Who profits? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pennywise121 · 04-08-2005, 10:39 AM

i was sitting in class, and two questions were posed that really got my attention.

1. What purpose does racism (ageism, sexism, and any other -ism you can think of) serve?

2. Who profits from racism (ageism, etc, etc)?

i am not simply talking about dollar signs here. there are many ways one can profit from such things. i have to run to class rather soon, but assuming this thread doesnt get deleted for improper topic or some such, i will give my thoughts on it in a bit.

now, i know this is not directly an issue dealing with philosophy, but there isnt any social science thread, and given the amalgam of possible response origins, i figured philosophy was the best place to put this thread.

now, with that out of the way, i'm interested in your thoughts......

Mbwuto · 04-08-2005, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pennywise121

i was sitting in class, and two questions were posed that really got my attention.

1. What purpose does racism (ageism, sexism, and any other -ism you can think of) serve?

2. Who profits from racism (ageism, etc, etc)?

i am not simply talking about dollar signs here. there are many ways one can profit from such things. i have to run to class rather soon, but assuming this thread doesnt get deleted for improper topic or some such, i will give my thoughts on it in a bit.

now, i know this is not directly an issue dealing with philosophy, but there isnt any social science thread, and given the amalgam of possible response origins, i figured philosophy was the best place to put this thread.

now, with that out of the way, i'm interested in your thoughts......

Racism reinforces the bonds between a group of people. Of course, not just racism. Tribalism, religion, nationalism, all these things serve the same purpose. When you need to keep people together, you reinforce the idea that people who aren't of said group are inferior. This acts as a idealogical adhesive.

The profit arises from:

1. Increased group cohesiveness
2. Power that arises from a group with a common goal

irateplatypus · 04-08-2005, 10:57 AM

oftentimes, those divisions are drawn in order to scapegoat.

if there is an internal problem, those with the most to lose by a social/economic/religious change will cast the blame outside the "group" so as to shift responsibility to someone else.

lindseylatch · 04-08-2005, 10:59 AM

Yes, of course, the group in power are the ones who benefit. Whether monetarily or psychologically.
In-group bias, people. Since we belong to a group, we have to believe that group is somehow superior to people outside the group, so we can feel good about ourselves. Yummy...You learn so many fun things in psych classes. It's almost like a cognitive disonance thing: since we're in this group, and we're better than average, this group must be better than average. And then that excuse is used to justify all kinds of things.
You should do some reading about the teacher who did a little eperiment in her classroom, where she seperated the kinds with blue eyes from everyone else, and said they were better. The kids actually started believing it, and acting as if they really were better. Then she switched, and said the blue eyes kids were worse, and everything switched as well. Crazy shit. I'll try to look up her name. Keep an eye out for an edit.
Works even when the seperating factor is something completely arbitrary, and there really IS no meaningful differences between the groups.

Edit:
Well, that was fast. Her name is Jane Elliot, here's a link to the first page I came across.

flstf · 04-08-2005, 12:10 PM

IMHO people with low self esteem tend to be the most prejudice in order to somehow build themselves up. Besides we all know that blond haired blue eyed people are superior.

kramus · 04-08-2005, 12:41 PM

I think the "isms" are a very basic holdover from when we were evolving/separating from the different cousins we had oh so many moons ago. Us vs. them was as real as it gets when you talk about intelligent social beings with (probably) their own versions of culture and language etc. but a different physical makeup. Very real and to the death Just because we eventually exterminated all near cousins and took over their turf doesn't mean that the mechanisms which led to that extermination atrophied or ceased. They just became inverted and used to keep our individual sense of community strong by seeing outsiders as less than complete, more evil, and not worth allowing all the space we give our own.

Cynthetiq · 04-08-2005, 12:51 PM

seems to me like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have both profited heaviliy from racism.

Phage · 04-08-2005, 01:49 PM

It takes effort to deal with people who are different. Misunderstandings and conflicting ideals are not easy to deal with, and it is natural to want to avoid dealing with the situation. Simply put, the profit of the "ism"s is not needing to change a method of thinking. You could call it mental laziness.

merlin · 04-08-2005, 06:32 PM

racism is meant to make certain people feel better about themselves. no one likes to be last, or be the lowest in society. so people try to put others down so they have the advantage. kinda the same with the other -isms

who profits? well the people on top. they profit from having the upper hand in things, whether its money or not.

pretty silly if you ask me

Lebell · 04-08-2005, 07:26 PM

At it's root, racism stems from instinctual fear of that which is different and which presumably could threaten the individual's existance in some fashion. This can then extend to the group, tribe, nation, etc.

Johnny Rotten · 04-08-2005, 10:01 PM

In the form of a racist leader, hate and fear are popular tools to gain power, along with a healthy dose of ignorance. Power over people's opinions. Power over how far they're willing to go to pursue the ends you convince them of.

In the form of personal opinion--hate, fear and ignorance can still prevail. Racism isn't an opinion, it's an epistomological defect.

OFKU0 · 04-09-2005, 09:29 AM

Racism, bigotry, anti-semitism, etc,....is an interesting topic from where it stood in the past to where it has evolved to.

