rationalizing the continued dominance of communities of color, just like Emmanuel Todd. Feh.

Has racism changed its primary justification over the past fifty years?

Blaut is correct that genetics as a rationale for racism has waned. I'm not as familiar with the religiously-motivated racism that he claims was dominant in the early nineteenth century. I don't see a lot of merit in his "cultural racism" theory.

Is "cultural racism" a phenomenon worthy of concern?

What is the phenomenon supposed to explain? Does "cultural racism" cause poor academic performance, or high crime rates? Or is it just another way to say "RACIST" and shut people up?

Does the theory apply to the current tensions in the United States? In Europe?

Obviously, I don't have much use for the theory. To the extent that crimes like honor killings go uninvestigated and unpunished because the authorities fear being called "Islamophobic" (clearly a type of "cultural racism"), the theory may cause significant harm.

I don' think failing at that would invalidate the whole theory.

I chose Blaut's essay because it formed a neat, short synopsis of the theory, not because I agreed with his characterization of the extent of the phenomenon.

Just its existance.

I could provide other academics who describe cultural racism, but they won't be as tidy, and since they come from journals I access on EBSCO, no net links...

Still ifn' it's necessary.

Speaking of unbacked claims, exactly where in the article does he do this?

I'll give my own brief on what is meant by the term cultural racism.

It's is not criticism of individual cultural practices, rather it is a rationale for standard racist practices like discrimination.

Rather than saying, I won't give this job to random guy #1 man because he's genetically inferior
....it's saying I won't give this job to random guy #1 because he comes from an inferior culture.

It's an old phenomenon, we saw it it the disdain shown for southern and eastern Europeans in the 19th century. It's resurgence is, I think, due to the biological theory of racism being discredited.


Neither. It is a way to understand how racists rationalize their actions. It's not meant to stifle dialog, but to inform it.


..but there are many people who do not understand this reality and make blanket judgments about people of certain ethnicities because of their perception of the culture the person comes from.

Has racism changed its primary justification over the past fifty years?

I do not believe one can merely shift the focus to retain a bogey man. I find it very dodgy indeed that culture is now being equated with race, that cultural affiliation is being equated to racism.

Today (Monday 23rd July) a Muslim politician in Denmark publically approved attacking Danish soldiers serving in Iraq. She equatted Danish soldiers to the Nazi's who occupied Denmark. Yes racism has changed its 'primary justification'.


Is "cultural racism" a phenomenon worthy of concern?

Wise people used to say, 'all things in moderation'. This goes for culture too. Any and everything is a phenomenon worthy of concern if it gets out of hand. Especially morality.


Does the theory apply to the current tensions in the United States? In Europe?

What 'current tensions' would that be? The tensions between the Brits and the Russians perhaps? The tensions between the Greeks and the Turks maybe? Perhaps your refering to the Polish workers who have flooded western Europe and are a major bone of contention...?

Odd to see a thread started where the cause of the 'tension' is not even mentioned by name, but by proxy. 'Cultural racism indeed!'. Do you know how many countries and seperate cultures there are in Europe?

No. What is happening in Europe is not racism. It is human nature. Human society. The human condition. Greed. Avarice. Jealousy. Vanity. All these things. It is people biting the hand which fed them. It is ingratitude. It is hatred. You would take what it is to be a human being, all the negative aspects of who we are, but with out which we would not be human, these you hold in our face and accuse us. Pride. Vanity. The sense of identity one has a human being, born to a family, a nation, a culture. Now, this too is 'racism'.

Europeans as a whole are utterly neutral with regards to other people's cultural and/or religious practices. Right up to the point where those practices cause young women to be gunned down in public, girls to be mutilated and aeroplanes full of passengers flown into office towers. To understand that 'culture' caused these horrors is not racism. To understand that 'Allahu Akbar' is today what 'Seig Heil!' was in the past. This is not racism. We've seen it before, seen it on our streets. Seen people dragged away because they didn't conform to which ever ideology was then in control. Seen people murdered in the name of 'God'. Felt the blood letting in our hearts. The echo of the last massacre is still around us. Standing silently in faded photographs. watching us.




This is too simplistic. Europe has had a long and frayed cultural history, and its seen the rise and fall of both mottled and monolithic societies. What we're seeing today is an echo of what happened in the past between the Catholics and the Protestants. Back then Europe experienced perhaps its most horrendous conflict (and thats not an understatement. The Thirty Years war was a horror akin to anything the twentieth century spawned) and the reverberations never ended, not even when the fighting stopped.

Europe has a bigger problem for the same reasons its always had these problems. Geography. Europe has been a battle ground since day one. I used to think it was all in the past, that the Second World War had laid the spectre to rest at last, but it seems politicians never look back and we're doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again. Bosnia was the wake up call. A society in apparent equilibirum erupted into total ethnic and religious murder. It doesn't take a genius to understand that the war mentality is not dead in Europe. Every one seems to think it is, but the gradual slide back into war has already begun and whilst people like turnea debate morality using ambiguity's to conceal the real issue at hand, the real issue at hand is festering and building up pressure until the slaughter starts again.