When in the past large groups of people had negative opinions of blacks, asians, jews,...these opinions were largely ignorant or had the bandwagon type mentality associated with it. In other words, people were racist because they were told to be as such,whether quietly or otherwise.

Things have changed now due to globalization. The workforce in any field is reminicent of the United Nations by it's employee base. People now see others as equals more often then not and also and are less discriminatory. Of course there will be pockets of people who are vocal champions of racism, and those who are tight lipped about it, but generally racism is on the decline and has been for years.

This is where cultural and ethnic groups step into the now world of racism, bigotry, anti-semitism etc,.....When numbers are down of racist incidents, and when such events happened, the screams are deafening. Everybody has to know what, when, where, who said what and on and on. Not that this is a bad thing, but what happens is the past get's being brought up and regurgitated ad nauseam. People say enough, we don't want to hear about it anymore, stop beating us to death with guilt. And if you say that, well you are a racist and are turning a blind eye to racism, just like ones descendants.

But enough is enough. If a black is openly called a nigger, the thought of disgust should echo through us all. But do we need the history of segregation, Martin Luther King, etc,...jammed down our throats to make us understand more clearly? No. We are smarter than that. When anti-semitism rears it's ugly head, do we have to be reminded of 6 million jews who died in the Holocaust? No.

But we are reminded of such because it is profitable. In other words, it would be a hard sell to accuse those who are victims of perpetrating racism for monetary cause, but if the slightest event of racism, or percieved racism enters the fray, those apparently being victimized don't waste a second running the gambit to the nth degree.

Should they be quiet and bite their tongues in the face of indifference? Of course not. But to profit from victimhood and to be everlasting victims and dare I say revel in it for any type of gain, creates an indifference towards those so inclined because they are using the system that no matter what, will always deem them victims. And to speak as I have will get you labelled at the least as insensitive to the worst, a racist, which in my books is one of the most overused words that, to many, has lost the real value in it's truest sense.

asaris · 04-09-2005, 10:59 AM

I'm curious about something in connection with this thread. What distinguishes appropriate forms of 'isms' from inappropriate forms? What I mean is, I assume we all think racism, sexism, etc. are bad. Some of us probably think that some sort of nationalism is good. And most if not all of us think that we should to some extent prefer our family to strangers. So what makes some preferences good and some bad?

Seeker · 04-10-2005, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

So what makes some preferences good and some bad?

Our social and personal values, ideals and morals...

This was my immediate thought anyway

pennywise121 · 04-11-2005, 10:17 AM

Thank you for all the responses thus far. I have only now caught up on them, soi i figured it was time to put my own thoughts down.

To me, the purpose of racism and pretty much any other -ism i can think of is this: power. not only the attainment of power, but perhaps more often the maintainment of it. when one is in a position of power, one has a vested interest in keeping that power.

Now, in response to OFKU0, much of what you say is true, but i would debate one point. I dont see any evidence that we have gotten less racist as a nation. we have gotten SMARTER about our racism, that much is certain, but it is still there. (we still have work to do to get smarter about sexism, but thats a thread in itself)

The pendulum has swung the other way, and now it is no longer socially acceptable to be blatantly racist, but there are many ways to do it. the wage disparity, the unexplainable multiplication of unemployment rates, the lack of social/political power and mobility are the effects of a continued discrimination. Granted, there are some very powerful, very influential minority figures, but they are the vast exception, rather than an indication of the lack of racist pressures.

Seeker · 04-11-2005, 06:52 PM

Isn't this attainment and maintenance of 'power' only sought to to fill an inferiority we feel in ourselves?

And does not this in itself show the purpose and profit of 'ism's?

pennywise121 · 04-12-2005, 09:01 AM

i wonder. if we choose to support our family in getting jobs at our company (nepotism) is it because we feel inferior? or if we are ageist toward the elderly, do we do it because we fear their power? i do not doubt that many of the -isms we have serve this purpose to some varying degree, but we cannot remove the realm of things that are done because they can be, or because they have always been done.

many americans are nationalistic because they truly feel that america is great, but many racists act the way they do simply because they were socialized into it, and havent given it the thought necessary to see the idiocy of their actions.

moreover, what of the sex differential in pay? women make 76 cents for every dollar that men make. granted, much of this could be because men are threatened by women in the workplace, but entertain the hypothesis that women are still making less simply because no one has made any significant changes in the way the capitalist world is run (the way the game is played, so to speak). if modeling theory is at all correct we base our behaviors off those that are powerful and rewarded for their actions, and if these powerful leaders are seen as untouchable by the law for discriminatory practices of one form or another, is it any wonder that these practices continue?

Food for thought

OFKU0 · 04-12-2005, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pennywise121

granted, much of this could be because men are threatened by women in the workplace, but entertain the hypothesis that women are still making less simply because no one has made any significant changes in the way the capitalist world is run (the way the game is played, so to speak). if modeling theory is at all correct we base our behaviors off those that are powerful and rewarded for their actions, and if these powerful leaders are seen as untouchable by the law for discriminatory practices of one form or another, is it any wonder that these practices continue?