Okay, you caught me exaggerating. It was his second to last paragraph (example 4) that I was responding to, but he actually limits his critique to those who claim "traditional societies" have traits that have held people back. Maybe that's a fair characterization of Emmanuel Todd's work, which he cites; I'm not familiar with it. It just struck me that by mentioning it there, Blaut was calling into doubt the legitimacy of looking at missing fathers as a factor in African American achievement. But I was probably reading to much into it.

I don't need you to dig up any citations to prove that racial discrimination still exists, I'll concede that. But I don't think you'll find much of it in American academia, either today or in 1992. To the extent that minorities are underrepresented in college hiring or admissions, it's almost invariably due to a lack of qualified candidates. If you have studies that disconfirm that, I'd very much like to see them.


So long as it's used that way, I guess it's unobjectionable. Rationalizations can be interesting to study. We lie to ourselves about why we do a lot of things. There seems to be some innate tendency toward racism and xenophobia as a biological "default setting." (I started a topic on that a while back.) People may come up with all kinds of reasons to explain their irrationally racist behavior.

Which is natural and I would say, necessary. Cultural evolution presumes that certain cultures will either die off or become absorbed by a superior culture. This doesnt necessarily mean that violence or force was used to impose a culture, but rather that certain customs or practices were adopted because of their beneficial qualities. But again i iterate that while culture plays a major role in individual identity, it is still more or less a choice. Race is not a choice. So criticizing someone for glorifying violence and materialism is not comparable to criticizing someone for being black or hispanic.



My choice of words was wrong. What i should have said is that Europe has had trouble "peacefully" coinciding with different cultures. From Alexander the Great (who did have great respect for different cultures), to Medieval times, to Nazi Germany, to present time, Europe has defended its homogeneity with force. I think Europeans just got a little antsy about their neighbors and decided to shoot up the neighborhood. The fact is that superior cultures will always prevail...if they are truly superior. The erosion of authoritarian ideals during the Enlightenment is one display of this. Monarchy, feudalism, tyranny was rejected and gave way to parliamentary democracy. I believe that barring any violent conflict in Europe, that eventually the European culture which has lasted centuries will prove itself superior to weaker cultures trying to establish themselves.

And your choice of words is still wrong, Leder. You really should nuance your view towards Europe. The way you are portaying Europe and its historical development too simplistic and you paint it with a broad-brush. Europe, for most of its history, did not have one homogeneous culture, this is important. It has always been characterised by a multitude of different societies with different and specific cultural backgrounds. One of the only cultural aspects that has unitied the European cointinent has been Christianity. Even today Europe is still a collection of different cultures and societies. Denmark, England, Holland, Germany, Italy and France, for example, may have some cultural, economic and political similarities, but they are still very distinct from eachother.

And in regard of peacefull coexistence, may I remind you of the history of my own country. The Dutch Repoublic of the sixteenth and seventeenth century was a perfect example of a cultural melting pot and more or less religious tolerance. The same can be said of the Roman Empire. Even today in many European countries there is a high degree of cultural and religious tolerance.



This sentence is a perfect example of your broad-brush approach. You lump in more than 2300 (!) years of history in order to make a simple and very dubious point which is that Europe has always defended it homogeneity with force. Could you please provide 1: evidence of a homogeneous European culture, and 2: some concrete examples of concerted attempts by all European nations to defend this culture.


Which Europeans are you referring to? Which neighbours? Why has this anything to do with a homogeneous European culture? It is true that many wars have been fought in Europe during its history, but many times these wars were a result of feudal, religious and political disputes, often it was nothing more than simple landgrab. Perhaps Europeans got a little antsy about their neighbours, as you put it, but these neighbours were their fellow-Europeans. It undermines your first statement about a homogeneous culture that has been defended by the Europeans with force.

You misunderstand, perhaps it was more poor choice of words. I am not contending that Europe (as in the continent itself) has had one single culture throughout history. By Europeans, I meant that each nation (English, French, Prussian, Scandanavian, Russian, among others) each had a very strong culture that was very homogeneous. There have always been immigrants and merchants from other nations who have passed through, but never has there been such a huge settlement of (for the lack of a better word) "outsiders" in these nations and it is difficult for them to adapt when their culture has been fairly solid for hundreds of years.



The Netherlands of the 16th and 17th centuries was a colonial empire that dominated world trade... you do not get that way without knocking some heads, which they did. They were entangled in alliances like everybody else and it helped them maintain their strength during that time period. The Roman Empire is an even worse example. Tolerance of other cultures was certainly not one of the highest principles of the Roman Republic. Christianity didn't fare to well for while either.