I don't think men generally are threatened by women in the workplace any more than women being threatened by men. Those who go to work and do their job are more worried about saving it than who is what or where.

The way the capitalistic world is being run is changing for the better in some instances but worse in other circumstances. I think a positive approach is that women are being recognized for more than menial jobs they once had. There are more women CEO's, CFO's etc than ever before.

The negative side of capitalism for both sexes is that people are disposible at the drop of a hat. Company loyalty to it's employees in general is abysmal. No wonder more and more people are getting as much as they can while they can. What goes around comes around, but the person signing the cheques still has the power. That will never change.

In this weeks Time magazine;

Average salary of university-educated Asian American women in 2003:
$43,656

Average salary of university-educated black American women in 2003: $41,066

Average salary of university-educated white American women in 2003:
$37,761

pennywise121 · 04-13-2005, 08:33 AM

UFKU0, i found something that you may be interested in. i hate extended quotes, but ill try to keep to a minimum, and give the link for full context. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=44984

Quote:

According to recently released 2004 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, African American women working full-time, full-year earn $26,992 in median annual earnings, compared with $32,036 earned by comparable white women workers.
Among those with a bachelor's degree alone, African American women earn $38,160 compared with $40,700 earned by comparable white women. African American women are also less likely than white women to hold bachelor's degrees or higher, with only 16.7 percent of African American women holding bachelor's degrees in 2004, compared with 24.6 percent of white women.
When comparing the median earnings of all workers (regardless of work schedule or amount of time worked), college-educated African American women do earn slightly more than white women. This is likely due to the greater work effort shown by African American women who tend to work more than other women with the same educational background. Recent analysis conducted by the Economic Policy Institute shows that college-educated African American women work, on average, 1,923 hours per year, compared to the 1,734 hours per year worked by college-educated white women.
"That disparity adds up to over a month of additional full- time work by African American women. With that level of work effort, it would be a tragedy if African American women weren't earning more," comments Avis Jones-DeWeever, Study Director at the Institute for Women's Policy Research.

But for many, working more is not enough. Census Data from 2003 also show that African American women are far more likely to live in poverty than are white women, with 26.5 percent of African American women, and 9.1 percent of white women living in poverty.

as it stands for me, i had to reinstall windows, and have not yet reinstalled SPSS. i have the GSS (general social survey) for 2002 and was thinking about running the numbers myself. i'll get back to you on that once it is done.

with regards to the male/female fear issue, ask any woman who is working in a male-dominated field if she thinks men get better treatment. 98% of the time (according to Harvard's research), they will say yes.
now, ask a man if he is worried about the recent trend of women hires in typically male dominated work (and i dont mean hires as secretaries). i am fairly confident that there is quite some concern in some cases, and downright hostility in others. now, am i saying that every man is afraid or every woman is afraid? of course not. but i can guarantee that some are.

when it comes down to it, we must be careful of the numbers that are printed in any news media. the numbers that are fit for print are rarely trustworthy because they tell only part of the story; the part that is most controversial.

Seeker · 04-13-2005, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pennywise121

i wonder. if we choose to support our family in getting jobs at our company (nepotism) is it because we feel inferior? or if we are ageist toward the elderly, do we do it because we fear their power?

I was thinking more along the lines of 'our own power'. Who are we if we don't support or do not continue in the lines of our upbringing? These actions would support our place in the world, who we are. If these things were threatened you justify yourself with these ism's. The fear or inferiority would be to lose our purpose and perceptions of who we are.

Does this make sense? Yes, indeed food for thought!

pennywise121 · 04-13-2005, 09:28 PM

seeker, this makes perfect sense! as i said, once we are in a position with some sort of power, we have a vested interest in maintaining that power.

the larger issue here is what effect that has on those that are not immediately within our sphere of control? if we are maintaining our power in one form or another, there is almost invariably a loss of power or control from those without the power. moreover, if you want a real mind fuck, think about the consequences for those that HAVE been helped. if we get a family member a job, are we not limiting their choices (assuming they dont actually have all the necessary qualifications for the position), given that they may not have the same job prospects outside the family company?

perhaps my mind runs away with me too often

OFKU0 · 04-14-2005, 08:20 AM

[QUOTE=pennywise121]

Quote:

UFKU0

It's OFKU0, but don't worry about it.

Quote:

when it comes down to it, we must be careful of the numbers that are printed in any news media. the numbers that are fit for print are rarely trustworthy because they tell only part of the story; the part that is most controversial.

As with special interest lobby groups as well. The numbers I took from Time were a collection from other news sources. Were they accurate? Beats me. But they were there. I rarely trust any one source since any statistics can be remodelled to fit whatever agenda is being pushed.

Not to piss up your tree pennywise, but I really couldn't care less about inequalities in the workplace with regard to either gender. Most of the women I know are professionals and never do I hear them complaining about less pay in comparison to their male counterparts or whomever. I think it happens to an extent but isn't as overblown as any first year Women's Studies course will tell you.