See above.



It doesnt undermine my argument because you are pointing to a statement i didnt make or perhaps did not word properly.

I don't see why, it's a concept as old as the hills.


Thought the context would solve that. The tensions between ethnic minorities and the majority populations in their countries of residence.

Broad-brush, but I didn't want to leave anyone out. This could include the Russians in Estonia if anyone wants to make or deny the connection.


It is simplistic.

This places all the blame on one side as is typical in debates like this. I, for one, do not claim that all of the tension caused in Europe of in the US are due to racism.

I know for a fact that in the States it plays a key role however.

In my research I've run across quite a few social scientist who say it play a key role in Europe as well.


Biological?

I've heard that's been widely discredited.

Certainly there is a biological tendency to elevate one's own social position at the expense of others using any apparent differences, but inherent racism?


Indeed, I would ask how this is a cultural issue at all?

turnea, do you not find the concept of cultural racism racist in and of itself? It assumes that a certain race is prone to certain cultures/customs/practices. It is playing off the very stereotypes it is trying to defeat. Just because someone is black or hispanic does not mean they are piegon-holed into a certain culture. They exhibit the culture of their parents at an early age but begin to take on new and different customs as they grow older. This makes the concept of "cultural racism" to be dubious because if race is not a determinate of culture, than you cannot be racist for disliking the culture.

The concept makes no assumptions at all. Just like a biological understanding of racism it simply describes how people rationalize discrimination.

Race and culture are often linked. In fact very few cultures are ever identified except by the name of the ethnic group that practices them.

The concept of wholesale "disdain" for a culture is often connected to racism.

In the American debate the crude caricatures of "black culture" for instance are typically merely the old racist ideologies in new guise.

Blacks are not inferior because they are born that way, but because of their culture.

If only they would choose to be more like white..er "Mainstream" Americans... all would be well

Thanks for explaining your previous in a different way. I agree with you that European nations throughout history did have culture homogeneity.



Here I disargee with you. I already have pointed out to the Dutch Republic in the 16th and 17th century. During these centuries a large group of 'outsiders' did settle into the country and connected / assimilated / integrated with the rest of the Dutch society.
From Wikipedia:

All these groups found a place in the Republic and all contributed to the rise of the Dutch during the 17th century.



First of all, the fact that the Dutch Republic became a colonial empire and was entangled in all kinds of alliances in order to preserve its position does negate the fact that during this time there was indeed a peacefull coexistance of different groups of cultural backgrounds wothin the Dutch society. (see above) As for the Roman Empire, it was indeed a melting pot of different cultures who more or less followed their old cultural practises without too much restriction. One of the reasons for this is that the Romans just didn't have the manpower to force their culture upon others. They did not have a policeforce nor some sort of cultural inquisition. They followed a pragmatic course. As long as cultural and religious practises did not disturb the peace and order in the provinces they would let them exist. Rome for example did not suppress Greek culture and adopted different cultural and religious practises from the people they conquered. As for Christianty during the Roman time, it is true that some emperors tried to use Christians as scapegoats (Nero is a perfect example), but in general Christianity was not suppressed so rigorously during Roman times as some people believe.

Race and culture can be linked in many ways, but they are also different in many ways. Culture has nothing to do with biology and everything to do with tradition and the evolution of beneficiary practices. I do not find that a wholesale disdadin is often connected to racism unless the person is already a racist. But people of the same race have often critcized culture that they see as harmful, Bill Cosby being one example. I do not think anyone would consider Bill Cosby a racist but he had a lot to say about a "black culture." This doesn't make him a racist because he is criticizing something that people have control over, not something they don't , like race.

Criticizing a culture for its customs and practices is just not comparable to criticizing a person's race for reasons already mentioned. The reason that we find racism to be wrong is that you are prejuding someone based on nothing but your stereotypes. With culture, you are not prejudging, you are able to see the positives/negatives of a given custom or practice. So criticizing a culture that oks out-of-wedlock births or a culture that supports martyrdom, is in no way akin to criticizing someone's skin color.

Discredited how? I was referring (in the earlier thread) to the work of Mahzarin Banaji with the Implicit Association Test:

Not conclusive, but suggestive of a biological basis. It's not something that anybody wants to be true, but wishing isn't the same thing as discrediting.


Family structure isn't a cultural issue?

A common misconception. Culture is largely innocuous, simply slightly different means human groups use to achieve the same social ends.

Don't confuse all social issues with culture.


Did he now?

I don't recall him saying anything of the sort. He talked about problems in the black community, but he never linked it to anything called "black culture"


Steven, Peter, Jesus....

...and where exactly have we found a culture that oks out of wedlock births?

Prejudicing means judgment without having investigated an issue. This is rather common in the racial dialog in this country.