Some men make more than women, some women make more than men. If someone is being paid less than their co-worker, don't bitch about, work harder. Rarely do I believe the propoganda from special interest groups or again, any source for that matter. They have an agenda. They get government money. Is there inequality in the workplace? Sure there is. But it works both ways and that's what you don't hear about.

I'm a firm believer in if you have a problem with your job, are unsatisfied to the point of extreme stress, then quit. Why bitch about it. Because someone feels special? To bad. I have done it a few times. 10 years ago I was overlooked for an advancement although my education and experience should have won the day. The recipient was a women who shouldn't have been added into the screening process in the first place. The reason given: the company was going in a different direction. Fair enough. Nothing against the fact that it was a women who got the job, just that she was grossly under qualified. She eventually was replaced.

So I quit. Two weeks later had the same job somewhere else with more pay than I would have had at the former place even with the promotion. I didn't whine and bitch about. I didn't form a group to tell the world men like me are being discriminated against. Basically the need to prove myself overlapped my need to be a victim. So I did something about it rather than not.

Inequalities exist. Some chose to let that be a ball and chain of all contempt and others do something about it. Horses for courses.

pennywise121 · 04-14-2005, 08:56 AM

lol, sorry about that, OFKU0.

in all reality, we need more people like you that are willing to take action instead of sitting around and getting screwed. for that i truly commend you. you are doing things that not many are willing to do.

my only concern is this: this is a forum for philosophy and philosophic issues. i started this thread to talk about issues like the ones we have been talking about (and btw, i really appreciate everyone's responses to the topic).

you're right; everyone knows inequality exists. everyone knows so well that no one bothers to do anything about it. i commend your activism in protecting your own needs and getting your due without going sue-happy like so many other people have, but we all have our own stories and thoughts on the matter, and this forum is the place for discussing them all. i dont have any grandious thoughts of changing the world through this thread, but it is nice to give people a place to talk about things that are moderately taboo in the world we live in.... at least they are when face to face.

i would also have to agree with you on the not-trusting most any news source (be it TV, print, interest groups, etc.). i know this is not much of a consolation or reassurance, but since the numbers from Time were brought up, i have reinstalled SPSS and run the numbers myself (you can find all the data they used at www.census.gov). the newsgroup was actually off by about 7 dollars, but nothing statistically significant

in any case, dont worry about pissing up my tree (although that would be rather interesting to see :P). i welcome any response to this thread, including yours.

oh, and btw, for anyone who is interested, check my profile to see why this is all so interesting to me.

Seeker · 04-15-2005, 03:51 AM

Pennywise121; read your profile.. I can see your passion

.

What would happen if a person who did not feel inferior, who had nothing to maintain... would that person be inclined toward ism's?

(I like to open things from a different perspective, sometimes helps

)

John Henry · 04-15-2005, 04:52 AM

The benefit of racism is that it encourages in individuals a tendency to give preference to those of a similar genome, giving their relations and thus their genes a better chance of survival.

Take two tribes: The Racists and the Philanthropists. The Philanthropists cope very well until, nurturing each other and helping each other along until one day they come into contact with the Racists. They extend to the Racists their normal hospitality and generosity, allowing them to settle, throwing them a feast, etc. The Racists return the favour with death and slavery, going on to become the Greatest Empire in the World, time and time again.

Seeker · 04-15-2005, 05:46 AM

John Henry: Nice! So the differences in our nature labels us (Philanthropists/Racists etc), giving way to the creation of classifications, ultimately ism's... thus better chance of survival = the attainment and maintenace of power.

Have I got this wrong or am I oversimplifying?

pennywise121 · 04-15-2005, 06:50 AM

lol john.
sounds like a certain country i can think of....... but its ok, right? Manifest destiny and all.

i'm being facetious of course, but the point remains the same.

in this situation (philanthropists/racists), there are a couple of things that strike me. first, the fact that one tribe is racist already injects the racism to the system, and an imbalance occurs. your point is well taken, however. even in this case, imagine instead of racism, tribe-ism. it works well. those predisposed (in this case as most others, through socialization) to feel superior already believe they have power that needs to be defended and maintained.

now, lets take your average white male in america. middle class, he is not very racist, he is just about to graduate college and hears about all the tech jobs being given to immigrants who will work for less (this actually is happening because of the united states' policy of giving preference to immigrants with needed/desired skills. 1965 immigration reform act set up 45,000 special slots for this purpose alone). he is concerned because there may not be a job waiting for him. in this situation, he feels that he should have preference for jobs in his own country. he believes there is power being lost, and the stage is set for discriminatory beliefs/actions.

basically, my hypothetical is to show that even the least discriminatory among us are just as likely to participate in -isms.

seeker, the only instance i can think of is that of an only child, before they have a conception of power or competition with other siblings at home, in this society at the very least. i dont want to start a flame war with most of us, but it would seem that it is our social definition of power that causes many of our problems. in our society, money is power, and material goods an extension of that power. we work with social capital just the same; prestige is a commodity just as any object is. ultimately, if there is no conception of power and no competition, there should be no need for -isms. but we live in a society where there is power and there is competition, and we are ALL discriminatory in some manner, however small it may be.

i do not make broad generalizations lightly; to destroy a beautiful quote quite thoroughly: show me a person who is not discriminatory, and i will show you a person who is lying to themselves...... or you.