Edited to add reply:

Suspects, yes. Children at the age of six have undergone some of the most fundamental socialization they will experience in their lives. Their norms are largely set.

If however that norm is inclusive, that is if a young child is exposed to racial diversity at an early age, we find that what appear to be inherent racism is simply an inherent caution about anything and anyone out of the ordinary.


It can be, but family structure in African-American culture is no different from family structure in Western culture over all.

You are under the assumption that all human groups want to achieve the same social ends. There are a few common goals, but it doesn't translate for every group.



My point stands. He may not have explicitly said "black culture" but that is what he was implying.



http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus06.pdf#010

American culture in general is failing when it comes to this. A lot of poverty and a lot of social problems derive right from this. And it keeps going up.



Do you mean racial or cultural dialog turnea? They are two different concepts.

While I do know that the anecdote doesn't prove or disprove anything, I can certainly attest to this personally. I was born and raised in India. I was a white boy in the community of an international school. My very first childhood friends were Indian, and in elementary school my best friends were Korean, African, Indian, American, Australian, etc. Formative years in this environment shaped me profoundly. To this day (I'm 38) I am drawn more to the company of Indians. I prefer being in a multi-ethnic and multicultural group. It feels strange to me to attend any gathering where everyone is white. I'm sure that comes from my childhood.

Has racism changed its primary justification over the past fifty years?

I'll accept your position as valid, absolutely.

Is "cultural racism" a phenomenon worthy of concern?

Indeed.

However as conscientious people we should discern between bias and real critique. For example, I'm all for "tolerance" of cultures, but that doesn't mean we should tolerate injustice in any form. Female circumcision, the second-class treatment of women, ideas like these should be rightly condemned. For example, Islamic, Chinese, and European cultures have all enriched the world in many ways, but all contain elements that ought not be tolerated by liberated human beings.


We fight against both injustice and prejudice in the here and now. Yet we keep ourselves joyful by seeing the long view. This world has made a steady movement from captivity to liberation. From xenophobia to mingling. From repression to acceptance and equity. From religious mumbo jumbo to more and more secularism. These are all good things, and movements that will hopefully be ongoing forever. More and more of the things which separate us fade away. Religion, nationalism, ethnicity, are all slowly slipping away. It'll be a good day when they leave us altogether!

1) Has racism changed its primary justification over the past fifty years?

2) Is "cultural racism" a phenomenon worthy of concern?

3) Does the theory apply to the current tensions in the United States? In Europe?
[/quote]


1) Racism is (and is only) the belief that one race is congenitally deficient (or congenitally superior) to another. It is based on sciences like genetics and on scientific line-breeding of animals. It has been discredited.

2) Cultural racism is, therefore, an oxymoron, or a non sequitur. There is no such thing.

3) I cannot speak to Europe, but I can certainly say in the US, the black culture I know has a few issues.

The majority of our prison population is black, yet only about 13% of our population is black, despite a huge increase in black mayors, police chiefs, police officers, prosecutors and defense attorneys in the U.S. over the last 30 years. There are many who point to studies showing discrecpancies in sentencing between similarly situated white and black defendants, etc., but the discrepancy is just huge.

The rate of black on white crime is much higher than the converse. "African Americans are more likely to be victims, arrestees and prisoners than are members of other demographic groups, and while black-on-white robberies are very common, white-on-black robberies are extremely rare. " http://www.columbia.edu/~rs328/robbery.pdft

The percentage of American blacks graduating in engineering and science, although it has increased in recent years, is still very low. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf06304/ This is despite the fact that nearly as high a percentage of blacks are now going to college in the US as whites. Thankfully, our own Turnea is an engineering major....

Blacks who choose to embrace "white" cultural behavior, like speaking correct English, are often castigated by their piers, creating a disincentive for young blacks to make the grammatical improvements necessary to compete in society.

"In his autobiography, Arthur Ashe (1981) revealed his frustration with the competing demands of the all white tennis professional circuit and “the black community”, demands that had linguistic/identity implications.

'If I had the luxury of being able to devote all my time to tennis instead of being diverted every once in a while into Black causes, I would have been a better player. There’s no question in my mind. There is little Swedish or Nordic peer pressure for Bjorn Borg to get involved with the plight of oppressed Swedes. . . at some point you have to face up to your place in American society. To find out what that place is, you have to determine how far you can walk out on the plank without feeling uncomfortable by yourself (p. 60).'

In having to choose between solidarity with his speech community and a tennis career in a white world, Ashe chose to walk pretty far out on that plank. "

http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/Emery/Emery_Ebonics.htm

Look at the Mike Vick situation going on now in Atlanta. Blacks tend to support Vick, whites don't. Vick's actions are reprehensible, whether or not they amount to a technical violation of Federal law. If the races were reversed, I do not think whites would rally to defend one of their own as the blacks are doing with Vick; the same thing happened with the miserable O.J. Simpson mess some years back. The black "litmus test" for racial solidarity is annoying and counter-productive. White culture in the US simply doesn't view things from the same flawed persepective.

I could go on, but at some point we must, as a nation, commit to being the best we can be, putting black victimization, white guilt, etc., behind us and competing with a world in which we are increasingly unable to compete on a global scale. While debates about cultural racism, etc., are useful, ultimately we must become one NATION, one team, so we can compete with Japan, China, etc., for jobs and global power. The black culture in the US is so focused on "getting even", on searching out any perceived insult, a la Don Imus, on advocating the greatness of their past African personhood (which is highly debatable--see, e.g., "Not Out of Africa" by Professor Mary Lefkowitz) that they are not putting enough energy into mastering today's challenges and teaming with the rest of our nation in building the A-team.

The one-and-only major skill that makes us as humans different from humans three hundred years ago is our technological skill. Men living in 1700 were as good as we are today in philosophy, poetry, prose, theology, music composition, art, etc. Our forebears were not even close as scientists and engineers. We need to focus in this country on being the best we can be at staying well ahead of the curve technologically, as the next great culture will be the one with the technological edge, as it has always been (See, again, "Guns, Germs and Steel")....and operating as one unified culture will help that cause.

Arguing about whether we should embrace Ebonics or support Mike Vick is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

That is not the only definition of racism

Nothing says the source of the belief of racial superiority has to be biological.

As Blaut noted, before Darwinian thought took hold racism was still prevalent. Often backed by belief that lower races were cursed descendants of Ham or merely morally corrupt pagan savages.

Moreover the examples of racism against southern Europeans and eastern Europeans vs. northern Europeans has nearly always been largely culturally based.


This has what again to do with culture?

I wonder how I survive.

Who's perception is flawed here?

Blacks share a legacy of hundreds of years of legal and extra-legal oppression and scape-goating. The average American is pretty down on monarchy too... wonder why that is?

You know you keep bringing up Jared Diamond, I've read Guns, Germs, and Steel and enjoyed it greatly. It argues the primacy of geography, not culture.

This whole list of perceived grievances simply cements my point on the skewed perspective of black culture many people have.

If you source Wikipedia, I would worry....Your definition, like so many today, confuse "racism" with "prejudice", or the generalization of individual behavior based upon membership in a group (which every human being who has ever drawn air has utilized repeatedly and will always utilize; it is also known as the scientific method; I will demonstrate below) and "bigotry", which are beliefs characteristic of one who obstinately or intolerantly is devoted tohis own opinions and prejudicies.

"GG&S" discussed geography, to be sure, but the common thread in all global dominance, as he argues, is technological supremacy. If you missed that, please re-read the book.

Ah, prejudice as the scientific method. I see a grey squirrel. I capture it and study it. I continue the process with 1000 other squirrels. From that observation process, I draw generalizations. I conclude all squirrels are grey; they have bushy tails; they are rodents; they eat nuts; and they have sharp teeth and claws. Now, we all know there are black squirrels and red squirrels, but that may not be apparent from observation where you live. But, when you have finished your study, you make certain generalizations, and to the extent of your observation, you are accurate. Every human being does this, including you, Turnea. One can only hope by being well-read and observant that you get close to the truth.

My observations of black culture are based upon facts--the fact of high criminal conduct, the fact of low academic achievement, the fact of obstinate intra-racial support for those who deserve no support, etc. I also know that black culture today is in many respects better than it was 30 years ago, with one very big exception: Blacks today seem to want a "new" separate-but-equal, but on their own terms. When black college students run to the African Studies major, I know we have a problem. IMHO, this is beyond dangerous and will keep the A-team from becoming a reality, as I discuss above.

Yep, QH, we all should be from the same nation, have no God, and be culturally homogeneous.

You're absolutely right. The way to a peaceful and wonderful society is to have one big nation who all believes in junk science like the big bang theory and global warming and lives by a moral code made up by the likes of Scientologists.

I love the fact that you put yourself on a moral and intellectual pedestal. Remember that I mentioned "put yourself" in the sentence.

Speaking of cultural prejudice... seems to me that QH is openly attacking religious people and those with national pride.

The facts are that racism in the US as we know it historically is gone. It's dead. Thread after thread, post after post no one can give contemporary information that racism impacts black lives today (or any lives really). It lives in stupid groups that march on back-woods towns and breed ignorance. So what? I have a friend that still believes that the moon landing was a hoax and that gum doesn't digest. That's stupid too. What does it hurt? No one, excepting of course that teach it to their kids, etc.

I think that the problem with the US is that there is a sector of uber-liberals that believe their belief systems and values to be superior. Funny enough, none of them are captains of Industry, nearly none have even made it to congress, and none at all are leading our nation's military. Sadly, they might end up teaching a class in one of our children's colleges. Frankly, thank the Lord they'll probably not be able to spew their rhetoric into business or science classes that really matter.