OFKU0 · 04-15-2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pennywise121

now, lets take your average white male in america. middle class, he is not very racist, he is just about to graduate college and hears about all the tech jobs being given to immigrants who will work for less (this actually is happening because of the united states' policy of giving preference to immigrants with needed/desired skills. 1965 immigration reform act set up 45,000 special slots for this purpose alone). he is concerned because there may not be a job waiting for him. in this situation, he feels that he should have preference for jobs in his own country. he believes there is power being lost, and the stage is set for discriminatory beliefs/actions.

basically, my hypothetical is to show that even the least discriminatory among us are just as likely to participate in -isms.

This I agree with but would add that some persons discriminated against wouldn't solely blame immigrant workers. In time the wheels of thought would reveal government, industry etc,..who adopt conditions of employment such as to benefit minorities would be the main target of someones angst.

Depending on the person ( ones societal or environmental conditioning, education, level of ignorance) some may harbour racist beliefs or may have them grow stronger. Others though may not blame minorities but the source of why such conditions exist.

Just a sidenote (don't want to jack the thread) The city I live in has a population of approx. 1 million. About 10% of the population is considered bilingual. (English and French) The city is a government city. Preference for employment goes to bilingual persons in the Federal government. Here's the sticky part. A uniligual English person with very little French skills, with a university degree will likely have a very difficult time securing employment throught the usual routes ( applying for employment-no nepotism) yet a French person with very little skills in English and with only a high school education will often secure employment (again applying-no nepotism) while applying for the same position. This relates mainly to core jobs, not specializations.

It's not a secret either. But what happens is the negativity caused through frustration of English only people is directed 75% of the time at the system, not the French who secure the jobs. BUT, when the blame, let's call it racist in tone does surface toward the French, it is directed toward the French who are in the positions to hire the French, not at those brought in to do a job. That happens too but usually management takes the brunt since in order to be management, one must be bilingual.

And worthy of note too. The government has an equal opportunity system that encourages minorities, women, aboriginal people, disabled peopled to apply but the biggest complaint from that sector is that language discrimination is hindering their opportunities even though employment opportunities (actual jobs set aside for those folks) are earmarked specifically for them.

pennywise121 · 04-15-2005, 09:04 AM

all too true, and well put.

the situation you describe is one of the sticky ones, as you note. however, i would have to say that the way it is handled is quite a bit more pragmatic than a similar situation in america (i am sorry if i am misguided, but given your post, i am operating off the deduction that you live somewhere outside of the US..... Canada, maybe?).

Quote:

In time the wheels of thought would reveal government, industry etc,..who adopt conditions of employment such as to benefit minorities would be the main target of someones angst.

i am hoping that our society is progressing in that direction, but perhaps more importantly addressing our problems in such a manner that there is culpable responsibility. what i mean to say is that if people stop blaming people of India for taking our call-center jobs, stop suing Intel or Dell or any number of thousands of other corporations, and hold our government accountable for allowing and even encouraging these practices, some progress may yet be made. if, however, we continue to fight amongst ourselves and claim reverse racism and blame the individual, nothing gets done.

a digression, i suppose, but a worthwhile one for the whole idea of discussion.

(and, dont worry about jacking the thread. i've wandered so far from the original question its a wonder the mods havent pulled the thread already :P)

OFKU0 · 04-15-2005, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pennywise121

a digression, i suppose, but a worthwhile one for the whole idea of discussion.

(and, dont worry about jacking the thread. i've wandered so far from the original question its a wonder the mods havent pulled the thread already :P)

Wait until you lose the rookie status then you'll be bitchslapped but good.

pennywise121 · 04-15-2005, 11:44 AM

lol, well, i suppose i'd deserve it

damn, here i go again......... :P

Zenir · 05-12-2005, 01:42 PM

I may be making too basic of a step, but we have certain biases which we set up, such as glowing red things are hot, things that come to a point are sharp and getting hit hurts. They are not always true. Most societies do have some prejudices. These are often found (from my understanding) to be based on misunderstandings, previous theorized wrong doings, or power stuggles (history is written by the voictor).

Prejudices support internal economy in a way. This, for example, was practiced when the Japanese started creating and shipping superior vehicles into America. America's response to their success and their own failure was to add propaganda and support american companies. This ideal works only on the basis of an internalized economy. However, as a whole it is a significant waste since there is obviously a cost associated with no significant overall benefit beyond that of isolation.

04-08-2005, 10:39 AM	#1 (permalink)
pennywise121 Upright Location: Sacramento	Who profits? i was sitting in class, and two questions were posed that really got my attention. 1. What purpose does racism (ageism, sexism, and any other -ism you can think of) serve? 2. Who profits from racism (ageism, etc, etc)? i am not simply talking about dollar signs here. there are many ways one can profit from such things. i have to run to class rather soon, but assuming this thread doesnt get deleted for improper topic or some such, i will give my thoughts on it in a bit. now, i know this is not directly an issue dealing with philosophy, but there isnt any social science thread, and given the amalgam of possible response origins, i figured philosophy was the best place to put this thread. now, with that out of the way, i'm interested in your thoughts......

04-08-2005, 10:57 AM	#3 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	oftentimes, those divisions are drawn in order to scapegoat. if there is an internal problem, those with the most to lose by a social/economic/religious change will cast the blame outside the "group" so as to shift responsibility to someone else. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

04-08-2005, 10:59 AM	#4 (permalink)
lindseylatch Addict Location: Seattle, WA	Yes, of course, the group in power are the ones who benefit. Whether monetarily or psychologically. In-group bias, people. Since we belong to a group, we have to believe that group is somehow superior to people outside the group, so we can feel good about ourselves. Yummy...You learn so many fun things in psych classes. It's almost like a cognitive disonance thing: since we're in this group, and we're better than average, this group must be better than average. And then that excuse is used to justify all kinds of things. You should do some reading about the teacher who did a little eperiment in her classroom, where she seperated the kinds with blue eyes from everyone else, and said they were better. The kids actually started believing it, and acting as if they really were better. Then she switched, and said the blue eyes kids were worse, and everything switched as well. Crazy shit. I'll try to look up her name. Keep an eye out for an edit. Works even when the seperating factor is something completely arbitrary, and there really IS no meaningful differences between the groups. Edit: Well, that was fast. Her name is Jane Elliot, here's a link to the first page I came across. __________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." -Voltaire

04-08-2005, 12:41 PM	#6 (permalink)
kramus loving the curves Location: my Lady's manor	I think the "isms" are a very basic holdover from when we were evolving/separating from the different cousins we had oh so many moons ago. Us vs. them was as real as it gets when you talk about intelligent social beings with (probably) their own versions of culture and language etc. but a different physical makeup. Very real and to the death Just because we eventually exterminated all near cousins and took over their turf doesn't mean that the mechanisms which led to that extermination atrophied or ceased. They just became inverted and used to keep our individual sense of community strong by seeing outsiders as less than complete, more evil, and not worth allowing all the space we give our own. __________________ And now to disengage the clutch of the forebrain ... I'm going with this - if you like artwork visit http://markfineart.ca

04-08-2005, 12:51 PM	#7 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	seems to me like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have both profited heaviliy from racism. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

04-08-2005, 12:10 PM	#5 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	IMHO people with low self esteem tend to be the most prejudice in order to somehow build themselves up. Besides we all know that blond haired blue eyed people are superior.

04-08-2005, 01:49 PM	#8 (permalink)
Phage Insane	It takes effort to deal with people who are different. Misunderstandings and conflicting ideals are not easy to deal with, and it is natural to want to avoid dealing with the situation. Simply put, the profit of the "ism"s is not needing to change a method of thinking. You could call it mental laziness.

04-08-2005, 06:32 PM	#9 (permalink)
merlin Tilted	racism is meant to make certain people feel better about themselves. no one likes to be last, or be the lowest in society. so people try to put others down so they have the advantage. kinda the same with the other -isms who profits? well the people on top. they profit from having the upper hand in things, whether its money or not. pretty silly if you ask me

04-08-2005, 07:26 PM	#10 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	At it's root, racism stems from instinctual fear of that which is different and which presumably could threaten the individual's existance in some fashion. This can then extend to the group, tribe, nation, etc. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

04-08-2005, 10:01 PM	#11 (permalink)
Johnny Rotten lost and found Location: Berkeley	In the form of a racist leader, hate and fear are popular tools to gain power, along with a healthy dose of ignorance. Power over people's opinions. Power over how far they're willing to go to pursue the ends you convince them of. In the form of personal opinion--hate, fear and ignorance can still prevail. Racism isn't an opinion, it's an epistomological defect. __________________ "The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

04-09-2005, 09:29 AM	#12 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	Racism, bigotry, anti-semitism, etc,....is an interesting topic from where it stood in the past to where it has evolved to. When in the past large groups of people had negative opinions of blacks, asians, jews,...these opinions were largely ignorant or had the bandwagon type mentality associated with it. In other words, people were racist because they were told to be as such,whether quietly or otherwise. Things have changed now due to globalization. The workforce in any field is reminicent of the United Nations by it's employee base. People now see others as equals more often then not and also and are less discriminatory. Of course there will be pockets of people who are vocal champions of racism, and those who are tight lipped about it, but generally racism is on the decline and has been for years. This is where cultural and ethnic groups step into the now world of racism, bigotry, anti-semitism etc,.....When numbers are down of racist incidents, and when such events happened, the screams are deafening. Everybody has to know what, when, where, who said what and on and on. Not that this is a bad thing, but what happens is the past get's being brought up and regurgitated ad nauseam. People say enough, we don't want to hear about it anymore, stop beating us to death with guilt. And if you say that, well you are a racist and are turning a blind eye to racism, just like ones descendants. But enough is enough. If a black is openly called a nigger, the thought of disgust should echo through us all. But do we need the history of segregation, Martin Luther King, etc,...jammed down our throats to make us understand more clearly? No. We are smarter than that. When anti-semitism rears it's ugly head, do we have to be reminded of 6 million jews who died in the Holocaust? No. But we are reminded of such because it is profitable. In other words, it would be a hard sell to accuse those who are victims of perpetrating racism for monetary cause, but if the slightest event of racism, or percieved racism enters the fray, those apparently being victimized don't waste a second running the gambit to the nth degree. Should they be quiet and bite their tongues in the face of indifference? Of course not. But to profit from victimhood and to be everlasting victims and dare I say revel in it for any type of gain, creates an indifference towards those so inclined because they are using the system that no matter what, will always deem them victims. And to speak as I have will get you labelled at the least as insensitive to the worst, a racist, which in my books is one of the most overused words that, to many, has lost the real value in it's truest sense. __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard. Last edited by OFKU0; 04-09-2005 at 09:49 AM..