Funny enough... I'd sincerely doubt if people like QH would make "religious mumbo jumbo" type statements in the presence of people like myself. Cultural prejudice surely doesn't equate to courage, particularly with uber-liberals in US society.

Ok.


My point stands unaltered, the reasons for that belief or behavior can include culture.

I'm familiar with the idea of the scientific method and inductive reasoning however those who touted biological racism thought they had empirical backing as well.. until they didn't.

My worry is how often such reasoning is applied incorrectly. For instance the rate of unmarried mothers has grown in the white population as a higher rate than in the black population. Granted after slavery and Jim Crow the rate among blacks was higher, as it is typically among poor populations with limited access to education.

Someone provided a table earlier. From 1970 to 2004 the percentage of out-of-wedlock births:


Among whites the practice has sky rocketed to 545% 1970's level. Rates among blacks increased as well, just much slower.

Everyone is confronting the issue, how exactly is it cultural?

Diamond can field this one for me.

"Guns, Germs and Steel": Jared Diamond on Geography as Power

I don't dispute the facts so much as the assumed cause. I argue this has little to do with culture, per se. History is the primary cause.

I disagree entirely on the trumped of charges of separatism.
Edited to send transmission from home planet:

Racism is as racism does. Thousands of discrimination cases shows it's not dead by a long shot.

I never said "we all should be from the same nation." I expressed my opinion that nationalism is a negative. I do think the world would be better off without the trappings of religion, and I'm fully aware that many liberals and conservatives will disagree with me. As far as cultural homogeneity, does it really matter to the point if it's good or bad? Do you not see that it is happening? In an age of instant communication and information it is probably the most inevitable of the things I mentioned. My hope culturally is that the culture we end up with will be a culture that values justice, equity, and empathy.

You may have been too busy being affronted by my inclusion of religion to see that the traits I spoke against are all dividing traits. Whether you like it or not, religion has been and is one of the greatest sources of division in this world. The structure of organized religions are set up that way. All of them divide the "saved" from the "heathen." Or however the lexicon of the day describes it.

By the way, I love how you throw Big Bang Theory in as "junk science." That says a lot. As opposed to what, I wonder? The theory of the Big Bang has certainly a lot more to support it than, say, some invisible dude waved his hand and popped the earth into existence? May as well say a giant pink unicorn pooped the universe.

As far as a pedestal, I suppose that we could all be seen that way. We post our opinions here, and any declarative sentence could be taken that way, I suppose.

Should I be "tolerant" if your Biblical belief is that women are the subjegates of men? "Tolerant" if your belief is that sinners ought to be stoned? "Tolerant" of you wanting to live by Sharia law? "Tolerant" of religious beliefs that fight tooth and nail against contraceptive planning in AIDS-torn parts of the third world? There's cultural racism, and then there's total relativity on the other side. And I think I probably interpreted Turnea's opening post too broadly.



Well, not really. Your observations are based on conclusions you have drawn from data without context. It's plain in your language: words like "deserve," "seem to want," etc. This entire paragraph is an example of a scrambling to justify an already held conclusion by finding some disparate data. Awesome.

Of course, if out-of-wedlock births are increasing at a decreasing rate, as your numbers suggests:

Then races that already have a hefty lead in out-of-wedlock birth are going to grow less quickly than those starting at the bottom. In other words, whites will increase out of wedlock births faster because they have more room to expand (no pun). As the percentage increases to the limit, the white growth rate will naturally slow down, as it has already done for the African American population.

(If F1(x) >0, and F2 (x) < 0 for all F(X) inbetween (0,A), then F1(x-1) > F1(X) given (x-1) >/= 0 )

Theres at least some element of approaching the maximum more slowly. This same logic explains:

Whites are starting to hit the maximum, while there are still many potential, black scientists out there.

I simply must bring up semantics. If one genuinely hates another because of their culture, and not their race, its not racism technically speaking.

That being said, I agree with the thrust of the article: that culture has become the main justification for discrimination that is motivated by race.

I think I agree (with you and quarkhead), but most humans still spend these early years without exposure to other racial/ethnic groups. De facto segregation in housing means that many American children will see little racial diversity if they all attend neighborhood schools. I guess this could be an argument in favor of diversity as a compelling state interest in school assignment, as we've seen in recent Supreme Court cases...


By talking about "Western culture," you're drawing a considerably wider circle than our European friends have in this thread. Too wide, I think, especially if you're talking about norms that children adopt by age six or so. If 68% of black children are born out of wedlock (probably far higher in some neighborhoods), how can there be a norm that children should be born within a marriage? How could such a norm survive? If a child has no father at home, and doesn't know any peers who have a father at home, doesn't that become the norm?