04-09-2005, 10:59 AM	#13 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	I'm curious about something in connection with this thread. What distinguishes appropriate forms of 'isms' from inappropriate forms? What I mean is, I assume we all think racism, sexism, etc. are bad. Some of us probably think that some sort of nationalism is good. And most if not all of us think that we should to some extent prefer our family to strangers. So what makes some preferences good and some bad? __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

04-11-2005, 10:17 AM	#15 (permalink)
pennywise121 Upright Location: Sacramento	Thank you for all the responses thus far. I have only now caught up on them, soi i figured it was time to put my own thoughts down. To me, the purpose of racism and pretty much any other -ism i can think of is this: power. not only the attainment of power, but perhaps more often the maintainment of it. when one is in a position of power, one has a vested interest in keeping that power. Now, in response to OFKU0, much of what you say is true, but i would debate one point. I dont see any evidence that we have gotten less racist as a nation. we have gotten SMARTER about our racism, that much is certain, but it is still there. (we still have work to do to get smarter about sexism, but thats a thread in itself) The pendulum has swung the other way, and now it is no longer socially acceptable to be blatantly racist, but there are many ways to do it. the wage disparity, the unexplainable multiplication of unemployment rates, the lack of social/political power and mobility are the effects of a continued discrimination. Granted, there are some very powerful, very influential minority figures, but they are the vast exception, rather than an indication of the lack of racist pressures.

04-11-2005, 06:52 PM	#16 (permalink)
Seeker Getting Clearer Location: with spirit	Isn't this attainment and maintenance of 'power' only sought to to fill an inferiority we feel in ourselves? And does not this in itself show the purpose and profit of 'ism's? __________________ *To those who wander but who are not lost...* ~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

04-12-2005, 09:01 AM	#17 (permalink)
pennywise121 Upright Location: Sacramento	i wonder. if we choose to support our family in getting jobs at our company (nepotism) is it because we feel inferior? or if we are ageist toward the elderly, do we do it because we fear their power? i do not doubt that many of the -isms we have serve this purpose to some varying degree, but we cannot remove the realm of things that are done because they can be, or because they have always been done. many americans are nationalistic because they truly feel that america is great, but many racists act the way they do simply because they were socialized into it, and havent given it the thought necessary to see the idiocy of their actions. moreover, what of the sex differential in pay? women make 76 cents for every dollar that men make. granted, much of this could be because men are threatened by women in the workplace, but entertain the hypothesis that women are still making less simply because no one has made any significant changes in the way the capitalist world is run (the way the game is played, so to speak). if modeling theory is at all correct we base our behaviors off those that are powerful and rewarded for their actions, and if these powerful leaders are seen as untouchable by the law for discriminatory practices of one form or another, is it any wonder that these practices continue? Food for thought

04-13-2005, 09:28 PM	#21 (permalink)
pennywise121 Upright Location: Sacramento	seeker, this makes perfect sense! as i said, once we are in a position with some sort of power, we have a vested interest in maintaining that power. the larger issue here is what effect that has on those that are not immediately within our sphere of control? if we are maintaining our power in one form or another, there is almost invariably a loss of power or control from those without the power. moreover, if you want a real mind fuck, think about the consequences for those that HAVE been helped. if we get a family member a job, are we not limiting their choices (assuming they dont actually have all the necessary qualifications for the position), given that they may not have the same job prospects outside the family company? perhaps my mind runs away with me too often __________________ Food for thought.

04-14-2005, 08:56 AM	#23 (permalink)
pennywise121 Upright Location: Sacramento	lol, sorry about that, OFKU0. in all reality, we need more people like you that are willing to take action instead of sitting around and getting screwed. for that i truly commend you. you are doing things that not many are willing to do. my only concern is this: this is a forum for philosophy and philosophic issues. i started this thread to talk about issues like the ones we have been talking about (and btw, i really appreciate everyone's responses to the topic). you're right; everyone knows inequality exists. everyone knows so well that no one bothers to do anything about it. i commend your activism in protecting your own needs and getting your due without going sue-happy like so many other people have, but we all have our own stories and thoughts on the matter, and this forum is the place for discussing them all. i dont have any grandious thoughts of changing the world through this thread, but it is nice to give people a place to talk about things that are moderately taboo in the world we live in.... at least they are when face to face. i would also have to agree with you on the not-trusting most any news source (be it TV, print, interest groups, etc.). i know this is not much of a consolation or reassurance, but since the numbers from Time were brought up, i have reinstalled SPSS and run the numbers myself (you can find all the data they used at www.census.gov). the newsgroup was actually off by about 7 dollars, but nothing statistically significant in any case, dont worry about pissing up my tree (although that would be rather interesting to see :P). i welcome any response to this thread, including yours. oh, and btw, for anyone who is interested, check my profile to see why this is all so interesting to me. __________________ Food for thought.

04-15-2005, 03:51 AM	#24 (permalink)
Seeker Getting Clearer Location: with spirit	Pennywise121; read your profile.. I can see your passion . What would happen if a person who did not feel inferior, who had nothing to maintain... would that person be inclined toward ism's? (I like to open things from a different perspective, sometimes helps ) __________________ *To those who wander but who are not lost...* ~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

04-15-2005, 04:52 AM	#25 (permalink)
John Henry Addict Location: Grey Britain	The benefit of racism is that it encourages in individuals a tendency to give preference to those of a similar genome, giving their relations and thus their genes a better chance of survival. Take two tribes: The Racists and the Philanthropists. The Philanthropists cope very well until, nurturing each other and helping each other along until one day they come into contact with the Racists. They extend to the Racists their normal hospitality and generosity, allowing them to settle, throwing them a feast, etc. The Racists return the favour with death and slavery, going on to become the Greatest Empire in the World, time and time again. __________________ "No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

04-15-2005, 05:46 AM	#26 (permalink)
Seeker Getting Clearer Location: with spirit	John Henry: Nice! So the differences in our nature labels us (Philanthropists/Racists etc), giving way to the creation of classifications, ultimately ism's... thus better chance of survival = the attainment and maintenace of power. Have I got this wrong or am I oversimplifying? __________________ *To those who wander but who are not lost...* ~ Knowledge is not something you acquire, it is something you open yourself to.

04-15-2005, 06:50 AM	#27 (permalink)
pennywise121 Upright Location: Sacramento	lol john. sounds like a certain country i can think of....... but its ok, right? Manifest destiny and all. i'm being facetious of course, but the point remains the same. in this situation (philanthropists/racists), there are a couple of things that strike me. first, the fact that one tribe is racist already injects the racism to the system, and an imbalance occurs. your point is well taken, however. even in this case, imagine instead of racism, tribe-ism. it works well. those predisposed (in this case as most others, through socialization) to feel superior already believe they have power that needs to be defended and maintained. now, lets take your average white male in america. middle class, he is not very racist, he is just about to graduate college and hears about all the tech jobs being given to immigrants who will work for less (this actually is happening because of the united states' policy of giving preference to immigrants with needed/desired skills. 1965 immigration reform act set up 45,000 special slots for this purpose alone). he is concerned because there may not be a job waiting for him. in this situation, he feels that he should have preference for jobs in his own country. he believes there is power being lost, and the stage is set for discriminatory beliefs/actions. basically, my hypothetical is to show that even the least discriminatory among us are just as likely to participate in -isms. seeker, the only instance i can think of is that of an only child, before they have a conception of power or competition with other siblings at home, in this society at the very least. i dont want to start a flame war with most of us, but it would seem that it is our social definition of power that causes many of our problems. in our society, money is power, and material goods an extension of that power. we work with social capital just the same; prestige is a commodity just as any object is. ultimately, if there is no conception of power and no competition, there should be no need for -isms. but we live in a society where there is power and there is competition, and we are ALL discriminatory in some manner, however small it may be. i do not make broad generalizations lightly; to destroy a beautiful quote quite thoroughly: show me a person who is not discriminatory, and i will show you a person who is lying to themselves...... or you. __________________ Food for thought.

04-15-2005, 11:44 AM	#31 (permalink)
pennywise121 Upright Location: Sacramento	lol, well, i suppose i'd deserve it damn, here i go again......... :P __________________ Food for thought.

05-12-2005, 01:42 PM	#32 (permalink)
Zenir Tilted Location: Fairbanks, Alaska	I may be making too basic of a step, but we have certain biases which we set up, such as glowing red things are hot, things that come to a point are sharp and getting hit hurts. They are not always true. Most societies do have some prejudices. These are often found (from my understanding) to be based on misunderstandings, previous theorized wrong doings, or power stuggles (history is written by the voictor). Prejudices support internal economy in a way. This, for example, was practiced when the Japanese started creating and shipping superior vehicles into America. America's response to their success and their own failure was to add propaganda and support american companies. This ideal works only on the basis of an internalized economy. However, as a whole it is a significant waste since there is obviously a cost associated with no significant overall benefit beyond that of isolation. __________________ Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success.-Albert Schweitzer, philosopher, physician, musician, Nobel laureate (1875-1965)