Of course, this can happen (and has happened) in mostly white populations, too. But in the last 50 years in the US, it's blacks who have suffered the most from this. Why can't this be called a "cultural" problem? Would calling it a "social" or "sociological" problem really change anything?

As is the flat Earth theory. Since when does antiquity grant validity?

Racism has a meaning. It means to judge other people on the basis of their race. Not their ideological belief's or cultural heritiage, but their race. Thus racism can only be based on race. Any prejudism that exists with regards to cultural superiority is not 'racism'. It may be 'unfair', but its not racism.


Really? I'd love to see you expand on that example and demonstrate how the problems between the occupants of the Baltic nations and their Russian minorities consitutes 'racism', or even cultural superiority! I don't see how you can. Both peoples come from the same racial group, both cultures are predominently northern European/Scandinavian and both cultures share a common history.

To argue that 'cultural racism' is the root cause of any social problems in the Baltic is to utterly ignore reality and impose an exterior and indifferent perspective to the actual causes.


You could have fooled me turnea. It seems to me that that is exactly what your always arguing ...or perhaps your not refering to the debates we've engaged in at ?

Time and again you've brought up human rights conventions to prop up arguments which rest on racial perceptions. Now you've even expanded your scope to include cultural affiliation as being racist also. Indeed, no sooner have you claimed you don't see race as being the reason for tension in Europe than you dredge up an example in this Karen Wren person. Its as if your incapable of debating any social or cultural issue without refering to race. The fact that culture, or ideology, have nothing what so ever to do with racial identity seems to have utterly escaped you. It is possible to be dark skinned and belong to any religion. It is possible to be light skinned and belong to any nation. Just as there are white Muslims in Denmark, so also are there dark skinned agnostics!

This perfectly logical and straightforward truth appears to have escaped a great many people in the world today so I'll not hold it personally against you but I would like you to stop pretending that your not obsessed with race!


Still arguing race.

From just this one quote I can already see how simplistic Karen Wren's grasp of the situation is. She is either ill informed, or politically biased. Claiming the state of Danish culture, which is not racist nor anything remotely like being racist, is due to the 'culturalist bias of academic research' is so profoundly up its own fundamnetal orifice it beggers belief that any one can take such nonsense seriously. Am I to assume this is the sort of data upon which your accusations of cultural racism are founded? The bloated self importance of academia??? Please tell me this is not so!

Den Danske forening is not the 'most signifcant anti-immigration movement'. It is but one faction amongst several and has little direct cultural or political influence. It is a fringe movement. There is no one single 'most signifcant anti-immigration movement' anyway nor does any one grassroots movement have the sort of impact on Danish society which would allow the development of a 'culturally racist discourse in Denmark'. There has been a debate regarding Muslim immigration in Denmark due to the explosive costs of this immigration. That is all. This debate has been labelled 'racist' for no other reason than that it exists at all.

As for Søren Krarup. He is an outspoken and rude member of the Danish People's Party. He is not a 'media celebrity'. In fact he hardly appears in the national arena at all. On a few occaisions he has made comments which go beyond the pale and this has been reported as such by the media and received broad reproach for his boorish behaviour. That is all. Very few people pay attention to him, and he is a burden even to his own party. Any one who needs to reference Søren Krarup in an analysis of Danish culture is stretching beyond the breaking point in order to maintain a personal bias.

Actually, the common perception of the Muslims as being like the Nazi's in Denmark has more to do with Muslim youths spray painting 'Death to the Jewish Pigs' on synagogue walls than anything Søren Krarup might say or believe about Christianity.

...an oft-employed if little-heeded argument, sadly.

...and considering housing discrimination and the legacy of legally and extra-legally enforced segregation, I'd be careful about the implications of "de facto".

You'll find first that Christianity still has a firm cultural hold on African-Americans. Also very few black children don't know anyone who has a father in the home.

A problem I see is that so many people want to get an idea of a culture by trying to peer through lead. If you want to know what someone believes... ask them

You find that views of marriage and children figure far more closely to age than race.
Pew Research:As Marriage and Parenthood Drift Apart, Public Is Concerned about Social Impact


Well, yes because it stops the racial blame game.

When we get realistic about our issue it's easier to solve them. I don't think having children out of wedlock is a shared cultural value of black, Hispanics, and Native Americans. In fact, I think the idea is a bit silly.


The growth in the Asian/Pacific Islander groups started a little higher and yet grew far slower, what up with that?


My point is I don't think people are that rigorously logical. Typically they make judgments about a persons culture based on their appearance. Thus race and culture get conflated.

I not saying it's rational, just that it's typical.


Eh?

No, I brought those up because we were discussing religious expression.

Did I also consider the racial side to the debate?

I strongly suspect people find it a lot easier to abridge the freedoms of people who don't look like them.... but strictly speaking my argument on international law can stand alone.


I would argue back that it is unwise to assume it doesn't apply here. It's no obsession anymore that you are obsessed with Islam. I simply believe it plays a significant part (not the only part) in what is taking place.

..and clearly I'm not the only one.

I will interpret "cultural" in the question to mean a widespread and presumed shared value. "Racism" is simply a variation of hatred which happens to be triggered by a profile of superficial characteristics such as skin color and other ethnic features. Since every individual passes through a stage in life in which they must learn to discern between superficial vs. substantial issues, every generation born will be potentially susceptible to hatred as such, and racism specifically. Whether individuals can collectively inflate that intellectually stunted point of view to a widespread cultural value depends on the state of education, broadly speaking. Education here is not just "schooling" although that can certainly be a part of the equation.

Given the exponential rise in the availability of historical information and continual bombardment of anti-racism dialogues throughout all media today, including the Internet, I suspect although not impossible, it would be difficult to reconstitute a majority of the population with racist values. But it would be a never ending educational effort since their are always people who enter adulthood misinformed or lead a life unexamined. A populace well-informed of the historical struggle against racism would be unlikely to ever be seriously racist since there are no rational arguments to support such a point of view or belief.

Certainly, the less developed a country and the more impoverished its educational system is, the more likely bad apples will slip through to spread the rotten pulp of racism into the educational void of the majority.

Has racism changed its primary justification over the past fifty years?


No. The attempts to justify racism will always be related, at the core, to perceived biological differences.

Is "cultural racism" a phenomenon worthy of concern?

"Cultural racism" exists only in its relation to race - again... biology. I think there is some confusion regarding "cultural racism" in comparison to nationalism. Or there is a deliberate attempt to use a "power word" like racism in order to grab attention.

Does the theory apply to the current tensions in the United States? In Europe?

No. I think the issue of nationalism is more applicable to the current tensions in the United States and in Europe.

When we are talking about the vestiges of racism in the United States - and it does still exist - we are still talking about biology and perceived cultural differences that stem from biological differences. When we are talking about Muslims in Europe (which is what, I assume, you are referring to), we are talking about cultural differences that stem, not from biology, but from actual differences in culture... in ideology.

For the most people do not have a problem with Arab Christians. They have a problem with Arab Muslims. Now, there may be some element of racism that occurs when people assume that all Arabs must be Muslim, but this would be a racial perception that stems from a cultural prejudice and not the other way around - the issue is with the Muslim culture... not the Arab race.

I know it may be a little difficult to get your faith and your nationalism challenged all at once, but this statement, especially given the part of the world you live and have lived in, is just absurd.

Mistreatment of people because of the color of their skin continues. I bet if I could look through your posts about affirmative action I could find some claims of existing racism in this country.

Racism continues to exist. And while racism continues to exist the group that holds the most power holds the most power to harm.

This site and the lawsuits it links hold evidence of continued racism in the United States.

My wife calling on clients at home while Harold Ford Jr. was running for the Senate encountered at least 3 comments of I'll never vote for a *expletive*. One client used the word after she had met our biracial daughter (and apologized profusely for in a later meeting) My high school's football victory-hungry crowd often urges our coaching staff to go recruit some more black kids so we can win. At the same time as our extremely white school began increasing its efforts and results at recruiting students of a more diverse background, I had a conversation with an alum and he was expressing a concern about how the school was going to accommodate incoming black students. It took me a while and then I figured out as he explained himself, that he believed black students couldn't hack the same academic load as white students.
I have family members who, when in the cocoon of their friends and family, still use the n-word.
I witnessed a co-worker in Alabama who had an engineering degree but had worked in a kitchen deal with racial profiling of a type I didn't believe existed anymore. He was often pulled over while driving. He was pulled over in Montgomery (his home town) and taken to the police station because his address on his license was not current. Most of us get verbal warnings for that offense. He missed a day's work for that one.
The fraternity/sorierity system of the University of Alabama was still segregated when I left the campus at the end of the previous century.
During the time we were there and organization called then the Southern League (now renamed due to threat of a lawsuit from a baseball organization with the same name. The new name is the League of the South) cropped up with a more subtle but still racist spin on old themes. The ensuing campus newspaper debate fleshed out the racism for the officers. Two faculty members and a teaching assistant in my department there were heavily involved in the formation of that organization.

Racism exists. That is the fact Aevans. Perhaps Louisiana and Texas cured themselves of this despite the recent evidence from the Katrina stories including a Houston based comment from our president's mother that was highly suspect.


I agree with Quark that we are moving toward a more and more blended culture and we must continue to improve our mutual respect and empathy for different cultural patterns. Lines can and should be drawn (human sacrifice i.e.), but we should not dismiss groups because of stereotypes. We should not condemn a major religion because it spawns fanaticism. By that criteria, Christianity should have been condemned long ago.

How was that true of religiously inspired racism?